[Pages S2519-S2538]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2011--MOTION TO PROCEED

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1925,
which the clerk will report by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Motion to proceed to S. 1925, a bill to reauthorize the
Violence Against Women Act of 1994.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would yield to my friend from Rhode
Island.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island is
recognized.

Welcoming the Guest Chaplain

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for that
courtesy. I will only take a moment to recognize and welcome Rev.
Rebecca Spencer who shared with us the prayer that began the Senate
session this morning.
She has been the senior pastor of the Central Congregational Church
in Providence, RI, since 1988. It was my congregation for the years
that I lived in Providence. My wife and I renewed our vows under her
care. She is a wonderful and thoughtful preacher from the pulpit. Her
church has perhaps the best musical and choral program certainly
anywhere in Rhode Island and probably for a good distance around. If
you have not heard the ``Hallelujah Chorus'' sung at Easter at Central
Congregational Church, you have missed an extraordinary experience.
But her greatest contribution in a community that she has served now
for 24 years has been pastoral work with the families who make Central
Congregational their home and the home of their faith. From birth to
baptisms and for kids coming up through the youth programs the church
runs, through marriages and unfortunately sometimes divorces, and
through illness and death, Reverend Spencer is a wonderful friend and a
wonderful solace and a wonderful gift to all of the congregation that
she serves.
She is joined today by her sons Tom and Ezra. We welcome them as
well, and are delighted that she has taken the time to come down from
Providence, RI.
I thank our Chaplain, Chaplain Black, for his courtesy in helping to
facilitate this visit.
I yield the floor.

Recognition of the Majority Leader

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

Schedule

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senate is now considering the motion to
proceed to the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. Following my
remarks and those of the Republican leader, if any, the first hour will
be equally divided between the two sides. The Republicans will control
the first 30 minutes, the Democrats the final 30 minutes.

[[Page S2520]]

I note that the filing deadline for second-degree amendments to the
substitute amendment and to the postal reform bill is 11 a.m. today. We
are still hopeful of working out an agreement on the postal reform
bill. If no agreement is reached, there will be a cloture vote on the
substitute amendment this afternoon at 2:15.

Postal Reform

Mr. President, for more than two centuries, 200 years, America's
postal system thrived and grew in spite of rapidly changing technology.
The Postal Service survived the invention of the telegraph, the
telephone. It expanded despite radio and television. It grew regardless
of the fax machine.
The post office was created in the day of the quill and ink--these
inkwells we talked about yesterday--and mailbags slung across horses.
The post office survived all of that. It grew through the days of horse
and buggy, steamboat and railroad, into the age of airplanes. It
adjusted to the expansion of the suburbs, to the growth of cities, and
the explosion of our population generally.
It adapted from hand sorting and conveyer belts, with the invention
of ZIP Codes and optical sorting machines. The post office has always
found creative, cutting-edge ways to do more and more to move mail more
quickly, and more of it.
In fact, for two centuries, the Postal Service relied on technology
to cope with constant growth, growth in the volume of mail it delivered
and the number of homes and businesses to which it delivered. And for
200 years, the Postal Service kept up with a flood of packages and
letters and mail orders and online purchases, catalogues and fliers,
life-saving medications and absentee ballots, bulk mail and overnight
delivery. The post office survived.
Today the Postal Service handles nearly half the world's mail--554
million pieces every day, 6,400 pieces every second. That feat would be
impossible without modern technology and world-class workers and
facilities. But now technology is both a solution and a problem. In the
last 5 years, the Postal Service has seen mail volume drop by more than
20 percent. That trend is expected to continue.
E-mail and online bill payments significantly contributed to this
crisis. Today letters, orders, payments across the world happen with
the click of a mouse. And the challenge facing the Postal Service is
how to adapt to a decreasing volume of mail rather than how to deal
with increasing demand.
The bipartisan compromise before the Senate will help the system do
that. It will build a leaner, smarter post office which offers new
products and services while protecting its mission--delivering the mail
6 days a week to every corner of our great Nation.
The postal reform legislation before this body will sensibly
restructure the system while preserving overnight and Saturday
delivery. The legislation will save the Postal Service from insolvency.
It will responsibly reduce the Postal Service workforce and the number
of facilities it maintains. But it will also protect postal employees,
including 130,000 veterans from our Armed Forces. It will also
safeguard the more than 8 million jobs that depend on a vibrant postal
system. And, most importantly, it will account for the needs of
millions of seniors, people with disabilities, small business owners,
and rural Americans for whom the U.S. mail is an important lifeline to
the outside world.
Unlike the unacceptable bill Congressman Issa is pursuing in the
House, this bipartisanship Senate bill preserves the Postal Service we
know and rely on. The House bill, by contrast, would immediately
eliminate Saturday delivery, and it would set up commissions to
unilaterally cut costs by closing post offices and processing plants,
voiding union contracts and laying off tens of thousands of workers
when our economy can least afford it.
That may be why Congressman Issa's bill has not come up for a vote.
There could be other reasons. But even the tea party advocates have
trouble supporting his reckless ideas. The Senate bill we are
considering today is not perfect. It will not save every post office,
every job, or every distribution center. It will not please every
Senator, every postal worker, or every customer. But unlike the House
legislation, it is a strong, bipartisan bill that will modernize an
institution enshrined in the Constitution without gutting its mission.
I hope we can continue to work together to pass this worthy
legislation, but we are going to have to make a decision on that this
morning. I appreciate everyone's cooperation. I especially appreciate
the hard work of Senator Joe Lieberman and Senator Susan Collins, the
two floor managers of this legislation. There have been others who have
worked very hard on this legislation, not the least of whom is Tom
Carper who has devoted a lot of the last few years of his life to this
legislation.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader is recognized.

Svinicki Nomination

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday I came to the floor to call
attention to a woman named Kristine Svinicki, a widely respected
nuclear engineer who sits on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the
Federal agency charged with ensuring the safety of our Nation's nuclear
powerplants. At the moment, Commissioner Svinicki is in Africa, sharing
her expertise on nuclear safety at the request of the Obama
administration, which should not surprise anybody, since she is one of
the world's leading experts on the topic, and since President Obama's
own Chief of Staff signed a letter a few months ago expressing the
administration's confidence in her commitment to the mission of the NRC
and her ability to fulfill it.
I have the letter. It is dated December 12. I ask unanimous consent
that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The White House,

Washington, DC, December 12, 2011.
Hon. Gregory B. Jaczko,
Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
Hon. George Apostolakis,
Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC.
Hon. William D. Magwood IV,
Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC.
Hon. William C. Ostendorff,
Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Kristine L. Svinicki,
Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC.
Dear Commissioners: I am writing to you regarding the
internal management issues at the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission raised in the Commissioners letter to me dated
October 13, 2011.
As an initial matter, I would like to thank you again for
raising these concerns with me, and for your commitment to
fulfilling the agency's important mission to ensure the safe
civilian use of nuclear materials. The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission has an important mission, and we respect and
appreciate your strong commitment to the Commission's work
and values.
As you know, upon receipt of the October 13 letter, I
arranged to meet personally with each of you so that I would
have opportunity to discuss these matters with you. I also
met with the agency's Executive Director of Operations. By
letter dated December 7, 2011, Chairman Jaczko subsequently
responded in writing to the concerns raised in the October 13
letter.
While I recognize that there are tensions and disagreements
among the Commissioners, each of you made it clear in your
conversations with me that these management differences have
not impaired the Commission's ability to fulfill its mission
or in any way jeopardized the safety and security of nuclear
facilities in the United States.
I share your commitment to the mission of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and agree that sound leadership and
management practices are essential to its proper functioning.
In our meetings each of you expressed your strong commitment
to the agency and to ensuring that it fulfills its mission.
We have confidence in your ability to do so, and urge each of
you to make every effort to improve the internal
communications at the agency.
The Chairman has committed to improve communications
amongst you, including by keeping fellow Commissioners better
informed, and has proposed that all of the Commissioners meet
with a trusted third

[[Page S2521]]

party to promote a better dialog. I urge you to pursue such a
course of action and to keep me apprised of your progress
and, as appropriate, any findings or recommendations of the
agency's Office of Inspector General, as I intend to continue
to monitor the situation.
I have also enclosed for your information my response to a
letter I received on this matter from Chairman Issa.
Sincerely,
William M. Daley,
Chief of Staff.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, what is surprising is that despite all
of this, despite her expertise, despite the administration's own stated
support for her work, she has not yet been renominated. The White House
alone has the power to renominate. For some reason they have not. Look,
the only possible reason for this delay is the fact that she had the
courage to blow the whistle on the Commission's Chairman Gregory
Jazcko, a guy whose temper and condescension toward subordinates,
particularly women, nearly cost him his job.
So let's be clear about this. The only reason we are even talking
about Kristine Svinicki right now is because she had the courage to
stand up to a hostile work environment and the bully who was
responsible for it. That is the only reason we are even having this
conversation. She should be applauded for that, not hung out to dry.
Yet that is precisely what has been happening here. Commissioner
Svinicki is one of the world's leading experts on nuclear safety. She
was confirmed in her current term without a single dissenting vote--not
one. She enjoys the respect of her colleagues and, as the letter I just
cited shows, of the Obama administration as well. Her renomination
papers were completed more than a year ago, as was the FBI report that
nominees have to complete ahead of being confirmed.
If this nomination continues to be held, after she had the courage to
take a stand, it will send a chill up the spine of every whistleblower
in Washington. Commissioner Svinicki spoke out against a guy that even
Democratic commissioners say bullied employees and intimidated female
workers. Kristine Svinicki did the right thing in raising the alarm.
She should not pay a price for it. The White House says it likes the
job she is doing. They sent her to Africa to give a keynote address on
nuclear safety. Yet for over a year there has been silence. It is my
hope they are not rewarding abusive behavior by silencing someone who
had the courage to speak out. There is no reason for this renomination
and reconfirmation to wait another single day.
If Democrats have a problem with Commissioner Svinicki, then let's
debate it.
This morning, I renew my call for the White House to send this
nomination over immediately and for the Senate to act quickly to get
Commissioner Svinicki reconfirmed. The White House said just yesterday
there should be no interruption in service on the Commission, so why
don't we get this done.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the first
hour will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders, or
their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes
and the majority controlling the second 30 minutes.
The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.

Conference Spending

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes talking
about what is occurring with the GSA conference waste that has been in
the news of late. My criticisms are not mainly directed toward GSA.
Over 3 years ago, I started doing oversight on conferences by
government agencies. Today I have an amendment, which will not be
allowed to be considered, that will hold the agencies accountable in
terms of their conferences. Through the years I have put out five
reports on wasteful conference spending from the Department of Justice,
where it spent $380 million over a 5-year period on conferences, to the
Department of Agriculture, and to the Department of HHS in terms of
sending thousands of people to one conference at a time. All of it went
unheeded.
Now we have the GSA--with Members of the Senate and the House aghast
at the waste that has been spent in terms of the GSA conference out
West. Had we been doing our job--and there were multiple amendments I
have offered over the last 6 years to control conference spending,
which have been rejected on party-line votes, to try to bring some
semblance of reasonableness and control to conference spending by the
various Federal Government agencies.
So we have this problem with the GSA today, but not because of the
GSA; it is because of ourselves. We refused to do the hard work of
passing requirements that would hold Federal agencies accountable.
My hope is that we would, in one small step, accept an amendment on
the postal bill that would allow us to start holding the agencies
accountable. It makes for great press and great TV when we stand aghast
at what is obviously wasteful spending by an agency, but that
accomplishes nothing other than advancing the political careers of my
colleagues. We can accomplish something with real legislation that has
real teeth and holds the agencies accountable. It is my hope we can
have a vote--I don't even think it would take a vote; I think it would
be accepted by unanimous consent--that would force the agencies to now
come into compliance both in terms of transparency and accountability
in how they spend their money.
Every Federal Government agency today has the capability for
teleconferencing. We don't have to send 1,000 people, at $2,000 apiece,
to a conference to accomplish education and training. We all have it in
our offices. The GAO has determined that most Federal employees see
conferencing as one of the perks of their job, which is in one of their
reports.
I invite the American constituency to look at my Web site,
coburn.senate.gov, and go to the studies we put out and oversight
reports on wasteful conference spending over the last 3 to 5 years and
ask themselves a question: Why didn't Congress act on it? Why didn't
they do something about it?
Now we claim we are insulted at the waste. We have had five different
opportunities with amendments to do something about it, and we rejected
them. We have seen oversight reports that are fully documented which
show the waste. Yet we have not done anything.
If Americans are upset with the waste of the GSA conference, they
need to be upset with Members of the Senate who have rejected time and
again the ability to hold agencies accountable on conference spending.
It is my hope that in a bipartisan manner we can address this issue--
and not just for GSA but for every government agency so that now we can
see transparency and accountability in how the hard-working American
taxpayers' dollars are spent, not wasted, and they will know when money
is spent on a conference, everybody will see it, and they are going to
have to justify not only the expenditure but the reason they are
sending people to vacation spots when they should be doing it through
teleconferencing and bringing needed updates to Federal employees in a
much more efficient and effective way.
With that, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri is
recognized.

The Economy

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I thank my friend and my congressional
neighbor. When we were in the House, we represented adjoining districts
in Missouri and Oklahoma, and it is good to be serving in the Senate
with my friend and to hear his commonsense approach on how we need to
solve the problems we are facing as a country and the needless problems
the government seems to be willing to create for itself.
We have been talking so much--at least the President has been talking
about economic fairness as the principal goal of the Tax Code. Frankly,
the most fair thing we can do in the Tax Code and in the Senate would
be to work to be sure we are dealing with the important issues the job
creators and families are dealing with across the country today.
All of us have had the opportunity to be home over the last 2 weeks.
I was able to be in the last of the 115 Missouri counties that I hadn't
been in since I was sworn into the Senate 15 or so months ago. I learn
a lot when I am out there.
What I learned this time is that people are focused on fuel costs.
Fuel costs

[[Page S2522]]

are on track to hit an average of $4 per gallon by summertime. This is
more than double what fuel costs were in January of 2009, and it set
the all-time record for the last 2 months. I talked to the people in
south central Missouri who are trying to provide transportation for
older Americans and disabled Americans, and the fuel cost increase of
$150,000 means they have to cut back their services.

