A concurrent resolution honoring the victims of the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooting and condemning the atrocities that occurred in Aurora, Colorado.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I would like to first thank my friend--and I do not mean that in the political sense, I mean it in the real sense--the senior Senator from Colorado, the Presiding Officer from Colorado, for his incredibly thoughtful remarks about the tragedy last week in Colorado. I cannot think of any more fitting place to be than here with the Senator tonight to have this conversation. So I thank the Senator very much for his words.

In just a few dark moments last week, in Aurora, CO, 12 innocent lives were taken from us--12 people, full of life and aspirations, loved by family and friends, and now 12 people remembered by an entire nation.

As the Presiding Officer said, thousands of Coloradans attended a vigil hosted by the city of Aurora on Sunday evening. We shared tears and prayers. We also resolved to support one another, to heal, and to always remember those who lost their lives on July 20, 2012. It is for that purpose that the Presiding Officer and I come to the floor this evening.

The first is Jonathan Blunk, age 26. Jon was a father of two who moved to Colorado in 2009, after three tours in the Persian Gulf and North Arabian Sea for the U.S. Navy. He was a certified firefighter and EMT. Jon lost his life protecting his friend Jansen Young from the gunman's line of fire. Jon shielded her from gunfire by pushing her to the ground while shots were fired. He was supposed to fly on Saturday to Nevada to see his wife Chantel Blunk and his 4-year-old daughter and 2-year-old son. Instead, his wife had to put up the dress her daughter had picked out to wear to the airport. She told her daughter that they would not see their dad anymore but that he would still love them and look over them. His daughter Hailey is comforted by calling her father's cell phone and hearing him on voice mail.

This is Alexander Jonathan ``A.J.'' Boik, age 18. A.J. recently graduated from Gateway High School. He enjoyed baseball, music, and making pottery. A.J. was to start art classes at the Rocky Mountain College of Art and Design in the fall. He was described ``as being the life of the party. AJ could bring a smile to anybody's face.'' He was a young man with a warm and loving heart.

This is Jesse Childress, age 29. Jesse was an Air Force cyber systems operator based at Buckley Air Force Base. He loved to play flag football, softball, and bowl. He was a devoted fan of the Denver Broncos, for which he secured season tickets. He was described by his superior officer as an invaluable part of the 310th family who touched everyone with whom he worked.

This is Gordon Cowden, age 51. Gordon was originally from Texas and lived in Aurora with his family. He was ``a quick witted world traveler with a keen sense of humor, he will be remembered for his devotion to his children and for always trying to do the right thing, no matter the obstacle.'' Gordon took his two teenage children to the theater the night of the shooting, both of whom, thankfully, made it out unharmed.

This is Jessica Ghawi, age 24. Jessica was an aspiring journalist, most recently interning with Mile High Sports Radio in Denver, and went by the nickname ``Redfield.'' She was hard working and ambitious, with a generous spirit and kind heart. When numerous homes were recently destroyed by Colorado wildfires, Jessica decided to start collecting hockey equipment to donate to the kids affected because she wanted to help.

This is John Thomas Larimer, age 27. John was a cryptologic technician with the Navy based also at Buckley Air Force Base--a job that requires ``exceptionally good character and skills.'' Originally from Chicago, he was the youngest of five siblings and had joined the service just over a year ago. Like his father and grandfather, John chose to serve in the U.S. Navy. John's superior officer called him ``an outstanding shipmate, a valued member of the Navy and an extremely dedicated sailor.'' Colleagues were drawn to his calming demeanor and exceptional work ethic. He was also known as an extremely competent professional.

This is Matthew McQuinn, age 27. Matt died while protecting his girlfriend Samantha Yowler by jumping in front of her during the shooting. Matt and Samantha moved to Colorado from Ohio last fall and worked at Target. He and Samantha were very much in love and planning their life together. Because of Matt's bravery, Samantha was only wounded in the knee and is expected to make a full recovery.