The chamber of commerce survey this week found that nearly one out of
four small businesses reported that their top concern was gas prices.
When we think about that, whether it is delivery or whether it is
employees getting to work or whether it is people deciding they cannot
go to that small business--the restaurant, the bowling alley, a movie
theater, or whatever it might be because they just put too much money
in the gas tank of their cars--we should be concerned.
Unfortunately, instead of working to pass solutions that would
jumpstart our economy and restore consumer confidence, we simply want
to talk about the wrong thing over and over. We had a vote on the so-
called Buffett tax this week, which almost everybody who talked about
it said it is more of a gimmick than a solution because even if we
collected this new tax on Warren Buffett and his wealthy friends, in a
year we would collect what the Federal Government deficit is in a day.
We will not solve this problem dealing with one three-hundred sixty-
fifth of the deficit like it is the solution to the problem.
The lead sponsor of the Buffett tax in the Senate, Senator
Whitehouse, said on the Senate floor that the aim of the bill is not to
lower the unemployment rate or the price of gasoline. Why would we not
have a bill on the Senate floor the aim of which is either to do
something about energy prices or job creation?
This bill would generate less than 1 percent of the $7 trillion
deficit projected in the 2013 budget during that same period of time.
It would take 250 years to collect enough money under the so-called
Buffett rule to pay the 2011 deficit. If the solution to last year's
deficit would take us 250 years of recovery, the truth is we are just
wasting a lot of time on little things rather than big things. We can
make little things sound big.
We can make it sound as though fairness is the critical element of
everything the government should do, as opposed to opportunity being
the critical element of everything the government should do. We can
make it sound as though people will still invest money, their IRAs or
their lifetime savings--their return is, even if they are successful,
zero. But that is not what is going to happen.
I just finished reading a book about President Eisenhower and General
Eisenhower. There are many pertinent things in that book, but one was
when General Eisenhower and others came back from World War II, the top
tax rate was 90 percent. From 1933 1934 until 1981, it was at least 70
percent.
Two points can be made there. Nobody paid it if they figured out how
to avoid it, and almost everybody figured out how to avoid it--lots of
passive investments instead of active ones. It had to be a good time
for municipal bonds because there was no tax on them. So why not put
your money there. If you made any money, 70 percent would go to the
Federal Government or, in 1946, 90 percent would go to the Federal
Government.
But the capital gains rate--which happened to be the rate at which
World War II memoirs were taxed, which is why it was in this book--was
25 percent. Even when the top rate in the country was 90 percent,
nobody thought the capital gains rate should be even one-third of that
because they knew people would not invest money if there was no return.
We need tax policies that multiply the opportunities created in our
economy rather than subtract from those opportunities.
If we want this not to be about politics but about math, it needs to
be about multiplication not subtraction and about how to drive an
economy to encourage more private sector jobs.
How do we encourage investment and encourage people to take risks? If
nobody takes a risk, somebody else doesn't get an opportunity. People
being willing to take a risk means that an opportunity is created for
somebody else that would not have been created otherwise. Last month,
we were here talking about tax hikes on American energy producers that
clearly would be passed along to consumers. Nobody even argues if we
had passed those tax hikes last month that gas prices would not go up.
Why in the world would we argue about anything that would raise gas
prices rather than lower gas prices? The sponsor of that bill said
nobody has made the claim that this bill is about reducing gas prices.
The majority leader, Mr. Reid, admitted that this is not a question of
gas prices. Senator Schumer said this was never intended to talk about
lowering gas prices. Senator Begich said the bill would not decrease
prices at the pump for our families and small businesses--and these
were the supporters of the bill.
Why would we have a bill on the Senate floor to do that when we could
support what the President says he is for, which is an ``all-of-the-
above'' energy strategy? Let's do what we can to solve this problem.
The most glaring recent example is, of course, the Keystone Pipeline,
which would run through North Dakota, go through Nebraska and other
States, and get to our refineries. It would create 20,000 jobs, and it
would decrease our country's dependence upon people who don't like us
very much. It would also encourage more North American energy and
encourage energy from our best trading partner, Canada. It is just one
of the commonsense steps we can make.
If someone would have told me a couple years ago that when we went
home in the spring of 2012, one of the things people would be talking
about is why aren't we building a oil pipeline from Canada, I would
have said that is a pretty detailed understanding of our energy
problem, but it is an understanding that is out there. If we are going
to create real economic fairness, we need to work together to pass
solutions that will bring down the prices at the pump and get Americans
back to work. That is why I believe we need to utilize all forms of
American energy, including wind, solar, renewable, biomass, shale gas,
shale oil, coal, and nuclear alternatives.

An announcement is being made today by one of our Missouri utility
companies and Westinghouse about small nuclear and how that might be
part of this all-of-the-above solution.
I am ready to work with my colleagues across the aisle and anywhere
else to do what we can to help American families. I hope we can do this
together. The shortest path to more American jobs is more American
energy. The best and the most fair thing we could do is what is good
for American families and small businesses and job opportunities. I
hope we can get to work on that.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.

The Budget

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss what I did in the
Budget Committee yesterday, why I did it, and where we are headed.
I have heard people say repeatedly that the Senate has now gone for
some 1,000 days since passing a budget resolution. What they are not
telling people is that last year, instead of a budget resolution, the
Senate and the House and the President signed a budget control law. The
occupant of the chair knows very well, being a former attorney general,
that a resolution is purely a congressional document. It never goes to
the President for his signature. The Budget Control Act we passed last
year, while it is true it is not a resolution, was a law signed by the
President of the United States, and that law--the Budget Control Act--
said we are going to set the budget for this year and next, but beyond
that we are also going to put in place 10 years of spending caps,
saving $900 billion.
On the question of whether the Budget Control Act represents or takes
the place of a budget resolution for this year and next, let me read
from the text because I think it makes it abundantly clear. It says:
The allocations, aggregates, and levels set in the Budget Control Act
shall apply in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent
resolution on the budget.
That is pretty clear. This law, the Budget Control Act law, is to
serve in the same manner as a budget resolution for 2012 and 2013, and
it sets out the spending limits for those years.

[[Page S2523]]

But it even goes further and sets spending caps for 10 years--something
that, in my time here, has never been done in a budget resolution.
Never in a budget resolution, while I have been here, has there been
the setting of 10 years of spending caps, but that is what was done in
the Budget Control Act last year.
But that law went even further than that. It also created a special
committee and empowered that committee to come up with a proposal to
reform the entitlement programs--Social Security and Medicare--and
reform the tax system of the United States, and it told that special
committee that if it came to an agreement, that legislation could come
to the floor without fear of filibuster--without fear of filibuster.
Extraordinary powers were granted in that Budget Control Act to reform
Social Security and Medicare and the tax system as well.
That special committee did not agree, and the Budget Control Act
said: If you don't agree, there are consequences, and the consequences
are another $1.2 trillion of spending cuts on top of the $900 billion
of spending restraint that was in the underlying act.
So the special committee didn't agree, and now we have the prospect
of a sequester imposing another $1.2 trillion of spending cuts on top
of the $900 billion of spending cuts in the underlying act, for a total
of over $2 trillion of spending cuts. That is the biggest spending cut
package, as far as I know, in the history of the United States. Yet the
other side suggests repeatedly that nothing has been done to set
spending limits when they know full well what the Budget Control Act,
passed last year, does. Yes, it wasn't a resolution; it was a law. Boy,
that is sort of civics 101, that a law is stronger than a resolution.
I said several days ago I would go to markup in the Budget Committee
and I would lay out a long-term plan because while it is true that we
have in place for the next 2 years a budget under the Budget Control
Act, what we don't have is an overall long-term plan. The Budget
Control Act limits discretionary spending for the next 10 years, but we
also need a program that outlines what we are going to do about
entitlement programs--Medicare, Social Security--and what we are going
to do to reform our tax system, which is badly broken.
So several days ago I said I would lay before the Budget Committee
the Bowles-Simpson plan, which is the only bipartisan plan that has
emerged. It was supported by 11 of the 18 Commissioners. I was proud to
be one of five Democrats, five Republicans, and one Independent. Eleven
of the 18 voted to support that Bowles-Simpson package. Unfortunately,
it took a super supermajority for that plan to come to the floor of the
House and the Senate; it required 14 of the 18 members to agree. Eleven
of 18 did, which is more than 60 percent. Even in Washington, usually
60 percent carries the day, but it didn't with respect to the Bowles-
Simpson recommendations.
So I said several days ago I would put before the body the Bowles-
Simpson plan. I did not suggest we would complete action on it at the
beginning of the markup. Why? Because we already have in place the
spending limitations for this year and next. What we don't have is a
longer term plan. We don't need that longer term plan right at this
moment, but we need it before the end of the year because at the end of
the year all of the Bush-era tax cuts are going to expire, and at the
end of this year we are going to face that sequester I mentioned that
is in the Budget Control Act law that we passed last year instead of a
budget resolution.
Why do we need this longer term plan? Well, because we are borrowing
about 40 cents of every dollar we spend, and that is unsustainable. It
has to change. I have warned repeatedly of where we are headed if we
don't change course. And here is where we are headed. This chart shows
the gross debt of the United States if we stay on the trajectory we are
on. We can see we are here in 2012. At the end of this year, the gross
debt of the United States will be 104 percent of our gross domestic
product, headed for 119 percent on our current trajectory. That
shouldn't be permitted to happen, and under the plan I laid before our
colleagues yesterday, it won't happen.
If we look at the underlying cause of these deficits and debt, we can
see it is the relationship between spending and revenue. The red line
is the spending line, the green line is the revenue line of the United
States looking back to 1950, and what one sees is that spending is at
or near a 60-year high. Actually, we have fallen back somewhat from the
60-year high we reached 2 years ago. Revenue is at or near a 60-year
low. Actually, we can see it bumped up to a 70-year low back in 2010.
But still we see a very wide gap between revenue and spending. As a
result, there is a very large deficit--a deficit of $1.2 trillion.
Now, I could have gone before the Budget Committee yesterday and laid
out another partisan plan, because that is what is happening.
Congressman Ryan, to his credit, laid out a plan, and in the House they
passed his plan. I give him credit for laying out a plan. I think the
plan is a very bad plan for the country and completely lacks balance.
It is all done on the spending side of the equation, which leads him to
truly Draconian cuts--dramatic changes in Medicare, for example,
dramatic changes in Medicaid, dramatic changes in the whole structure
of services the government provides people in this country. And the
American people don't want a plan that is just a partisan plan. They do
not want a plan that lacks balance. They do not want a plan that is
just on one side of the ledger.
As I showed in the previous chart, we have a problem on both sides of
the ledger--on revenue and on spending. We have to work on both sides
of the ledger. And the American people believe that as well. When asked
in the Pew Research Center poll last year in November, ``What is the
best way to reduce the Federal budget deficit?'' 17 percent said just
cut major programs--only 17 percent, 1 7. On increasing taxes, 8
percent said just increase taxes. And 62 percent said a combination of
both. I think the American people have it right. They are pretty smart.
They are pretty smart.
In 2010 we had the Bowles-Simpson Commission, the so-called fiscal
commission. Eighteen of us were named to serve. It was created by the
President after a legislative attempt, led by Senator Gregg of New
Hampshire, a Republican, and myself, failed here. We got a majority but
we didn't get a supermajority. So our attempt to form a commission
legislatively was thwarted. President Obama showed leadership and named
a Presidential commission in order to take on the subject, and in
December of 2010 that commission reported their conclusion, with 11 of
the 18 of us agreeing to the recommendations.
Here are the principles and values the fiscal commission used to
guide their efforts: that it is a patriotic duty to make America
better; that we shouldn't do anything that would disrupt the economic
recovery; that we ought to cut and invest to promote economic growth
and keep America competitive; that we ought to protect the truly
disadvantaged; that we ought to cut spending we cannot afford, with no
exceptions; that we ought to demand productivity and effectiveness from
Washington; that we ought to reform and simplify the Tax Code; that we
shouldn't make promises we can't keep; and that the problem of deficits
and debt are real and the solution will be painful.
Let's be honest. When you are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar you
spend, you are not going to solve this in a way that doesn't affect
anyone. All of us are going to have to participate in the solution.
The last principle that was used to guide the commission was that we
should do things to make America sound over the long run.
So what does the fiscal commission plan I laid out do? It puts in
place $5.4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years, including
savings that have already been enacted in the Budget Control Act. It
lowers the deficit from 7.6 percent of GDP in 2012 to 2.5 percent in
2015 and down to 1.4 percent in 2022. So because of the reductions in
deficits, it stabilizes the debt and begins to bring it down. In fact,
it stabilizes the gross debt by 2015 and lowers it to 93 percent of GDP
by 2022.

Remember my previous slide? Here is the quiz. What did it say the
debt would become by 2022 if we don't do anything as a share of GDP? It
said it would become 119 percent if we didn't

[[Page S2524]]

act. Under the proposal I laid before the Budget Committee yesterday,
it would bring down the debt to 93 percent of GDP--the gross debt to 93
percent of GDP by 2022 instead of 119 percent if we fail to act.
The plan I laid out reduces overall spending to 21.9 percent of GDP
by 2022, discretionary spending to 4.8 percent of GDP by 2022, a record
low--a record low. In fact, this overall spending level is lower than
the average spending level during the Reagan administration.
Our colleagues on the other side are always eager to embrace Ronald
Reagan's policies. The proposal I laid out yesterday has a lower
average spending as a share of our national income than did President
Reagan during the entire period of his Presidency.
The plan I laid out also builds on health care reform with additional
health care savings and fully funds the doc fix. What is the doc fix?
That is the measure to prevent the doctors who treat Medicare patients
from taking a cut of more than 20 percent.
The plan also calls for Social Security reform that ensures the 75-
year solvency of Social Security, with the savings only to extend
solvency, not for deficit reduction. In other words, Social Security
reform, those savings are not used for deficit reduction. They are only
used to extend the solvency of the program itself. The plan I laid out
includes fundamental tax reform; makes the Tax Code simpler, fairer,
more efficient, while raising more revenue to reduce our deficit and
debt.
This chart shows the deficit as a percentage of GDP under the fiscal
commission budget plan I laid before our colleagues yesterday. We can
see, it takes the deficit from 7.6 percent of GDP this year--which is
down, by the way, substantially from 10 percent, which is where it has
been--down to 1.4 percent in 2022. The fiscal commission budget plan
reduces the deficits below the 3-percent-of-GDP level that is
considered sustainable by economists, and it does that by 2015.
Again, the gross debt under the plan I put before colleagues that
comes from the fiscal commission work, the Bowles-Simpson plan that was
concluded and recommended in 2010, would take the gross debt down to 93
percent of GDP from the 104 percent it is now and, as I indicated
earlier, an even more dramatic improvement compared to what the debt
would be if we failed to act.
As I indicated, the spending level under the fiscal commission budget
plan is about 21.8 percent of GDP. During the Reagan administration,
spending was 22.1 percent of GDP. So we have lower overall spending as
a share of the national income than was the case during the Reagan
administration. In fact, discretionary spending goes to an all-time low
of 4.8 percent by the end of the 10-year plan.
We can see, discretionary spending--that is distinct from mandatory
spending. Mandatory spending are things such as Social Security and
Medicare. Discretionary spending are things such as defense and
national parks and law enforcement and education. We can see,
discretionary spending as a share of our national income is dropping
very sharply under this plan.
What is happening on the other side of the spending ledger is the
800-pound gorilla, which is health care. That is the thing that
threatens to swamp the boat around here because we can see what is
happening. Back in 1972 Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal health
spending was about 1 percent of our gross domestic product. If we don't
take further steps by 2050, it is going to be 13 percent of our gross
domestic product, from 1 percent to 13 percent. Right now in this
country, 18 percent of our GDP is going to health care. One in every
six dollars in our whole economy is going to health care--more than $1
in every $6. So that is something we have to focus on like a laser, and
in the fiscal commission plan, we do focus on it like a laser. It
doesn't open the health care reform debate that we just concluded, but
it does provide an option to phase out the tax exclusion for health
care that economists tell us would be one of the most effective things
we could do to change the direction of health care expenditure.
It fully offsets the cost of the so-called doc fix, so our doctors
treating Medicare patients don't face this huge cut that is currently
in the law. We have additional savings proposals with Medicare
beneficiary cost sharing, payments to health care providers being
reformed, eliminating State gaming of the Medicaid tax, and providing
the Medicaid drug rebate for those who are duly eligible in Medicare.
This would save hundreds of billions of dollars.
While the fiscal commission did make a recommendation on Social
Security, those numbers are not included in the proposal I put before
our colleagues yesterday because I am precluded from doing so by the
law. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 prohibits the inclusion of
Social Security in deficit totals of a budget resolution. So I did lay
out the proposal from the fiscal commission on reforming Social
Security; but I could not include it in the numbers because I am
precluded from doing so by the law.
Here are the recommendations from the fiscal commission that I
included in my proposal to our colleagues but that are not in the
numbers for the reason I have given: calls for Social Security reforms
to make it solvent, not for deficit reduction; restores 75-year
solvency and puts it on a stable path beyond 75 years; strengthens the
safety net by enhancing the minimum benefit for low-wage workers and by
giving an actual bump up in benefits for the oldest seniors and the
long-time disabled. One of the things we know, people who live a long
time run out of their benefits. So in the fiscal commission we proposed
to actually give them a little bump up after they have been in
retirement for an extended period of time.
We also provided a hardship exemption for those who are unable to
work past the age of 62. One of the things we know is a person can take
early retirement at age 62--and we are going to have to increase the
retirement age of Social Security over time, over a very long time, by
the way. In this proposal, we increase the retirement age to 69 over
decades.
We have to increase also the maximum level of wages that are taxed
for Social Security because the traditional standard is no longer being
followed. We are not taxing 90 percent of wages. That doesn't mean the
tax is 90 percent, by the way. It means 90 percent of wages is being
subjected to the tax. What has been happening over years is we have
been getting a reduced share of income in this economy to apply the
Social Security tax to. That is one of the reasons we have a shortfall
over time. Under this plan, we raise the retirement age--but only very
gradually--reaching 69 by 2075. This is 2012. So we don't raise the
retirement age to 69 until 2075. That is 63 years from now. But make no
mistake, that is important because people are living longer. In fact,
people are living much longer.

We also have a need for tax reform. The Tax Code is out of date, it
is inefficient, and it is hurting U.S. competitiveness. The complexity
imposes significant burden on individuals and businesses. The expiring
provisions create uncertainty and confusion. We are hemorrhaging
revenue to the tax gap, to tax havens, to abusive tax shelters.
Many times on this floor I have shown a picture of a little building
down in the Cayman Islands called Ugland House. Ugland House claims to
be the home to 18,000 corporations. A little 5-story building down in
the Cayman Islands claims to be the home to 18,000 companies. Are all
those companies doing business out of that little five-story building?
No. The only business they are doing down there is monkey business, and
the monkey business they are doing is ducking their taxes here and
shoving the burden onto all the rest of us who pay our taxes. That is
not right.
We have to go after these tax havens, these abusive tax shelters, and
we can do it. We need to restore fairness. The current system is
contributing to growing income inequality, and our long-term fiscal
imbalance, the deficits and debt we talked about, must be addressed.
CBO Director Elmendorf talked about the economic benefits of tax
reform in a hearing before the Budget Committee. He said:

I think analysts would widely agree that reform of the Tax
Code that broadened the base and brought down rates would be
a positive force for economic growth, both in the short term
and over a longer period.

Tax reform has to be part of the agenda of this Congress. Here is
what is happening to income disparity in

[[Page S2525]]

America. Look at what is happening. The top 1 percent--and I am all for
the top 1 percent doing well. I want everyone to do well in America,
but look what is happening. Since 1979, the top 1 percent, their
incomes have gone up almost 300 percent. Look at what has happened to
those in the middle and those at the bottom. Their incomes have
stagnated. They have been about stable--gone up a little bit but not
very much. The top 1 percent has gone up like a rocket. One of the
reasons is the Tax Code of the United States has dramatically reduced
for the wealthiest in our country the tax burden they shoulder. They
will show us, oh, their taxes have gone way up. Sure, they have because
their incomes have gone way up. What has gone down--what has gone way
down is the effective tax rate they pay. The top 400 families, the
wealthiest 400 families in America, have had their effective tax rate
almost cut in half since 1995.
Again, I am not one who is against success. I come from a family who
has succeeded. I come from a family who has done well, and I am deeply
appreciative. I am grateful for the opportunity this country has
provided to my family. But do you know what. What is fair is fair. What
is fair is fair. We have to ask everybody to help pull this wagon out
of the ditch. We are in the ditch, and let's get serious about getting
out.
If we broaden the base of our tax system, the people who will be most
affected are the wealthiest among us because look what happens. Here is
the increase in aftertax income, on average, from tax expenditures in
this country; that is, the loopholes, the deductions, the credits, the
exclusions that are in the current Tax Code. The average benefit for
the top 1 percent is $219,000 a year. The middle quintile, their
benefit is $3,000. If we reform tax expenditures, which we should do,
that will put some additional burden on those who are the wealthiest
among us.
By the way, not everybody who is doing well is treated the same way
under this Tax Code. There are many people who are doing well who are
paying a tax rate that is very close to the top rate of 35 percent.
There are others who are paying at a level one-half as much; the same
income but paying much less in taxes. Why? Because they have set up
their affairs in a way that they especially benefit from the credits,
the exclusions, the deductions, and all the rest of the tax gimmicks
that riddle the current Tax Code.
Here is what one of the most conservative economists in the country
said about reducing tax expenditures. This is Martin Feldstein,
professor of economics at Harvard, Chairman of the Council of Economic
Advisers under President Reagan. This is what he said about cutting tax
expenditures:

Cutting tax expenditures is really the best way to reduce
government spending. . . . [E]liminating tax expenditures
does not increase marginal tax rates or reduce the reward for
saving, investment or risk-taking. It would also increase
overall economic efficiency by removing incentives that
distort private spending decisions. And eliminating or
consolidating the large number of overlapping tax-based
subsidies would also greatly simplify tax filing. In short,
cutting tax expenditures is not at all like other ways of
raising revenue.

That, from one of the most conservative economists in the country.
Our colleagues on the other side say wait a minute, we should not
have revenues more than 18 percent of gross domestic product because
that is, on average, what it has been over the last 30 or 40 years. The
problem with their analysis is the last five times we have balanced the
budget the revenue has not been 18 percent of GDP. The last five times
we have balanced the budget, revenue has been at 19.7, in 1969; 19.9,
in 1998; 19.8 percent of GDP in 1999; 20.6 percent of GDP in 2000; and
19.5 percent of GDP in 2001. If people want to be serious about
balancing the budget, we are going to have to have a revenue level,
based on what we see historically, that is more than 18 percent of GDP.
The fiscal commission plan I laid before colleagues yesterday, the
so-called Bowles-Simpson plan, does this with respect to tax reform. It
eliminates or scales back those tax expenditures we were discussing but
lowers tax rates. You can lower tax rates and get more money if you
broaden the base, if you reduce some of these tax expenditures that
frankly go disproportionately to the wealthiest among us and have grown
like Topsy in the Tax Code.
We can promote economic growth and improve America's global
competitiveness, we can make the Tax Code more competitive, we can have
what was included in the fiscal commission, an option, a reform plan
that calls for three rates for individuals: 12 percent, 22 percent, and
28 percent. The top rate now is 35 percent. A corporate rate of 28
percent. The corporate rate now is 35 percent.
The fiscal commission plan called for capital gains and dividends to
be taxed as ordinary income. Instead of having a differential for
capital gains and dividends, they were taxed at ordinary rates. But the
fiscal commission also said if you want to have a differential, you
have to pay for it by buying up the top rate.
For those who believe strongly you need to have a differential for
cap gains and perhaps dividends, you can do that, but then you have to
have a higher top rate than 28 percent.
The fiscal commission plan reforms the mortgage interest and
charitable deductions, it preserves the child tax credit and earned-
income tax credit, and completely repeals the alternative minimum tax.
Under this plan, revenues grow to 20.5 percent of GDP by 2022. In
fact, the revenue under the fiscal commission plan during the 10 years
of the plan averages 19.7 percent. That is right at the level that has
been required the last five times we have balanced the budget. That is
very close to the revenue level during the Clinton administration, the
last time we did balance the budget. By the way, that was a Democratic
President.
Some say that is a big tax increase you are talking about, Senator.
No, it is not a big tax increase. It is additional revenue of $2.4
trillion compared to roughly current policy, what is happening right
now. But compared to current law it is actually a $1.8 trillion tax cut
because all of the tax cuts that were put in place in the Bush
administration are about to expire. So if you compare it to that law,
this proposal represents a $1.8 trillion tax cut. It is more revenue
than we would get under current policy but less revenue than we would
get under current law.
The fiscal commission plan I laid before colleagues yesterday, the
so-called Bowles-Simpson plan, also had certain process changes to
tighten things up around here, to become more disciplined. It set
discretionary spending caps through 2022 enforced by a 60-vote point of
order and sequester; firewalls between security and nonsecurity
spending so money could not be diverted between the two; a separate cap
for war funding with annual limits proposed by the President; more
rigorous emergency designation procedures and annual budgeting for
disasters; a fail-safe to pressure Congress to maintain a stable debt-
to-GDP ratio starting in 2015; more accurate inflation adjustments for
indexed programs--that is the so-called chained CPI, a more accurate
measurement for inflation adjustment; and a process to ensure more
reliable and timely extended unemployment insurance benefits.
I have heard from my colleagues repeatedly that the President showed
no leadership. I don't believe that. I think the President showed
extraordinary leadership. He averted a depression--and make no mistake,
that is where we were headed when he came into office. When he came
into office here is what was happening. We were losing 800,000 jobs a
month in the private sector. That is what he walked into. He did not
create the conditions that led to losing 800,000 jobs a month, he
inherited that.
Look at the progress that has been made. Since 24 months ago we have
seen jobs in the private sector on the positive side of the ledger--4
million jobs created. That is after he was in a situation in which we
were losing 800,000 jobs a month. In the last 4 months we have been
averaging 200,000 jobs created. That is pretty good leadership. That is
a dramatic turnaround.
The same is true of economic growth. When he came into office the
economy was shrinking at a rate of almost 9 percent. Now it is growing
at a rate of about 3 percent. That is pretty good leadership. That is a
dramatic change from what he inherited.
When I hear that the President did not show leadership--oh, yes? I
would

[[Page S2526]]

say he showed pretty good leadership. He stopped the hemorrhaging. He
got us going back in the right direction. It is not everything we hoped
for, but my goodness, what a remarkable turnaround. Two of the most
distinguished economists in this country said if we had not taken the
actions that were taken by the Federal Government at the end of the
Bush administration and during this administration, we would be in a
depression.

We are not in a depression. In fact we are growing. We are growing
modestly but we are growing. We are creating jobs in the private
sector. The private sector is growing. It added 4 million jobs since
this President got things turning around. This President named the
fiscal commission. There would not be a Bowles-Simpson commission had
the President not appointed it. The Bowles-Simpson commission plan is
what I put before our colleagues yesterday.
Some have criticized me to say: You didn't vote on it. That is right.
We are not going to vote on it until we believe there is the best
possible chance to actually get results. If you go back to the Bowles-
Simpson commission approach, what you saw is they did not time the vote
until after the 2010 election. What I am saying to colleagues is I
think we ought to follow their good example. That is because the truth
is, people are not likely--all sides are unlikely to get off their
fixed position right before a national election.
Let me end as I began. We have a budget for this year and next. It is
contained in the Budget Control Act, a law that was passed last year.
When my colleagues say there was no budget resolution passed, what they
are not telling you is instead of a budget resolution, we passed a
budget control law. A law is stronger than any resolution. A resolution
is purely a congressional document and never goes to the President for
his signature. The Budget Control Act passed the House and the Senate
and was signed by the President of the United States.
It says in part:

The allocations, aggregates and levels of spending set in
this act shall apply in the Senate in the same manner as for
a concurrent resolution on the budget.

What could be more clear? This law is in place of a budget
resolution. It is stronger than any resolution because it is a law.
Next time somebody tells you there has been no budget resolution for
1000 days, ask them, but did they pass a law that set spending limits?
That set the budget for this year and next? That set 10 years of
spending caps that saved $900 billion, that gave a special committee
the ability to change Social Security and Medicare and the tax system
of the United States and not face a filibuster? And if they did not
succeed, there would be another $1.2 trillion of cuts? And because they
did not agree, that additional $1.2 trillion of cuts is now in law and
will begin to be imposed at the beginning of next year?
That is a total of more than $2 trillion of spending cuts in the
Budget Control Act passed by the Congress, signed by the President, and
in force today. That is the biggest spending cut package in the history
of the country.
If anybody suggests to you no spending limits have been put in place,
ask them: What about the Budget Control Act? Didn't you vote on that?
Because it passed the House. The Republican-controlled House, they
passed it. It passed the Senate and it was signed by the President of
the United States. It is the law. A law is stronger than any
resolution.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, first I thank my colleague, Senator Kent
Conrad from North Dakota. To say he is going to be missed is an
understatement as he goes back to the private sector with his beautiful
wife and family. But his steadfast commitment to this country to put
our financial house back in order is the direction we should be going.
We should have the courage to do that. I believe we will with his
leadership because he has laid out a plan that is more reasonable.
There has been more bipartisan support for a longer period of time, and
it has grown. It is the only plan since I have been here, less than 2
years, that has maintained that bipartisan support because of the
leadership of Senator Kent Conrad. On behalf of the grateful State of
West Virginia and the people of America and my colleagues here in the
Senate, we thank Senator Conrad. We thank him for his leadership.