This is Micayla ``Cayla'' Medek, age 23. Cayla was a graduate of William C. Hinkley High School in Aurora and a resident of Westminster. She worked at Subway and was a huge Green Bay

Packers fan. Cayla would plan weekend activities around watching the games with her brother and father. She is remembered as a loving and gentle young woman.

This is Veronica Moser-Sullivan, age 6. Veronica had just learned to swim and attended Holly Ridge Elementary School in Denver, CO. She was a good student who loved to play dress-up and read. Veronica's mother Ashley Moser remains in critical condition at Aurora Medical Center. She was shot in the neck and abdomen. We pray for Ashley's recovery and strength in working through the passing of her daughter Veronica.

This is Alex Sullivan, age 27. Alex was at the movie celebrating his 27th birthday and first wedding anniversary. He loved comic books, the New York Mets, and movies. Alex was such a big movie fan that he took jobs at theaters just to see the movies. Alex stood 6 feet 4 inches and weighed about 280 pounds. He played football and wrestled before graduating high school in 2003 and later went to culinary school. Alex was known as a gentle giant and loved by many.

This is Alexander C. Teves, age 24. Alex received an M.A. in counseling psychology from the University of Denver in June and was planning on becoming a psychiatrist. He also competed in the Tough Mudder, an intense endurance challenge, and helped students with special needs. Alex was at the theater on the night of the shooting with his girlfriend Amanda Lindgren. When the gunman opened fire, Alex immediately lunged to block Amanda from the gunfire, held her down, and covered her head.

This is Rebecca Wingo, age 32. Rebecca, originally from Texas and a resident of Aurora, joined the Air Force after high school, where she became fluent in Mandarin Chinese and served as a translator. She was a single mother of two girls and worked as a customer relations representative at a mobile medical imaging company. Rebecca was also enrolled at the Community College of Aurora since the fall of 2009 and had been working toward an associate of arts degree. She was known to family and friends as a ``gentle, sweet, beautiful soul.''

Here is a photo of the gathering we had last Sunday night in Aurora. I believe, like you, Mr. President, that the early morning hours of July 20, 2012, will not be remembered for the evil that happened.

Scripture tells us ``not to be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.'' That is what the people of Aurora and Colorado have been doing since the first moment of this tragedy, and that is what we will continue to do.

In time, we will not remember the morning of July 20 for the evil that killed 12 innocent and precious people. Instead, we will remember the bright lives of those we lost and the families they leave behind. We will remember the 58 wounded survivors, whose recovery bears witness to humanity's strength and resolve. And tonight, knowing that some are still in critical condition, we pray for their recovery. We will remember the heroic acts of everyday citizens, our first responders, and medical personnel who saved lives that otherwise surely would have been lost. We will remember the continuing generosity of those Coloradans and Americans who are donating blood in record numbers and raising funds to support the families in this trying time. And in time, because we are all Aurora, we will draw strength from the example set by one great American city and the faith of her people in one another.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes, and that following my remarks the Senator from Rhode Island be recognized to speak.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my indescribable frustration and genuine disbelief that we are looking at two proposals that do not do enough to fix this Nation's financial problems--and both have been predicted by both respective sides to fail. I speak of the Bush tax cuts and how those of us in the responsible middle find ourselves caught between a rock and a hard place, with a vote that offers, truly, no real solutions.

It is no secret that I prefer fixing the problems this country faces, like most of my colleagues, and we all have different approaches. We are hurling toward $16 trillions in debt, and for the first time since the World War II era our debt exceeds the output of our economy. Even our generals say the greatest threat this Nation faces is not a foreign power or a terrorist organization but the debt we have created ourselves.

We are staring down the barrel of insurmountable obligations for decades to come, and we are passing up a key opportunity to put this country in better shape for the next generation.

As you can see, and as West Virginians know, we urgently need to put our country's financial house back in order, and the people of West Virginia are tired of temporary solutions to our long-term problems.

As I have said so many times, I will work with both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, on a comprehensive solution that lowers tax rates, broadens our revenue base, closes loopholes, cuts spending, and reduces our debt, like the framework proposed by the Bowles-Simpson plan.

Unfortunately, neither of the proposals on the Bush tax cuts will solve our long-term debt and fiscal problems. At the same time, with our debt problems getting worse every year, we must come together to take responsible action and fair steps toward reducing our debt, even if they are only temporary.

Let's look at the two proposals that have been offered, one from my Republican colleagues in the House that, unfortunately, kicks the can down the road entirely and extends these tax cuts at a cost of $400 billion. What people do not know is that even though it would extend tax cuts for the wealthiest--and this is what they do not know--it would actually get rid of some tax reductions for middle- and low- income Americans, such as the expanded child tax credit. That is tremendously unfair.

Another proposal from the Democrats here in the Senate, our side, would cost about $250 billion, which is at least starting to move in the right direction to reduce our deficit, and it keeps the tax cut for more than 99 percent of all West Virginians and a high percentage in every State such as the Presiding Officer's.

When considering these two proposals, I kept two priorities in mind-- putting our fiscal house back in order and restoring fairness to the Tax Code. So while I would prefer a bipartisan comprehensive solution, I will support the plan to keep taxes low on families that make less than $250,000. According to the latest available figures from the West Virginia Department of Revenue, more than 99 percent of all West Virginians will get a break on their taxes under this proposal. And the wealthiest among us will pay the rates they did during Bill Clinton's Presidency, which was the greatest era of prosperity I can remember in my lifetime.

On the other hand, the proposal that includes extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans carries a heavy price for this Nation. It is about $150 billion more than the Democrats' proposal. Given our dire budget situation, this country cannot afford that. We simply have to prioritize and close the gap. The fact is we cannot keep trying temporary solutions to our serious budget problems. And the truth is,

these tax cuts will not restore confidence in our government or our economy to create good jobs or keep the ones we have. They certainly do not put our fiscal house back in order. What they will do is be used as fodder in political ads in the next 100 days against both sides. I cannot understand why we continue to take votes that are more about making one side look bad or worse than the other, or taking cheap shots, than actually solving the problems we have before us.

I will continue to work across the aisle on a comprehensive bipartisan plan, because when it comes right down to it these tax cuts simply will not fix the financial problems our country faces. I have talked to countless business leaders and laborers all over the State of West Virginia and all over the country. When I asked them what will encourage them not only to create the good jobs we need but to keep the jobs we already have, the answer is simple: Certainty. They need to be able to plan their next steps. They need to know their government is working as a partner, an ally, not as an adversary.

We did not pull these stunts in West Virginia when I was Governor. We were willing to get our hands dirty, to come to the table, to have a genuine and respectful discussion on the right direction for our State, and sometimes that led to respectful agreement to disagree. But in the least, we moved forward and made a decision. It has been nearly 2 years since the bipartisan commission on reducing our debt recommended a plan that people of all political stripes support. It is time to go back to that framework and provide this country with an honest solution.

In fact, the only thing that seems to be holding our feet to the fire right now is the sequester, which is becoming quite the scary term around here. For people who do not live and work in the Beltway, here is what the sequester is: If those of us in Congress cannot agree on a real, substantial plan to fix our finances, we will have to make some very painful cuts in some very important areas--our Department of Defense, our schools, and our domestic priorities such as veterans services and Head Start. Both Democrats and Republicans care about those issues.

So both Democrats and Republicans have some skin in the game when it comes to finding an agreement, because, let me tell you, the reason the sequester was put in place almost a year ago was in case we could not come up with an agreement on a big fix, one the so-called supercommittee was tasked to put forward. Well, they did not agree on the superfix and this is our penalty. I believe the greatest mistake we could make would be to walk away before the end of the year and not vote on a clear direction to fulfill the commitment and promises we made to the American people, which were that we would fix the country's financial problems or the sequester would go into effect. That is the biggest mistake we can make as a Nation, letting the American people down.