Postal Service Reform

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to share with you the deep
concerns that I am hearing from my constituents all across the great
State of West Virginia, who are worried about what will happen to their
rural communities if their local post offices are forced to shut their
doors. In our State, we know that the Postal Service is at the very
core of what makes this country great, and what connects us all. In
fact, the Postal Service is America. That is why we are willing to come
together across party lines to fight hard to preserve the essential
services the Postal Service provides.
We also know that serving rural communities is not always profitable
and private companies will not come in to fill the gap if the Postal
Service leaves. As Americans, we need our rural communities to stay in
touch with this great Nation. I am fighting, along with the members of
our delegation, to put a stop to these proposed closures.

These concerns for the future of the Postal Service are bringing all
West Virginians--Democrats and Republicans alike--together for
protests, rallies, and letter-writing campaigns.
In communities where people were told their post offices down the
road might be closed, I am hearing people's fears of unacceptable
consequences: seniors who wouldn't be able to get their medicines
delivered, problems receiving important checks and other financial
services, and, just as importantly, the loss of the ability to stay
connected to the community and to the country as a whole.
This note comes from Mr. George Jones in Nebo, WV, which is in Clay
County. He writes:

Few people in this area have access to the Internet. They
still rely on the post offices to keep them connected to the
world. And our people still use the post office. It just
makes no sense to cut services to the people who still use
them.

They need them as well.
In communities where the post office has already closed, I have heard
about what it means to the town and its residents.
This note comes from Delores Wilson in Norton, WV, which is in
Randolph County:

Our Post Office was closed last November. We now have
cluster boxes which are out there in the weather, and our
residents are scared to have their prescription drugs mailed
to their home or these boxes. Our community has been severely
affected. We used to see each other while getting our mail.
Our postmaster would let us know when children were born and
neighbors passed away. We collected funds at the post office
to help our neighbors when they fell on hard times or were in
need. Now we don't have this central location to do that
because our small community no longer has its post office.

I have always said that we as a people and a country need to pick our
priorities based on our values. In West Virginia, keeping the Postal
Service intact is one of the things our people truly care about. That
is why I have raised very serious concerns about this bill which does
nothing to keep the 3,700 post offices open, and they are currently on
the list for potential closure, including 150 of these proposed
closures in West Virginia.
Today I wish to encourage all of my colleagues to vote for an
amendment I have offered that would prohibit any postal facility from
being closed for 2 years while the Postal Service figures out better
ways, working with the Postal Service unions, to get its financial
house in order. I have offered this amendment because, as I have heard
from my constituents, we simply cannot afford to let these facilities
close in the communities that need them most. In our rural towns--
places such as Norton and Nebo, WV--the Postal Service is about much
more than a place to send and receive mail. Our postal facilities are
the centerpieces of our communities. They are places where people
gather and share important information. They are a symbol of the
importance of our small towns to the people whose families have always
been there. They are our little place on the map.
This note came from Deanna Halstead from Boone County, where the
Uneeda Post Office could soon be closed. She writes:

[[Page S2527]]

We have had a post office in this area since 1902. In fact,
the story goes that the citizens petitioned for a post office
and were asked what to name it back in 1902. A gentleman saw
a can of Nabisco's Uneeda Biscuits, and that is how the post
office and town got their name. It would be a shame to lose
that history, and it would be hard for our elderly and
disabled citizens to travel farther for these services.
Fifteen miles does not sound like much to people in
Washington, but when you rely on public transportation or a
neighbor to take you, it becomes a big burden.

I myself grew up in the small town of Farmington, WV, a community of
just a few hundred people. I speak from experience when I say the post
offices in these rural communities serve as a critical lifeline.
Even now, as an elected representative, I receive dozens, sometimes
hundreds of letters a day from my constituents, many of whom don't have
access to the Internet and can only reach me by writing me a letter.
That is what is so unique about our post offices. They are a vital link
for West Virginians and many others throughout the country, and for
them it is so important that their mail service remain uncompromised.
We all know the U.S. Postal Service is in dire straits. The
combination of the recent recession, the increased use of e-mail and
text messages, and the cost of retiree health benefits has put the
Postal Service on a path to financial ruin. In order to remain solvent,
the U.S. Postal Service must cut costs by $20 billion by 2015.
Anyone who has heard me speak before knows I share a deep commitment
to fiscal responsibility, and we just heard our dear friend, Senator
Kent Conrad, lay it out for us. I truly believe this Nation's out-of-
control finances are the biggest threat we face. I am not alone. At a
Senate Armed Services Committee hearing a year ago, the then-Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, was asked his opinion on
the greatest threat to our national security. Coming from the Defense
Department and the person in charge, Admiral Mullen--I would have
thought he would have said something about all the turmoil around the
world, the wars that are going on, the unease and unrest that could
contribute to more wars. I thought he would tell us about some rising
military power we should be concerned about or another uprising of a
violent attack on this country or a terrorist group wishing to do us
harm. But what he said was very simple, and it was a defining moment
for me as a Senator when he said that our national debt is the greatest
threat this Nation is concerned about, it is the greatest threat this
Nation faces. It was a sobering moment. So believe me when I say I
truly believe we all have to set our priorities based on our values and
learn very quickly to live within our means. That is right. There is a
right way and a wrong way to go about this.
The bill we have before us proposes to close 3,700 rural post
offices--I am sure including some in the Presiding Officer's own
State--for a total savings of $200 million--a figure that is less than
1 percent of the Postal Service's $20 billion and is roughly
equivalent--listen to this figure--to the amount we spend in 1 day in
the Afghanistan war. We spend that amount in 1 day fighting in
Afghanistan, which I think everyone knows I am totally opposed to. Yet
we are going to close 3,700 post offices for that 1-day savings for a
war in Afghanistan. While achieving very little in terms of the Postal
Service's bottom line, this proposal would have an enormous impact on
people all over the United States of America, including the people in
West Virginia who would lose up to 150 of their post offices. This bill
would also lower delivery standards by allowing the Postal Service to
go to 5-day service and eliminating door delivery. It would add to our
national deficit. In short, I am not sure what exactly we are hoping to
accomplish with this piece of legislation.

Already in West Virginia we know for certain that three of our mail-
processing facilities will be closing, one in Clarksburg, one in
Parkersburg, and one in Petersburg. We still don't know the fate of our
facility in Bluefield. The impact those closures will have on the
Postal Service's bottom line is minimal, but the impact to those
communities is widely felt and deep.
Rather than making drastic cuts on the front lines, the Postal
Service needs to consider a different approach to getting its financial
house in order. I truly believe we can save the Postal Service without
making cuts to the services our communities rely on and the lifeline
that they are, and they are needed, and without adding to our enormous
deficit. We can work together on a way to keep our postal facilities
open, expand services that raise revenue, eliminate enormous bonuses
for executives, and sustain 6-day-a-week delivery service.
My colleagues and I have suggested many commonsense ideas that could
help solve the problem. For one, current law caps pay for Postal
Service executives at $199,700--the rate of pay for most Cabinet-level
Secretaries--but provisions in the law allow for bonuses and other
compensation to increase total take-home pay for these executives to
$276,840. That figure is 20 percent higher than the salary of the Vice
President of the United States. In addition, the Congressional Research
Service has noted that ``postal executives may be eligible for deferred
annual incentive bonuses that exceed existing caps, the payment of
which can be deferred until after he or she leaves the postal
service.'' As an example, according to CRS, former Postmaster General
John Potter earned $501,384 in total compensation in fiscal year 2010.
I think most Americans would be shocked to know Postal Service
executives can earn larger salaries in the form of bonuses and deferred
compensation than Cabinet-level Secretaries. These excesses must be
eliminated.
We know from an August 2011 report by the Postal Service inspector
general that the Postal Service maintains 67 million square feet of
excess interior space and that getting rid of this unneeded real estate
could net $3.4 billion over 10 years. I think this is a revenue raiser
that deserves some serious consideration, and I believe most of my
colleagues would think the same.
I would also ask, during a time when finances are tight, why did the
Postal Service spend advertising dollars sponsoring the U.S. Tour de
France team and is now sponsoring a NASCAR racing team? I love NASCAR
racing, but I am not sure they can afford to be sponsoring a team.
There are a variety of ways for the Postal Service to get its
financial house in order without closing their doors in the communities
that rely on them most.
Back in April my office coordinated regional open meetings in the
communities where post offices are on a list for potential closure.
Along with representatives from the U.S. Postal Service, my staff was
on hand at these meetings in McDowell, Raleigh, Wood, and Randolph
Counties to give local residents the opportunity to share their
creative proposals and commonsense ideas to help preserve post offices
in their communities. We got the message loudly and clearly: West
Virginians do not want to see their post offices closed. They are the
lifeblood of the community.
We continue to hear from hundreds of West Virginians in letters,
phone calls, and petitions, folks such as Rebecca from Raleigh County,
where the Clear Creek Post Office is facing closure. Her community has
had a post office for 140 years--140 years. Tell me anything that is
more American than that. Here is her letter:

We are an isolated area. The roads are curvy and our
citizens are elderly. If this post office closes, it will
mean 20 miles round trip to the nearest post office.

It is rare to see a community--hundreds of communities, really--come
together around a single issue such as this one. But we are seeing
hundreds of people rush to the defense of an institution that has built
this Nation and connected this Nation into what we are today. West
Virginians do not want to see that disappear, and neither do I. That is
why I will fight, along with my colleagues, to find a solution that
forces the Postal Service to get its financial house in order, which I
believe can be done, without balancing its books on the backs of our
rural communities and the people who depend on that lifeline most--our
citizens.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and note the absence of a
quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S2528]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue that
goes to the very heart of our rural communities: our rural post
offices. I am speaking while negotiations are going on regarding the
Postal Service reform bill that has many dimensions to it, attempting
to put the Postal Service on stable financial grounds. But I want to
focus on this particular aspect: that today we must modify the bill
that is before us so we do not end up destroying our rural post offices
that are at the heart of the communities they serve.
It was a few months ago that I was in eastern Oregon and received a
message that the Postmaster General had put on the list for closure 41
rural community post offices--and that was just in my State of Oregon.
In the next couple days, I dropped by several of those rural community
post offices. In two cases they were open. I talked to the postmaster,
I talked to citizens who were nearby, and I quickly got feedback on the
destruction that would happen in that rural community if we do not
address this issue in this bill.
Specifically, there will be a huge impact on the small businesses
that use the post offices to receive orders and to ship orders on a
daily basis. Those businesses will not be able to function if they have
to drive 30, 40, 50, 60 miles roundtrip each day to pick up orders and
to ship products--a huge waste of time, often on dangerous, winding,
narrow roads; a huge additional cost, a huge distraction from the work
they do on their farms or on their ranches. In short, this will shut
down a lot of small businesses or those small businesses will have to
move. They will move to larger towns. When they move, the retail
dollars move, and it will not be long before that small store at the
heart of that town shuts down.
In addition, I heard from seniors who receive their medicines through
the mail. In some cases, they are controlled medicines for which they
have to sign. They have to be there in person. They cannot simply
receive them through a mailbox, if you will. Certainly, often our
seniors are not always in the shape where they can drive daily to see
if a medicine they are waiting for has arrived--that they would have to
go 40, 50, 60 miles roundtrip to check and see if their medicines came
in. Those folks will start thinking: Well, maybe I can't live in this
rural community anymore. Maybe I need to move to a larger town that has
a post office.
Part of the irony of the bill we have before us is often on the
Senate floor we are talking about spending government resources for
economic development. Well, if you go to a small town and ask people
what is the most essential component for the success of their small
town, their small businesses, they are going to tell you the rural post
office; that without that they are pretty much out of business. So how
is it we spend so much time talking about jobs and economic development
and small business as the factory of job creation, and yet we have a
bill before us that basically cuts the heart out of the small town
economy?
I originally come from a very small town, the small town of Myrtle
Creek. When I was a small child--born there--the Dairy Queen at the
heart of town was the place we occasionally went as a family. That
Dairy Queen is still there, and I still often drive through Myrtle
Creek just to go by and have a hamburger as I am going north and south
through Oregon.
Now, Myrtle Creek does not happen to be on the list of the 41 towns
where the post offices would be shut down.
But visit my hometown and one would get a real sense of the damage
that would occur if the post office were shut down. So I bring a very
kind of personal sense that this battle matters. I wanted to share some
of the feedback I have had from a couple towns. I wish to start with
the town of Tiller in Douglas County. Tiller is not that far away.
Myrtle Creek is in Douglas County; Roseburg is in Douglas County where
I started grade school; Tiller is in Douglas County.
This is the post office in Tiller. It is 16 miles from the next
nearest post office. Imagine that a person lives 10 miles from Tiller
and then they have to drive another 16 miles to get to the next nearest
town. Now we are talking about 50 miles round trip. That is an hour or
more out of their day, and that is a lot of cost in gas. That might be
$10 a day in gas right there, and that is a huge factor for many of our
families.
I am going to share with everyone some passages from a letter from
Diana Farris, a former postmaster in Tiller. She writes:

Tiller is one such community where, in many ways, time
stands still and new technology is beyond their grasp. In
Tiller, cellular phone service is unavailable, DSL and cable
internet service are unavailable, satellite service is
overpriced with the majority of residents in the area unable
to afford it and there is no Wi-Fi access.

She continues:

Dial up internet is available (when the poorly maintained
telephone system is operational) at top speeds of
approximately 24 26k, so slow that many websites, including
USPS, time out before you can access the needed information.

Diana Farris, former postmaster, then says:

The unemployment rate has risen to 13 percent in Douglas
County, and the lowest gas price in Tiller in the last few
months has been $3.95 per gallon. For communities like this,
the local Post Office remains the only option.

Many folks in the Senate may think in terms of big cities they
represent that have many options, that have FedEx, that have all forms
of electronic communications. They have all kinds of alternatives. But
those alternatives, as Diana points out, are not options they have in a
small town. Indeed, one of my colleagues said: I do not understand why
you are so concerned because FedEx can deliver the medicines.
If one has been to a small town, they would find out that FedEx uses
the post office system to complete the last mile of their deliveries.
So, no, FedEx does not provide an answer for our veterans, for our
seniors, for others who need medicines or other products being
delivered through the mail.
Because of that difficult drive from Tiller to the next post office,
because of the time, because of the distance, the closing of the Tiller
Post Office would have a devastating impact on the small businesses
that rely on the U.S. Postal Service.
Here is a letter from Alexandra Petrowski, who owns a small business.
It is called Singing Falls Mohair. She owns the business with her
husband, lives in Tiller, and she writes:

We utilize the services of the U.S. Post Office
extensively. I would estimate that between 3 and 5 packages
go out from our home to destinations all over the world on a
daily basis. We sell our products on EBay and the business is
flourishing. Our growing market is worldwide using the U.S.
mail system every day of the week excluding Sundays.
In the EBay marketplace, timely mailing is an integral part
of good customer service. As it is, the Tiller post office is
7 miles from our mountain ranch. A closure of the Tiller Post
Office would require an approximately 45 mile round trip
journey that would severely impact our modest profit margin.