So now a year after Congress has failed to reach an agreement, I am surprised to find some of my colleagues who voted for the sequester, knowing full well that Congress needs the threat of painful cuts before we can get anything done, are complaining about something they supported. I stand with those, including the President, who are drawing a hard line in the sand on our finances.

Like it or not, this painful sequester is the linchpin to a better government and a better agreement. It is the only way we are going to get something bigger. A better agreement will look a lot like the bipartisan comprehensive Bowles-Simpson framework, not the Bush tax cuts, because this country needs a real solution, because this country needs to come together on that solution, because if we cannot come together, there will be dire consequences for this country with or without the cuts in the sequester.

I sincerely hope and pray and will work for a compromise. But I believe the threat of a sequester might be the only thing that will force Congress to get its job done.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before I begin my remarks with respect to the current debate, let me pay tribute to Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson of the Capitol Police, and to all of the Capitol Police officers, men and women who protect us each day.

I was here on that somber day when these gentlemen sacrificed their lives to protect innocent people in this building. Their example continues to sustain us and inspire us. They continue to sustain and inspire the Capitol Police officers who today are protecting us. We thank them all.

As my colleague from West Virginia commented, we are in the midst of a very serious debate with huge consequences for our country, our economy, our future. That is why I rise today in support of the Middle Class Tax Cut Act. This bill will extend the 2001, 2003, and 2009 tax cuts for the middle class through 2013. It will provide tax relief to every American, especially to those families who have struggled through this recession and this weak recovery, and restore some fairness to the Tax Code by letting the top marginal tax rates return to the Clinton- era levels.

If we do not extend these tax cuts for the middle class, the typical Rhode Island family of four could see their taxes raised by an average of $2,200 in 2013. This is not fair to middle-income Rhode Islanders, middle-income Americans.

Unfortunately, I fear many, if not all, of my Republican colleagues will block this bill because it does not extend additional tax cuts for taxpayers who make over a quarter of a million dollars. Instead, they will continue to press for a proposal that doubles down on the failed economic policies of the Bush era for a plan that gives more tax cuts to the wealthy, while eliminating middle-class tax breaks for families with children. Indeed, one of the astounding things about the Republican proposal is it will, if you look closely, actually increase the tax burden on middle-income Americans.

In contrast, the bill Democrats propose will benefit every single taxpayer in America. It is only when someone exceeds a quarter of a million dollars in income that their income in excess of the quarter of a million dollar threshold will be subject to the top two Clinton-era rates.

The Democratic plan will extend tax cuts for the vast majority of Americans. Only the top 2 percent of earners, approximately 2.1 million out of more than 100 million households, households that have disproportionately benefited from the Bush tax cuts for more than a decade, will see their top rates revert to Clinton era levels. They will get to maintain their benefits up to $250,000, but after that, they will see an increase. This is the nature of our progressive tax system, one which for generations has spread the burden across income levels, making sure that middle-income Americans do not shoulder a disproportionate burden of the taxes that support this government.

One of the key facts we have observed, now for more than a decade, is that these Bush tax cuts have been very costly. They have been a primary driver of this deficit, in addition to unpaid conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and a prescription drug program that was not paid for.

At least with this proposal, we are beginning to try to reverse that trend in a principled way. The wealthiest, those who enjoy the greatest economic privilege in the country should shoulder some of the responsibility, and should shoulder some of the effort in order to help us begin to repair the deficit, which has grown as a result of these massively costly and ineffective tax breaks the wealthiest have enjoyed since 2001.