She concludes:

We have been engaged in this business for 30+ years. We are
seniors and rely extensively on our cottage industry to
sustain our ranch operation. Would closing Tiller's post
office mean effectively an end to the home business?

Then she answers her own question.

The answer at this point in time is that it would seriously
jeopardize our business.

So here there is a family living on a ranch quite a ways outside
Tiller, but Tiller is the closest place. They would have to drive into
Tiller, then drive this additional 16 miles to the next post office,
would have to do this on a daily basis to ship products.
They are fortunate to have Internet and have been able to advertise
and have the world see their products and advertise them through eBay,
but they get customer ratings on eBay. If you have ever been on eBay,
you will see that people who have these small businesses establish
online reputations because they are judged by each of their customers.
They are rated by each of their customers.
We feel pretty comfortable ordering from someone who, say, has
shipped 500 orders and has a 5-star rating and not that comfortable
ordering from someone who has a 3-star rating and customer after
customer has said: The product does not come in a timely manner or it
is not packaged well, it is not shipped well. So this model, small
businesses completely depend on the U.S. Postal Service serving that
small community.

[[Page S2529]]

Let me turn to Malheur County, a different part of the State, and the
town of Juntura. I will get a picture of the Juntura Post Office before
us. We will see it is quite a simple looking structure, a manufactured
building, not very expensive to build, certainly not very expensive to
have it open a couple hours a day. So we are talking about microscopic
costs in the context of postal reform that have a monumental impact on
the success of our small communities--low cost, high impact.
Is that not the type of deal we argue for every day: government
efficiency, low cost, high impact. This little, simple modular
building, a few wooden steps going up to the door, may not look like
much, but it is a shipping hub and a communications hub that makes the
economy work in Juntura, OR.
I have a report from a Juntura resident named Laura Williams. She
went into a comprehensive analysis of the impact of this very modest
building. She wrote up a 42-page report. It examines every aspect of
how this very inexpensive investment--the returns it has for the
community. I thought I would read to all of you a little bit from that
report.
She writes that the residents of Juntura:

Will either have to drive to Drewsey, to the west, to mail
packages, buy money orders and complete a variety of other
transactions--or they'll have to drive east to Harper, 34
miles away, a route that winds through a river canyon
dangerously choked with deer during the winter months.

That is the end of that first part of the passage. When I looked at
her report, she actually compiled numbers of the number of collisions
per week with deer on this road as one drives from Juntura to Drewsey.
I was astounded by the high rate. It was a rate of several collisions a
week.
I remember when I was a kid, a small child, and we would be driving
the rural roads in Douglas County and my parents would say: We have to
watch for deer. If you have a deer come through your windshield, you
can be pretty much toast if you are traveling at any substantial speed.
If you are on a motorcycle and you go around a curve and you hit a
deer, the deer is going to do a lot of damage.
So it may not sound like something folks who come from cities would
understand, but driving roundtrip--in this case to Harper, 34 miles
away--70 miles roundtrip through a road that is dangerous, in dangerous
weather conditions, dangerous because of deer and certainly an enormous
waste of time and fuel, doesn't make any sense.
She continues, and this is an analysis of Laura Williams from
Juntura:

In essence, Juntura is between a rock and a hard place.

She then analyzes that 25 percent of Juntura's post office users are
seniors who would be particularly impacted by these changes, as they
rely heavily on the Postal Service to receive medication and may have
more difficulty driving long distances in hazardous conditions.
She has one word in bold on the front page which sums up her analysis
of the impact of closing this humble post office, ``disastrous.'' It
would be disastrous for seniors, for veterans, and for small
businesses. It is disastrous for the sense of the community that uses
this as a place to connect with each other.
Two weeks ago when we were on the State work period, I visited Fort
Klamath, which is also on the list to be closed. When I came, they
wanted to share their stories, and I want to share several of those
with you now.
The first comment is from Jeanette and Bob Evans. Bob is a veteran,
and he receives medication through the mail that often needs to be
scanned and signed for. They would have to take a 30-mile trip to pick
up the medication if Fort Klamath post office was closed. They will
feel the impact in that manner, and then they might make that trip and
find out the medicine hasn't arrived yet. So they may have to make
multiple trips.
They have a rental business that must follow State law requiring many
documents be sent via first-class U.S. mail in order to verify the date
of notification. Again, closure of the Fort Klamath Post Office will
force them to take more 30-mile trips to Chiloquin to process this mail
correctly.
So there are a couple hundred families in this community. It is a
beautiful area and has a lot of residences rented out in the summer.
Those folks who rent need to have timely service or they are not going
to come to town. This point was made. Once the summer renters arrive,
which drives the economy of the town, those renters want to be able to
mail their letters, and they want to be able to receive their packages.
So that post office--I don't have a picture of the Fort Klamath Post
Office here, but closing that post office would take away not only from
the business of renting out summer residences but from the number of
folks who believe they want to go there and spend their vacation.
Heidi McLean is the proprietor of the Aspen Inn in Fort Klamath,
which operates seasonally. Heidi uses the post office daily to send out
information packages to everybody interested in staying with them
during the season. Once they get word of somebody being interested,
they send out the details. They have to be received on a timely basis
or the customer will say they got information from somewhere else and
that is where they are going to go for their summer vacation. Then
Heidi will have lost that business.
Heidi said they could get by with fewer days or partial days, but
they feel very strongly they need access to a local post office and
that a 70-mile roundtrip to Chiloquin to access their mail would be a
serious problem for their small business.
Currently, several of my colleagues have worked to put together a
process in the managers' amendment. They have been working hard. I
applaud them for taking a step forward from the basic bill. I
appreciate the hard work Senator Carper from Delaware has been doing
and the hard work Senator Lieberman from Connecticut has been doing.
They have both indicated a willingness to continue working to try to
make sure we do not destroy our rural communities by shutting down
their post offices. So we are continuing that conversation.
We have a group of us who have an amendment now, including Senator
McCaskill, who is the lead on it. Many other folks are involved,
including Senators Tester, Baucus, and Leahy. I don't have the full
list. I thank them all. They understand this basic notion of little
money and the huge impact. It is a type of solution we should be
driving through this Chamber.
Currently, the plan in the managers' amendment is a step forward but
not quite far enough. I will explain. It says the post office will
design a series of service standards, and they will design a procedure.
Essentially, before they close a post office they will have to do an
analysis of whether closing the post office meets the retail service
standards they have laid out, and after they announce the decision
there will be an opportunity for the decision to be appealed. That
appeal will go to the PRC, Postal Review Commission. The PRC will
evaluate whether they met their own standards, and they will evaluate
whether the procedures were followed. If they were not, then the PRC
can say to the post office that they must go back and look at this
again.
It sounds like a system that has some routine to it. But why is that
not sufficient to protect our rural post offices? Very simply, the post
office management is trying to save money. If they set service
standards, those standards will be set in a manner that allows many of
our small towns to be shut down--many of our post offices to shut down.
It is the same reason they put up a list of 41--let me put up Tiller
again. Forty-one of these small town post offices already said--from
their internal review, from their sense of responsibility, and from
their service standards they want to shut down 41 of these.
After a lot of protests, we got a 6-month delay, and I am very
thankful for that. The Postmaster General also said: Maybe not 41. For
now, we will take 20 of them off the list. And he took one more off. So
we are down to about 20 in Oregon. Others could be added back at any
time.
The post office has already said they want to shut down 41 based on
their understanding of their service responsibilities. So a process we
put into statute that simply says: Will you be a little more clear
about writing your service standards or your procedures is just window
dressing.
So we need the Senate to say: Here are service standards for
delivering

[[Page S2530]]

medical supplies to our seniors, veterans, and others. Here are
standards for the communities that do not have all the electronic
communications that big towns have. Here are standards for supporting
the small businesses in these communities. We need to set those
standards because it is we on the Senate floor who have been elected to
fight for the people of America. The post office is trying to balance
their budget. That is why they said they think it is OK to shut down
these 41.

The amendment that Senators McCaskill, Tester, Baucus, Leahy, and a
number of others have put forward is completely compatible with the
general vision of having an appeal process with the Postal Review
Commission. But it gives the Postal Review Commission an actual
standard by which to make a decision; otherwise, all the post office
has to say is, yes, we considered the issue--and the word ``consider''
is right in the current amendment, the managers' amendment. It is not
enough for the post office to say: Yes, we considered the fact that it
does affect small businesses, such as the Mohair Company that I
described. There has to be a standard of service that we in this body
are comfortable with in defending the commerce of the small town and
for small businesses.
So I appreciate the work Senators Collins, Carper, and Lieberman are
doing and that they are engaged in this dialog about defending our
small towns. I know they understand the impact that would occur. Maybe
it is an impact that hits harder in some States than others. It
certainly hits hard in Oregon.
I look forward to continuing to work with the sponsors of our
amendment, lead by Senator McCaskill, and to working with the floor
leaders of the bill because we must not pass through this Chamber a
bill that would carve the heart out of the economy and the
communications of rural America.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I rise to urge the reauthorization of the Violence
Against Women Act.
In 1994, this very important act became law. It was groundbreaking
for women, for law enforcement, and for local advocacy organizations
that received the resources they needed to better protect victims of
abuse. It empowered us to combat domestic and dating violence and to
prevent sexual assault and stalking.
The Violence Against Women Act has improved the criminal justice
system's ability to keep victims safe and to hold perpetrators
accountable. It has been a valuable tool for so many women, so many
children, so many families, and law enforcement to make sure we can
keep people safe. It is vital we ensure these services remain intact.
Last year, the law expired. Critical efforts that help women and
their children protect themselves from domestic violence and stalking
and now cyber threats continue only on a short-term basis.
As a husband, as a father of three daughters and a daughter-in-law
and as a Senator, I find any further delay of reauthorization of the
Violence Against Women Act to be simply unacceptable. Our mothers, our
sisters, our daughters deserve more protection and security and less of
the political bickering.
In 2011, there were more than 38,000 reported cases of domestic
violence in Ohio. Of course, many more than that--thousands more, we
think--went unreported. Women live, as do children, with fear and pain.
These women live with the fear and pain of their partner's physical and
emotional abuse. It is because of the Violence Against Women Act that
they have somewhere to turn. It is because of that law that when they
do, they have the help to escape violent relationships and the support
to seek legal representation when they need it. It is why authorizing
the Violence Against Women Act is so important.
Women's shelters and domestic violence centers clearly would have
trouble existing without this law. These are the very organizations
that connect women with legal help, emergency housing, transportation,
and like services. They help with primary prevention programs so
children grow up learning the importance of healthy and safe
relationships.
The Violence Against Women Act is about assisting law enforcement
officials who place themselves in danger when they investigate and
prosecute cases of abuse and violence.
Reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act would invest in State
grant programs--such as the Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and
Enforcement of Protection Orders Program--that help law enforcement
respond to assault crimes. The bill provides tools for law enforcement,
victim service providers, and court personnel to better identify and
manage high-risk offenders and prevent domestic violence homicides.
Reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act is long overdue. It is
time to stand for the women in this country so they are no longer
subject to neglect and abuse and the law's inaction. I urge my Senate
colleagues to reauthorize, finally, after the opposition--opposition I
don't even understand--from a number of my most conservative
colleagues, how important it is to reauthorize one of the most
important pieces of legislation affecting women in our country.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Budget

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, my friend and colleague Senator Conrad
said earlier this morning, protesting a bit, that he never said we
would have a markup in the Budget Committee--mark up a budget, as
required by law. But that was what I understood. I am not here to argue
the details of it. But he said publicly, as I understood it, that he
was going to have a markup. Our people were working on as many as 80
amendments. I was working on amendments, key health care amendments, at
the time. I heard the Senator was having a press conference, we turned
it on, and he basically said we are not going to have a markup.
He said there was a markup, we started a markup, we had opening
statements, and I offered a bill but we just did not have votes, no
amendments, no final vote on passage; didn't ask a single member on the
Democratic team on the Budget Committee to vote for or against
anything. That is how it happened.
I am not accusing him of deliberately misleading me. What I would say
is I thought we were going to have a markup--and a markup means the
chairman lays down the chairman's mark, it is marked up with
amendments, others can offer substitutes, and you vote, and citizens of
the United States of America can hold us accountable for what we do and
if they do not like what we do, they vote us out of office. They have
been pretty good at that in recent years. A couple of times they
whacked the Republicans, last time they whacked the big-spending
Democrats in 2010. That is what America is all about. We are
accountable. But there is no ability or need or right to avoid
responsibility for the critical issues of America. I wanted to say
that.
Let me tell you what happened. This is not a mystery here. There is
no mystery here. This started 3 years ago when the Senate Budget
Committee--Senator Conrad was chairman--moved out a budget. But the
majority leader, Senator Reid, decided it was going to be uncomfortable
to vote on that budget. The United States Code requires that by April 1
the Budget Committee produce a budget and by April 15 it is voted on,
on the floor. Congressmen and Senators who passed the Congressional
Budget Act in 1974 did it because we were not having budgets moved
promptly, on time. They laid out how it should be conducted. They did
not put down that you lose your pay if you do not produce a budget,
they did not put down you go to jail if you violate

[[Page S2531]]

the statute, they just said that you should do it. So there is no
penalty in the code. Senator Reid blocked the budget from coming to the
floor 3 years ago.
Then last year, despite the code requiring that we have a budget,
Senator Reid and his Democratic colleagues decide they did not want to
have a budget even in committee. There was no budget in committee as
the law requires, no budget was brought to the floor, except Senator
McConnell forced a few votes but without the normal debate that you
have on a budget as it moves through the Senate.
What was going to happen this year? What happened this year is that
Senator Conrad is not going to be running again. He is proud of his
service on the Budget Committee. He served on the Erskine Bowles-
Simpson fiscal commission, the Gang of Six he was involved in--he had
some ideas. He wanted to do what the law said, I think. I think he
wanted to bring forth a budget. At least the last thing he did, he was
going to comply with the law--at least that is what I thought.
He got started. We were prepared. On the eve of the hearing to mark
up the budget we were told we were going to not have a normal markup,
but a markup in which we would not vote. You get to have opening
statements--everyone could make one--and then he would lay down the
mark, but nobody would vote for it or any amendment or any other
substitute mark.
I think that is a pretty sad thing. The reason Congress passed the
Congressional Budget Act in 1974 is that Congress recognized they were
not fulfilling a fundamental responsibility of good government, and
that as the largest entity in the world, the entity that spends more
money than any other government agency or so forth in the world, the
United States of America, ought to lay out in advance a plan for
spending its money. That is so basic. So it required a budget and
usually we have had one--at least with regard to committee work.
We do not produce budgets in election years, they say. There have
been times in election years when budgets have not been passed and
reconciled with the House. But I have never known in the 15 years I
have been in the Senate, other than these 3 years, a year when the
Budget Committee did not move a budget. The Budget Committee has always
managed at least to move forward. And usually we have had votes on the
floor--virtually every year. I think this is all miscommunication. It
is a concern to me.
The question that we need to ask--and what the American people need
to ask is this: Why don't you consider a budget? Why don't you have a
budget?
There have been several excuses in the last 3 years about why we do
not have a budget. Senator Durbin, Speaker Pelosi, Jack Lew, Chief of
Staff at the White House and former Director of OMB, who ought to know
better, said on television: You can filibuster a budget and we can't
have a budget because you can filibuster it.
Wrong, you cannot filibuster a budget. The Congressional Budget Act
was passed in 1974 to make sure we pass the budget. It is passed with a
simple majority. You are guaranteed 50 hours of debate and then you
have a vote. But in that 50 hours of debate you can offer amendments.
So it cannot be filibustered. That is a bogus excuse. So that is not
the real reason, is it?
They said we had the Budget Control Act last summer and that takes
care of it; we don't need a budget. Wrong. If it is ``the budget
control act is the excuse,'' why didn't we have a budget last year,
before the Budget Control Act passed? Why didn't we have one the year
before that? That was not an election year; last year was not an
election year. Why? The Budget Control Act is not the reason they did
not bring up a budget. It was not the reason they did not bring up a
budget last year and the year before, because we did not have the
Budget Control Act last year or the year before and a budget was not
brought up. It was not brought up for other reasons.

This is the code book, United States Code, Annotated, where the
Congressional Budget Act is, and it requires us to pass a budget out of
committee by April 1.
If the Budget Control Act said we did not need to have a budget, why
did the President submit a budget this year? He submitted a budget. The
Budget Control Act was passed last summer. If that obviated the need to
pass a budget, why did Congressman Ryan and the House lay out an
historic budget that would change the debt course of America, put us on
a path to prosperity and not decline? Why did they do it? There were
six other budgets offered in the House, some by Democrats, some by a
bipartisan group, and some by conservative Republicans. But the Ryan
budget passed and the others were voted on, too. Why did they go
through that process if the Budget Control Act eliminated the need for
a budget? So that is not the reason.
All they said is that we cannot have a budget during an election
year. What does that mean? We don't want to vote on tough economic
issues with an election coming, do we? Somebody might note how we
voted. They might not be happy with it. They might vote us out of
office and the last thing we want is to be voted out of office. We
don't want to be held accountable. We don't want the American people to
know what we are doing. We want to allow the debt to continue year
after year without taking any leadership to change it. That is getting
close to the matter.
Senator Conrad said we may reconvene the committee after the
election. But we don't want to bring it up before the election. I have
to tell you, in this town, with the media, old hands around Washington,
lobbyists, political gurus--they probably think that is clever. They
say it is clever on TV. ``Oh, Senator Reid didn't want to bring up a
budget because his people would have to vote. That's good politics,''
they would say. Senator Reid said he would not bring up a budget last
year because it would be foolish to bring up a budget. Foolish for the
United States of America to have a budget at a time when the debt is
the greatest threat to our future of any thing that is out there? It
dwarfs any other danger our Nation faces, our surging debt, and yet it
is foolish to have a budget?
No, he wasn't saying it is foolish to have a budget. He was basically
saying it was foolish for us Democrats to lay out a plan on how we are
going to spend the Nation's money, because we are going to propose big
tax increases in our plan and if we put it out there they are not going
to like it. The great unwashed out there, these tea party people, they
might be angry with us if they find out how much we are going to
increase taxes and how little spending is going to be cut in our
budget. That is what he meant, ``it is foolish.'' It was politically
foolish, not substantively foolish.
We were at this so-called markup--this faux markup I called it
yesterday--and the Democratic members were speaking, and you would have
thought they were serving the Nation's interest by not having a vote:
You know, we are going to talk about this. We should talk about it so
we can begin to make plans for next year. Next year? We have gone three
years without a budget. They were serving the national interest?
All that was rhetoric. The interest they were serving was political,
and the political interest was not to have to vote and be held
accountable, because the President's budget is so irresponsible. I
offered it last year. Senator McConnell called it up and got a vote on
it. We did not get to debate it. We called it up, and Senator McConnell
was able to force a vote--97 to 0 against the President's budget. Every
Democrat voted against the President's budget last year.
Earlier this year the President's budget was brought up in the House.
It went down 414 to 0. Then they brought up Congressman Ryan's budget
here in the Senate. All our Democratic colleagues voted against it
because it cuts spending and doesn't raise enough taxes. They voted
against it, but they did not say what they would do. They brought up
Senator Toomey's budget, which would balance the budget in 10 years,
last year. He has one that would balance maybe even sooner this year--a
tough thing to do, but he has a budget that would do that. It was
brought up on the floor of the Senate, and every Democrat voted against
it.

So with regard to budgets last year, what happened? Our Democratic
colleagues voted against the President's budget, they voted against the
Toomey budget, they voted against the Ryan

[[Page S2532]]

budget, they voted against the Rand Paul budget, and they didn't vote
for anything. They didn't go on record for anything because they don't
have the courage or the coherence or the willingness to agree on a
vision for America. It is that simple. One can spin all this any way
one wants to, but the Democratic majority in this Senate is incapable
of uniting behind a plan that the American people would see as credible
and would change our dangerous debt path.
Alan Simpson, the former Senator, and Erskine Bowles, former Chief of
Staff to President Clinton, chaired the Fiscal Commission. The
President appointed them to the Fiscal Commission. They told us this
Nation has never faced a more predictable financial crisis, and they
were talking about the surge in debt. I think that is true. I think the
needle is in the danger zone. Our debt-to-GDP is now over 100 percent.
Our total gross debt is greater than the entire gross domestic product
of our country. Our debt per capita is greater than Europe's. Our debt
per capita is greater than Greece's. Our debt per capita is $50,000 per
person, and under the President's 10-year budget, it would go to
$73,000 per person--greater than Europe, which is in a financial crisis
today. We have some unique advantages now, but we could lose those. We
are heading to a crisis unless we change our path.
I am so disappointed in the President. This is the leader of the
Nation. What does he do? Not only does he not lay forth a credible plan
for the future, he attacks Congressman Ryan. He invites him to come sit
in on a meeting and then attacks him. Meanwhile he says he wants to
have a bipartisan plan to change America.
We need to make some tough decisions--a lot of tough decisions. They
are not going to be easy when we borrow 40 cents of every dollar we
spend. Last year we were taking in $2,300 billion and spending $3,600
billion. I know people think this is not true. I am telling my
colleagues that it is true. That is why Republicans and Democrats,
liberals and conservatives acknowledge we are on the wrong path.
The budget that Senator Conrad laid down but none of his colleagues
voted for--and he didn't vote for it either--the budget he laid down
yesterday would not cut any spending over the agreement of the Budget
Control Act next year. After the Budget Control Act passed, we were
projecting to spend $44 trillion over 10 years, and under Senator
Conrad's budget, we would spend $44 trillion over 10 years. But he
claimed we are going to reduce deficits. How? By getting $2.6 trillion
in new taxes--no cuts, but $2.6 trillion in new taxes. No wonder they
don't want to have it out here on the floor where it can be talked
about and amendments can be offered and the American people can know
what is in it. That is no way to solve our Nation's problem.
The President goes around saying we need the Buffett tax. We know the
Buffett tax and how horrible it is, and people don't see that as a
solution to our problem when, in fact, it would raise $4 billion a year
and this year our deficit is projected to be, again, $1,300 billion.
This Buffett tax is going to raise $4 billion. How irresponsible is
that? Is this all we are getting from the other side? Tax oil
companies, raise the Buffett tax--there is no reality here.
So what I believe is this: A budget lays out a comprehensive plan. It
lays out a plan for 10 years. We have some smart people around here,
and they can add up the numbers, and they will know how that budget
raises taxes, how little it may be cutting spending, how much debt we
will be accumulating each and every year in the years to come, and the
Congressional Budget Office tells us how much interest we will pay on
our debt each year.
We could ask Congressman Ryan: How much interest are we going to have
to be paying on our debt over the next 10 years? We could ask Senator
Conrad or Senator Reid: How much interest will your budget cause us to
pay? For example, President Obama's budget--last year we paid $230
billion in interest on the debt of the United States. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, which has analyzed the numbers, they
calculated that at the end of the 10th year, we would pay $743 billion
in interest--in one year. The Federal highway program spent faster to
meet the $40 billion budget this year for highways. Federal aid to
education is $70 billion. The Defense Department's base budget is $530
billion. Interest would be the fastest growing item in the Federal
budget based on the fact that we are running virtually trillion-dollar
deficits for the rest of the decade.
Also, the President's budget fails to alter the debt course in the
future. Congressman Ryan's does. It deals with the surging
entitlements--at least the ones that can be dealt with. We can't deal
with Social Security in a budget by law, but we can deal with Medicare,
Medicaid, and other surging entitlement programs that have to be
brought into some sort of stable control so they don't go bankrupt.
Congressman Ryan dealt with that, but the President doesn't deal with
it in a realistic way, and he has failed to lay out a plan.
I guess what I am saying is I am just frustrated this morning to hear
that our colleagues are aggrieved that they did not get--that we felt
we should have had a markup on the budget, but we didn't get one. The
reason we didn't get one is because a decision has been made in the
highest counsels of the majority party of the U.S. Senate that they do
not want to be held accountable for the votes necessary to put our
country on a sound path. I am very disappointed about it, and that is
the bottom line. Hopefully, as time goes by, we can come together and
work together to pass a plan for America--including tax reform--that
will put us on the right path. That certainly is what is needed.
I would just say, though, that a budget can be passed on a party-line
basis. It has been done many times in the past. The majority party in
particular has a responsibility, in my view, to lay out its vision for
the country, and the biggest part of that vision is where they intend
to spend the taxpayers' money. I can't imagine they would want to go to
the American people and ask for higher taxes when they refuse to comply
with the plain statutory law that says they should have a budget to
show where that money is going to be spent. If they won't tell the
American people where they are going to spend the money, how much debt
they are going to run up, how much spending they are going to cut or
not cut, then I don't think the American people ought to send another
dime to this place--not another dime. That is why the polling numbers
show we are in such sad shape.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

Retirement of Kathy Kerrigan

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, all of us who work here in the Senate and
who are privileged to serve as Senators know on a personal level that
we are always only as good as our staff and staff work that we are
privileged to have from them. I think every Senator is enormously
grateful for the hours all of our staffs invest to help us do our work.
Oftentimes, that means missing weekends, deferring, delaying, or plain
canceling vacations, or working away on a beautiful Saturday morning
when other people are out and about, and I am sure the best of them
would readily admit they would rather be spending their time somewhere
other than perhaps the Russell Senate Office Building.
That is why today I mark a very bittersweet transition on my team
because tomorrow is Kathy Kerrigan's last day on my Senate staff. After
having been confirmed at the end of the last work period, she is
leaving the Senate to serve as a judge on the U.S. Tax Court, and that
is the capstone in an already distinguished life spent in public
service.
As proud as I am to see her serve on the Tax Court, it is really
difficult to imagine my office without her. She has had the title of
``tax counsel,'' but she really was a lot more than that. The chairman
of the Finance Committee, Max Baucus, and my colleague from
Massachusetts in the House, Kathy's old boss, Richie Neal, all know
better than anyone just how much--on almost every single issue in the
Congress, it always somehow comes to be a tax issue, a Finance
Committee issue. So for 6 years Kathy has been my indispensable utility
player. It didn't matter if it was on health reform, climate change,
energy, infrastructure, or supercommittee, if it was anything I was
working on with a fairly high level

[[Page S2533]]

of focus, you can bet Kathy was there. I can tell my colleagues that
she wasn't just there, she was invariably the indispensable player.
I don't know if she will like it, but I would say at times she was a
wonk's wonk. She knew the Finance Committee brilliantly, and sometimes
I had to struggle to follow Kathy because Kathy talked tax, and tax is
a different language. She was almost a charter member of the very
unique clique of the Finance Committee staffers, and Max Baucus knows
what I am talking about from his staff director, Russ Sullivan. They
actually had their own annual tax prom, and that is how exclusive a
bunch they are. There are a lot of us who are a little scared to think
of what a tax prom looks like. I once said it was probably a prom for
people who didn't go to their own proms once upon a time, but, in fact,
it is a party for the smartest, most detail oriented, hardest working
staffers the Senate has because they are always in the middle of
everything around here and, boy, do they deliver.
That is really where Kathy was in her element--driving into the
minutiae of issues, crystal-balling legislation better than just about
anybody with whom I have ever worked. I will tell my colleagues, if she
had chosen the Navy instead of the Finance Committee, we would be here
today saluting Admiral Kerrigan. She comes to an issue always armed
with facts. She has always thought through every question a Senator or
anybody else might ask about a particular issue. She is driven to get
the job done, and she always did.
On health care, she was a phenomenal thinker as we worked through the
Finance Committee issues and the funding mechanisms.
Last summer, she was nominated for the court. But then, nevertheless,
I asked her to serve on the deficit committee. She promised to stay
until the work was done, and I cannot emphasize how valuable she was
there also. On the Joint Select Committee, there were many times when
committee members from both parties would ask if Kathy could join a
meeting. That is a sign of respect and of ability. She was someone who
quietly, head down, did the work, and let the work try to find a way
toward a solution.
Everything I admire about her as a public servant is written into her
DNA. I think it is the result of growing up in Springfield, MA, where
her father Bill Sullivan served as mayor. She had a front-row view of
what it is like in public life, of what the demands are, and of what a
difference earnest people like her father can make in government--
people who do the work without worrying about the limelight or who gets
the credit.
She never lost sight of that through Boston College and Notre Dame
Law School and 14 years on Capitol Hill working on tax policy. As much
as I admire the special energy Kathy brought to her job, what I admire
most about her is her ability to distinguish between right and wrong
and her moral compass that always guided her in her public service.
I will just share one quick story before I wrap up. Last summer,
deadly tornadoes clippered through her hometown of Springfield, MA. The
first thing Kathy did was, obviously, make sure her parents were safe.
But the second thing she did was get in her car and drive to work
immediately. Instead of going home to Massachusetts, she came to work
in the Senate on a bright Sunday morning and immediately got busy
working on tax disaster legislation to help the people of Springfield,
the small businesses, the people who had been impacted. She did not see
arcane tax legislation; what she saw were bricks and mortar, lumber and
nails and lives that had been disrupted.
That is the Kathy Kerrigan I know. That is the Kathy Kerrigan I have
been privileged to have working with me through some of the most
interesting, most grueling, most productive legislative years I have
had the privilege of being part of in 27 years in the Senate. I will
miss her energy, her creativity, and the dedication she brought to my
office.
But it is good to know and we will all be reassured by the fact that
she will bring those same qualities, heart and head to the Federal
bench. She will be a phenomenal tax judge, and she will continue to
make her family and her friends and her home State of Massachusetts
very proud.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering the motion to
proceed to the Violence Against Women Act.
Mr. LEAHY. I am glad we are doing that. I want to thank the majority
leader for moving to proceed to the reauthorization of the Violence
Against Women Act as the next legislative measure for the Senate to
consider. He made the motion Tuesday afternoon.
My hope is that it is not going to be necessary to have extended
debate or a filibuster or the filing of a cloture motion and a delay of
several days and then a delay of 2 more days even after more than 60
Senators vote to bring the debate to a close and proceed to the bill
and then another vote on the motion to proceed before the Senate is
permitted to consider this important measure.
I expect anybody listening got lost through that whole process. That
is something we Senators should think about. The American public
expects us to vote yes or no, not maybe. The longer the delay and the
motions go on, the more we are voting maybe. Let's vote yes or no.
For almost 18 years, the Violence Against Women Act has been the
centerpiece of the Federal Government's commitment to combat domestic
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The impact of
this landmark law has been remarkable. It has provided lifesaving
assistance to hundreds of thousands of women and children and men. I
appreciate the bipartisan support that this bill has had from the
beginning.
Senator Crapo and I introduced a reauthorization of the Violence
Against Women Act last year after months of discussion. We wanted it to
be a bipartisan bill, and it is. Too often in recent times, the Senate
goes through all kinds of delaying moves before they proceed to
legislation. Again, as I said, the American people elect us. They
expect us to vote yes or no not maybe. The delays are a big fat maybe.
The Violence Against Women Act is a measure that is cosponsored by 61
Senators. It is a bipartisan measure cosponsored by Democrats,
Republicans, and Independents, and passed out of the Senate Judiciary
Committee in February. So I hope Democrats and Republicans and
Independents will come together to proceed to consider the bill without
delay. I would hope they step forward and do the right thing and send
the message to America that we are united in the effort to see the
Violence Against Women Act reauthorized.
It is an opportunity for the Senate to come together and renew what I
believe is a shared commitment among Senators to end violence against
women. For generations, violence against women in this country was
condoned. Too often these insidious crimes were dismissed with a joke
or a shrug or that ``they involve somebody else.'' Rape was too often
excused and domestic violence was tolerated as a family matter.
Victims were blamed, humiliated, and ignored. They had nowhere to
turn. There were no crisis centers, there were no shelters. Far too
many women and families were left to fend for themselves with no help.
The Violence Against Women Act was passed nearly 18 years ago and has
helped to change that. It sent a powerful message that violence against
women is a crime and it is not going to be tolerated, no matter where
it happens.

It transformed the law enforcement response and provided services to
victims all across the country. Now is the time to renew our commitment
to these victims by passing this legislation. We need to move forward.
We need to reaffirm that ending violence against women is a priority
for all Americans. We need to be a beacon to others around the world in
this regard.
With this effort we set the standard. We show that America
understands

[[Page S2534]]

equality and recognizes human dignity. We are going to fight injustice
against the most vulnerable among us.
The legislation that I introduced with Senator Crapo last November is
drawn from the needs of survivors of domestic and sexual violence. It
is based on the recommendations of the tireless professionals who serve
those survivors every day.
It includes improvements suggested by law enforcement officers across
the country. As we build on the progress we have made in reducing
domestic and sexual violence, we made vital improvements to respond to
remaining, unmet needs to better serve the victims of violence.
We incorporate the important work that Chairman Akaka, Senator
Murkowski, and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee have been doing to
try to respond to the epidemic of domestic and sexual violence in
tribal communities. We increase the focus on effective responses to
sexual assault.
While the annual incidence of domestic violence has fallen since VAWA
was introduced by more than 50 percent, the progress has not yet
translated to reducing sexual assault. Incidents of sexual assault
remains high, while reporting rates, prosecution rates, and conviction
rates remain appallingly low.
So we faced that problem head on. We ensure that funds are allocated
to law enforcement and victims service responses to sexual assault and
authorize support for law enforcement sexual assault training and the
reduction of the backlogs of untested rape kits.
In a lot of places, they say: We cannot test this rape kit for
several months. So often the perpetrator comes back. So during the
several months it takes to test the rape kit, they say to the victim:
Be sure and keep your door locked. This is not how victims should be
treated; they should not have to live in fear. We should be able to say
we can test this immediately, and then go get the person involved.
My early experience with the question of sexual assault was not as a
Senator but as a local prosecutor. Senator Crapo has been visiting
women's shelters and working on these issues for decades as well. His
principled bipartisanship should be respected and celebrated as being
in the best traditions of the Senate, the Senate I came to 37 years
ago. From the outset, we have consulted to make this bill the best it
can be.
More than a month ago, Senators from both parties came forward to
urge the Senate to take up and pass the reauthorization of the Violence
Against Women Act. The Senate heard that day from Senator Klobuchar,
Senator Murkowski, Senator Mikulski, Senator Murray, Senator Hagan,
Senator Shaheen, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Boxer, who was the
author of the House bill in 1990. Eight Senators came to the floor to
remind us all why this bill is important and why the Senate should pass
it.
There is nothing radical or new about saying that all victims--all
victims--are entitled to services. I have been at some of the most
horrendous crime scenes you can imagine in my earlier career. I never
asked, and certainly none of the police officers ever asked, whether
the victim was a Democrat or Republican, rich or poor, or from a
minority. A victim is a victim, and we should be helping all victims
not discriminating among them.
We know that even though the economy is improving, these remain
difficult economic times and we have to spend our taxpayer money
responsibly. That is why in this bill, we consolidated 13 programs into
4 to reduce duplication and bureaucratic barriers. We cut the
authorization level by more than $135 million a year, a decrease of 20
percent from the last reauthorization.
We have significant accountability provisions including audit
requirements, enforcement mechanisms, and restrictions on grantees and
costs. I sought to consult with Senator Grassley and others in making
these changes to authorization levels and for increased accountability,
knowing how important these aspects are to them. In the Senate
Judiciary Committee those who opposed the bill were given an
opportunity to offer a substitute and other amendments. Senator
Grassley offered a substitute which was voted on and rejected. In the
minority views of the Committee report, Senator Kyl noted disagreement
with the provisions of the bill responding to the crisis of violence
against Native women that incorporated a provision for the SAVE Native
Women Act to provide domestic violence jurisdiction over those
perpetrators with significant ties to the prosecuting tribes.
Opponents have noted their disagreement with the U visa provisions
requested by law enforcement. Some opposed the provisions intended to
ensure against discrimination in services based on sexual orientation
or gender identity.
Again, I will say what I have said over and over again: a victim is a
victim is a victim. We should not ask what category they fall in.
Since the bill was passed by the Judiciary Committee I have continued
to reach out to Senator Grassley and ask what amendments opponents wish
to offer during Senate consideration. While amendments to strike the
tribal, U visa and sexual orientation provisions were not offered
before the Judiciary Committee, I would understand if opponents wished
to do so before the Senate. I have reached out to try to construct a
pathway for consideration of the bill pursuant to an agreement that is
fair to opponents of these various provisions. If they have other
amendments, let's bring them up. Let's vote on them. Let's vote this up
or down. Do not vote maybe.
I hope we can reach out to the leadership on both sides, get a time
to get this done, do not keep holding up legislation that has been
endorsed by more than 700 State and national organizations, numerous
religious and faith-based organizations, and our partners in law
enforcement. Let's show the country we will not duck this issue. We
will vote for it or we will vote against it.
The Violence Against Women Act should not be a partisan matter. The
last two times the Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized, it was
unanimously approved by the Senate.
Although it seems that partisan gridlock is too often the default in
the Senate over the last couple of years, it remains my hope that those
who have voted for VAWA in the past will come forward and join our
eight Republican cosponsors to support it. If so, we can pass our VAWA
reauthorization with a strong bipartisan majority as we always have.
Domestic and sexual violence knows no political party. Its victims
are Republican and Democrat, rich and poor, young and old, male and
female, gay and straight. Let's pass this without delay. It is a law
that has saved countless lives, and it is an example of what can be
done when we work together.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I salute and thank the Senator from
Vermont for his extraordinary leadership on this issue of the Violence
Against Women Act. He has been truly and deservedly a hero in
championing a measure that has saved countless lives and prevented the
kinds of suffering and brutality we have seen all too often.
I join in his remarks, and I will speak at greater length about the
need for that bill in the future.
(The remarks of Mr. Blumenthal pertaining to the introduction of S.
Res. 428 are located in today's Record under ``Submissions of
Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

50th Anniversary of Seattle World's Fair

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, this Saturday marks the 50-year
anniversary of Seattle's World's Fair. The fair was a presentation of
what the world would be like in the 21st century. The Space Needle was
built and it gave us an iconic symbol that still lasts and defines our
skyline today.
More than 9 million people visited that World's Fair in 1962. Elvis
Presley stopped by during the filming of a

[[Page S2535]]

movie, because the movie was called ``It All Happened at the World's
Fair.'' All the visitors to the fair saw a very futuristic rendition of
what boundless energy and innovative spirit in America would be all
about.
President Kennedy opened the fair, highlighting the innovations of
science and technology. He said, ``These accomplishments are a bridge
which will carry us confidently toward the 21st century.'' Indeed, the
World's Fair was a bridge toward the 21st century, especially for our
Washington State economy.
The fair foreshadowed the Puget Sound and the entire State as a
region that would look to innovation and entrepreneurship. It gave the
public a glimpse of what life would be like in the 21st century. And in
the years following the fair, Washington State was home to many of the
innovations and technologies that revolutionized the way we live and
work.
In 1962, Seattle was home to the first satellite transmissions of
telephone calls and television broadcasts. That same year, the Seattle
Times declared, ``Boeing Is In Space Age to Stay.'' The rest of the
changes that we have continued to see have led to many things,
including Boeing's 787 Dreamliner--a true 21st century plane.
Also, it helped in setting a tone. Bill Gates took his company from
his parents' house to a global headquarters in Redmond, WA. The
Microsoft Company was founded in 1975. After the opening of its first
store in Seattle in 1983, Costco became the first company ever to go
from zero to $3 billion in sales in just under 6 years. Amazon
revolutionized the way people shop online and it is a company that has
continued to make innovations.
Today many other companies in Washington State--producing everything
from composites for airplanes to lean manufacturing to mobile apps
software to clean energy technology--are continuing to innovate because
of Washington State's reputation for making sure we have a talented
workforce.
So 50 years ago, the World's Fair, and what was announced there, made
sure the United States was poised for bigger things to come. Some of
the predictions we saw about life in the 21st century may not have come
true yet, things such as flying cars--although I recently saw an
article about flying cars, so maybe they weren't too far off--but other
things were just as they predicted, such as that one day we would be
able to have a telephone in our pocket.
Fifty years later, we can look back and see a glimpse of the 21st
century in the exhibitions and booths that were at the fair, but we
also see how fast the future can come and what we need to do to keep
moving forward, not just in Washington State but around the country, in
an innovation economy.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Durbin pertaining to the introduction of S. 2303
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the cloture
votes with respect to the Lieberman-Collins substitute amendment 2000,
as modified, and S. 1789 be postponed to a time to be determined by me
after consultation with Senator McConnell.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, as I indicated this morning, we are real
close to an agreement. The main issue now is whether there will be a
50-vote hurdle or 60-vote hurdle. We have been through that before.
Obviously, we know where we are going to wind up, in my opinion, if we
are going to have a bill. So we will work on that for the next hour or
so and see what we can come up with.
We are very close to getting something done. As I have said here
before the last few days, Senators Lieberman and Collins have done an
outstanding job to the point we are. We have made progress. We are
here. We are trying to legislate. We have a rule of relevance. It is
very broad. That is indicated by the amendments that people have
suggested.
So I hope we can work this out very soon. If we cannot, we will have
to come back and I guess walk away from postal reform, which is a
shame. But everyone who is holding up things should understand, if
there is no bill, you are not going to get what you want. If there is
no bill, the post office will be drastically hit. The Postmaster gave
us until May 15 to come up with something. We have come up with nothing
to this point. So if people are concerned about some rural post
offices, as well they should be, or about processing centers, as of May
15, the Postmaster General, unless we do something, will have carte
blanche to do almost anything he wants to do.
That is not what the Senate wants. So those Senators who are holding
up the bill because they do not like it, they may not like what the
result of having no bill is.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

For-Profit Colleges

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor a number of times
to talk about a new business in America that has become a major source
of income and a major source of Federal subsidy that most people are
not aware of. The business I am talking about is the for-profit
college. These are schools which are popping up everywhere across my
State and across the Nation. You can hardly go to the Internet and put
in the word ``college'' or ``university'' that you will not be
bombarded by all these for-profit schools that try to entice young
people to sign up.
Some of them, I am sure, offer valuable courses. But too often these
schools offer worthless diplomas. They entice young people into a
curriculum that is vastly overpriced, and it turns out these schools
they attend and the education they achieve doesn't lead to a job.
Here is this young person, all full of hope and idealism, signing up
to go in one direction or the other, and they find themselves lured
into a school which is, frankly, not much of a school at all. I have
seen these cases over and over again.
I was just in southern Illinois last weekend and a young girl came
up--she was a high school senior, standing there with her mom--and I
said: So what is next for you? She said: Well--and I am not going to
use the name of the school--I have just been accepted at the XYZ
cooking school in St. Louis.
I said: Well, that is interesting. How much does it cost?
She said: Well, after I give them my Pell grant--$5,500--my mother
will cosign a note for $17,000 for me to go to this cooking school.
That is the tuition, and it is a 2-year course. Well, it turns out
she is getting off easy.
In the Chicagoland area I ran into a student who was actually
picketing outside a hearing I had on for-profit schools. He was dressed
up like a chef, and I asked him: So you are going to culinary school?
He said: Oh, I love these food shows. I watch the Food Channel all
the time. I think this is great.
I said: So you are studying to be a chef.

[[Page S2536]]

Yes.
I said: How much will it cost you? How much do you have to borrow to
finish a 2-year course in culinary school in the Chicagoland area?
He said $57,000--$57,000.
The point I am trying to get to, Mr. President, is student loan debt
in America has surpassed credit card debt in America, and it is growing
by leaps and bounds. Decisions are being made by young people and their
supportive parents and grandparents--and I will talk about that in a
minute--to get deep in debt to go to a school. These young people think
they are doing the right thing. They have been told all their lives not
to quit after high school; that they need to pick up additional
education or additional skills, perhaps a bachelor's or a professional
degree. So they instinctively believe they are doing the right thing
for themselves, and they instinctively believe if the Federal
Government is loaning money to the students to go to the school that it
must be a good school; right? The Federal Government wouldn't loan
money if it were a bad school.
But the honest answer is that some of these are very bad schools.
There are three numbers to remember when we talk about for-profit
schools: 10, the percentage of college students that attend for-profit
schools, 10 percent; 25, the percentage of Federal aid to education
going to for-profit schools, 25 percent; and 40, the percentage of
students defaulting on their student loans--40 percent going to for-
profit schools.
The reality is that the student loan default rate on for-profit
schools is substantially higher than for any other schools. We can just
open the box and look inside and say: I think I understand why. They
are being charged too much in tuition, and they end up with training or
an education that doesn't lead to a job or doesn't lead to a job that
pays money--enough money to pay back their student loans.
The other thing is we passed a law that said for-profit schools in
America can receive no more--get ready--than 90 percent of their
revenue directly from the Federal Government. How close is this to a
Federal agency? Ten percent, that is all they need to be a complete
Federal agency. We send subsidies to these for-profit schools by way of
Pell grants and student loans to the tune of 90 percent. If they train
veterans, we waive that and let them go to 95 percent and higher.
In the academic year 2009 2010, for-profit colleges took in $31
billion in title IV Federal student aid--Pell grants and student loans.
For-profit colleges received one out of every four Pell grants given to
institutions of higher education--only 10 percent of the students going
to these schools, 25 percent of the Pell grants. As I mentioned,
current law allows them to receive up to 90 percent--90 percent.
The for-profit college industry is just 10 percent away from being an
actual Federal agency. Let's put that aside for a moment and think
about what $31 billion means to the private for-profit school industry.
This chart is interesting because it compares the amount of money we
spend in a given fiscal year for a variety of things.
How much does it cost us to run the Federal Bureau of Investigation
for a year? Less than $10 billion. The Environmental Protection Agency,
less than $10 billion; Customs and Border Patrol, about $10 billion;
the Coast Guard, $10 billion; the Federal Aviation Administration,
responsible for the safe landing of airplanes all across the United
States, comes out to about $16 billion or $17 billion. The space
program is about $18 billion. How about the National Institutes of
Health? This is where we do all the medical research to find the new
drugs and cures for diseases all across America. The annual expense
there is right at $30 billion.
Now, take a look at the last bar. This is the Federal subsidy to for-
profit colleges. Over $31 billion a year--$31 billion a year.
Fifteen percent of the students who take out loans at for-profit
colleges default within 2 years. That is double the rate of public
colleges and three times the rate of private nonprofit colleges, which
are historically more expensive. We spend more on for-profit schools
than we do keeping planes in the sky or protecting our borders or
tracking down criminals through the FBI or responding to disasters
through FEMA or researching cures for cancer at the National Institutes
of Health or protecting the Nation's food supply or making sure our air
and water are safe for the people in America or exploring the outer
reaches of our universe. That is how much we are investing in this
relatively new and horrendously expensive industry.

I think the question we face with the deficit is where are we going
to make our choices. I have been a reflexive voter for student aid all
the time I have been in the House and Senate. Why? That is why I am
standing here. I got National Defense Education Act loans to pay for my
college and law school. That is why I am here. I know it, and I think
the next generation deserves the same opportunity. So I have
reflexively voted for these things.
Then someone said: Have you looked at where this money is going? Do
you realize 25 percent of it is headed to an industry where so many
students are being sucked into signing up, dropping out, and carrying
loans for the rest of their lives?
Mr. President, you and I know this, but everybody should know there
is something different about a student loan from another loan you take
out. The loan you take out for your home, the loan you take out for
your car, maybe the loan to buy some appliances is a lot different from
a student loan.
Do you know what the difference is? It is not dischargeable in
bankruptcy.
No matter how badly things go for you at any stage in your life, you
are going to carry that student loan debt to the grave. It is there
forever. It can't be wiped out.
There are Federal college loans, such as the ones I took out, they
are different today. But they are much more reasonable. Do you know
what the difference is between the private loans these schools are
pushing on families and students and the Federal student loans? Start
with the interest rate.
The interest rate on Federal student loans is 3.4 percent. The
interest rate on private loans can be up to 18 percent. It is like
credit card debt. Do you have any idea what that means when you borrow
$50,000 or $60,000 and you face an 18-percent interest rate? Do the
calculation and math, and I will tell you some stories about what it
does when you start falling behind in your payments.
Brandy Walter grew up in a small town in Indiana. She wanted more out
of life so she left for college right out of high school. She enrolled
in the International Academy of Design and Technology in Chicago, a
for-profit school owned by the Career Education Corporation. She
switched later to Harrington College in Chicago, also owned by the same
for-profit corporation.
Brandy took out a total of $99,844 in private and Federal student
loans to cover the cost of her attending these for-profit schools, and
then she ran out of money. She hadn't finished her degree. She took out
the maximum amount of Federal student loans, she took out the private
student loans, and without any cosigners she couldn't get any more
loans. She was all in. Without any advanced notice from her school or
her lender, one day her student ID card just stopped working. She
dropped out and returned back home to Indiana with no options. She
can't get a job in her field, and she doesn't have a degree because she
didn't finish. So $99,000 into it and she didn't finish.
She is 24 years old. Think about being 24 years old and owing $99,000
in student loans, unemployed. Her private student loans have interest
rates between 9 and 11\1/2\ percent. Not the highest, but still much
higher than the Federal loans. The monthly loan payment for this young
woman for her private loan is around $900. Her total loan balance has
ballooned because she couldn't find a job, from $99,000 to $139,000.
She has been unable to save any money to go back to school or to even
have a place to live on her own. She doesn't know what to do with her
life at this early stage because of bad decisions to go to worthless
schools.
She says:

If I could erase that student debt, I could move on with my
life, and hopefully return to school to finish my degree.

Mr. President, 139,000 bucks.
Let me give you a taste of what kind of business Career Education
Corporation runs. The Career Education Corporation that owned the two
schools Brandy went to owns 83 schools and enrolls almost 100,000
students across

[[Page S2537]]

America. Many of them are in Illinois. I have spoken on this floor
about several of their schools and, unfortunately, my office continues
to be contacted regularly by students who have attended the Career
Education Corporation school and left with a worthless degree.
In 2011, Career Education received $1.4 billion in title IV student
aid. Career Education schools received about 83 percent of their total
revenue from the U.S. Department of Education's student aid programs,
and that doesn't include the money they get from the GI bill program.
So 81 percent of the students take out student loans, and of those
students who take out loans over 14 percent will default on their loans
within 2 years.
On November 1 of last year, Career Education Corporation's CEO
resigned while admitting that some of their schools, had falsified the
employment rate of graduating students. Their accreditors--the people
who say they are a real school--require a job placement rate of at
least 65 percent for schools to remain eligible for title IV
assistance. Career Education Corporation job placement rates were below
65 percent and, incidentally, the departing CEO who falsified the
information to the Department of Education was run out of town on a
rail with a $5 million bonus payment as he left.
I have met the new head of this Career Education Corporation. As with
every for-profit school that actually sends someone in to see me, he
has said: We are changing everything. We are going to straighten this
mess out.
I will believe it when I see it. And I will believe it when Brandy
and students like her are given a chance.

It is hard to believe that we live in a time when student borrowers
and their families risk losing their homes because of student loan
debt. I have introduced legislation that would permit private student
loans to be discharged in bankruptcy like every other private loan.
This legislation will help these young people.
Let me tell you one other story that was in the Washington Post.
Recently, one of the headlines in that paper read ``Senior Citizens
Continue to Bear the Burden of Student Debt.'' Senior citizens. The
story highlighted one of my constituents, 58-year-old Sandy Barnett.
As an adult, Sandy found herself in a familiar situation: Her husband
was laid off, and she wanted to go back to school. When she was
younger, college wasn't an option. Sandy enrolled in a bachelor's
degree program in psychology. Concerned about the debt, Sandy didn't
take out any student loans. She worked full time while in school and
paid her tuition as the bills came due.
Balancing work and school was difficult, but Sandy graduated in 1987
with a bachelor's degree in psychology and no student loan debt. The
school adviser told her it would be a good idea to keep going to school
and get a master's degree. Because the degree program required a number
of internships, she decided she wanted to focus on her studies and not
work. She was going to be a full-time graduate student. Then, for the
first time, she took out a student loan.
Sandy graduated in 1989 with a master's degree in psychology and
$21,000 in debt. She taught part time for the next 10 years at Lincoln
Land Community College in my hometown of Springfield, IL. By then she
was divorced and it was tough for her to make the $300 monthly payments
on her student loan. It took a few years for her to find a good job,
but as soon as she did, she started paying back the loans again.
By 2005 she was already too far in debt to ever work her way out of
it, and she filed for bankruptcy, but her student loan debt was not
forgiven. They are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Fortunately, many
of her other debts were relieved, and she thought she just might be
able to get back on track.
In 2008 she got a job with AT&T as a customer service representative,
where she still works. Currently, 15 percent of her wages are garnished
by the Federal Government to pay her student loans. That is $200 to
$300 a month, depending on her income. Her total loan balance is now up
to $54,000--more than double the amount she started with. The loan
servicer will not work with her on a payment plan. And we hear that
complaint all the time. What is worse is that her balance keeps going
up because her payment doesn't cover the interest on the loan.
You may wonder what Sandy's life is like as a 58-year-old with a
student loan debt. How did she get there? Does she live an extravagant
lifestyle? The answer is a resounding no. Sandy's coworkers drive her
to work because the cost of gasoline is now too much for her to pay.
She has no money to do anything, is what she tells us. She owns a
mobile home that needs a lot of repairs she can't afford.
When asked if, looking back, she would have taken the same path,
Sandy says she would have absolutely not gone to school if she had
known this was going to happen. Her degree is the worst thing that ever
happened to her, she said. She doesn't think she will ever be able to
retire. She said: I just don't have any money. I have nothing because
of student loans.
Her advice, 58-year-old Sandy's advice to others? Don't do it. Do not
go to college. There is no guarantee your college degree will help you
get a job that will pay for your student loans.
What a sad statement. All of us tell our children: Keep going; go to
school. And we should. It is the right thing to do. But she has a right
to be disappointed, even cynical about what has happened to her.
Sandy isn't alone. Other older Americans out there are bearing the
burden of student loan debt because of different situations. Do you
know why? They were generous to their children and grandchildren and
said: Let me sign the loan with you. Do you want to go to school? It is
the dream of your life. Let me cosign.
Tim Daniel's grandparents are two of them. When Tim signed up for
$80,000 in student loans, he had no idea that years later his
grandparents would be at risk of losing their home because of his
students loans. Tim dreamed of going to college. In 2004 he enrolled in
the Illinois Institute of Art, a for-profit school owned by the Career
Education Corporation, I talked about before. Tim's grandparents were
so proud and happy, they cosigned his loans.
Like many students who contact my office, Tim says he would have
never taken out the loans if it was clearly stated to him how much his
monthly payments would be. He put his trust in the school and he
thought the counselors really had his best interests in mind, so he
took out the loan.
Tim makes $25,000 a year. That is a modest income. He can't afford to
get a car loan, and he says he will probably have to rent for the rest
of his life. His Federal loans, which have a balance around $23,000--
Federal Government loans--have a manageable monthly payment, but his
private student loans are completely unmanageable. The lenders won't
work with him to come up with a reasonable payment plan, leaving the
burden of debt on his grandparents, who cosigned his loans. His
grandparents don't have any money. They filed for bankruptcy, too, but
because the private student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy,
they risk losing their home to pay off their grandson's student loans.
This isn't the American dream. This is a nightmare, and we are
complicit. We are complicit because this Federal Government continues
to offer Pell grants and student loans to worthless schools. And
students who sign up there think, well, if the Federal Government is
going to loan some money, this must be a good school. So we are
complicit in not policing the ranks of these for-profit schools on
behalf of these students.
Secondly, the outrage I hear expressed on this floor all the time
about overspending by the Federal Government should be directed as well
at these for-profit schools. The annual subsidy of these for-profit
schools--$31 billion--is greater than the amount we spend as a nation
for medical research in a given year--as a nation. So people who are
intensely aware of our deficit--as the Presiding Officer is--who want
to cut spending and wasteful areas, join me in taking a look at these
for-profit schools.
Congress could start by passing legislation to keep interest rates on
the Federal Government student loans at a manageable level of 3.4
percent. They are going to double in July if we don't take action, so
we had better do that.

[[Page S2538]]

Senator Harkin of Iowa and I recently introduced legislation that
will help educate borrowers about private student loans.

Actually, there are situations where students at these for-profit
schools are still eligible to borrow money from the Federal Government
at 3.4 percent, and the so-called counselors at these schools steer
them into private loans at 5, 11, and up to 18 percent interest rates,
and the students don't know it. They sign up not realizing they could
still borrow the money under manageable terms from the Federal
Government if they wish. There ought to be clear disclosure to the
students, their families--and their grandparents.
Our legislation, the Know Before You Owe Private Student Loan Act,
will require private student loan lenders to certify a potential
borrower's enrollment status and cost of attendance with the borrowing
school and require institutions of higher education to counsel students
about all their student aid options before the private student loan is
actually disbursed. Most importantly, schools would have to inform the
students about the differences between private student loans and
Federal student loans. Federal student loans have consumer protections
built in but not the private loans.
I encourage my colleagues to go home and listen to these families. On
your Web site, ask for the victims of student loan abuse to write in,
as they have to my office, and you will come to realize this is a
growing problem in this country. Student loan debt is greater than
credit card debt, and it is coming due. Less than 40 percent of student
loan borrowers today are current on their payments. This is a problem
that is going to haunt our Nation for a long time.
I hope my colleagues will join me in bringing some real changes. If
the for-profit school industry has anything to offer by way of real
education and training, they had better shape up and they had better be
honest with their students. They shouldn't drag them deeply in debt for
worthless diplomas which could literally ruin a life.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
(Mr. MANCHIN assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________