The Democratic bill will cost the Federal Government $249 billion in lost revenue for a 1-year extension. The Republican bill will cost $405 billion. So, again, if you are talking about trying to get a handle on the deficit, compare a bill for $249 billion, which is expensive but significantly less than $405 billion Republican plan that would do virtually nothing to restore fairness to our tax code or create jobs. I do not think our Nation can afford this $405 billion Republican alternative. There has been a promise or a mantra that has been offered over the last decade that these Republican tax cuts create jobs, and that they would contribute to our prosperity. But what we have seen,

particularly over the 8 years of the Bush administration, is that these tax cuts for the wealthy did not create jobs. I believe the evidence we have shows that there is very little correlation between these tax cuts for the wealthy and job creation or economic prosperity.

Additionally, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans constrain our ability to pursue policies that will boost growth in the near-term.

Indeed, if we do not have the resources to invest in the country, in our infrastructure, in our education, in the health of our people, we will not have the economic dynamism needed to be competitive and give our children the future they deserve. Frankly, like the future our parents gave to us. A future that previous generations were able to provide for because of Federal tax policies which were fairer, which were more progressive, and which allowed for significant investment and job growth.

In my State, with a 10.9-percent unemployment rate and a national unemployment rate above 8 percent, it is imperative that we embrace fiscal policy that creates jobs in the short-term but also recognizes the need for long-term deficit reduction.

Democrats have offered plan after plan that would preserve and create jobs in a fair and fiscally responsible manner. We press for policies that will provide more of an economic bang for the buck, policies such as the continuation of unemployment benefits and policies that provide relief to middle-class households. What we have to do is go forward, support this effort, begin the hard and difficult task of not only continuing to support middle-income families but begin to address the issue of long-term deficit reduction.

I hope my colleagues do not block this effort. I hope my colleagues do not once again decide that doing nothing is a viable alternative to helping middle-income Americans and helping our economy overall. Unfortunately, they have done that in the past. Earlier this month, the Republicans blocked a bill that cut taxes for small businesses that hired new workers. The bill was estimated to create 1 million jobs nationally and could have created about 3,500 jobs in my State, but Republicans filibustered.

Just last week, the Republicans blocked a bill that would have given tax cuts to businesses that brought jobs to the United States and closed tax loopholes for companies that send jobs overseas. Republicans blocked that also. I believe the record is clear. Democrats have been trying week in and week out to create jobs here at home, to make our tax system fairer, to give middle-income families a break, and to do so in a fiscally responsible manner. The vote on the Middle Class Tax Cut Act will be upon us shortly. I hope it will be a vote on which we prevail and go forward together and provide tax relief to middle-class Americans. I think it will be a first step toward the larger issues that were alluded to by my colleague from West Virginia dealing with the potential of sequestration at the end of this year, advancing policies that will grow our economy while beginning to restrain our deficit and provide a more stable, more sustainable economic environment for all Americans.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Madam President, I rise to speak about the need to extend middle-class tax cuts.

We have a broad bipartisan consensus that middle-class families should not see their taxes increase on January 1. We know that if Congress does nothing, then the taxes will increase for the broad middle class on that date. We have a broad bipartisan consensus that should not happen.

So while we have this moment of agreement, we should act swiftly to extend tax cuts for 98 percent of American families--about 99 percent of the people in my State--right now, today, this week, soon. But we will not because special interests and their allies in Congress are holding middle-class tax cuts hostage. Why? It is the same old song: In order to protect the interests of millionaires and billionaires. It seems the default button--certainly in the majority of the House of Representatives and far too many in the Senate--is, no matter what, protect the interests of millionaires and protect the interests of billionaires.

Let's be clear. Whether it is our plan where we immediately--today, this week, as soon as possible--grant tax relief for people who are middle class, every American will get a tax cut on their first $250,000 worth of income. If someone is making $1 million a year, they still get a tax cut on their first $250,000. If someone makes $10 million a year, they still get a tax cut on their first $250,000. They are only paying

roughly 4 percent on every $1 above $250,000. So we have bipartisan agreement. Let's lock that in so the middle class will get a tax cut.

There is an old cliche that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. We have been in this policy shop before, when they sold us the same flawed economic policies based upon tax cuts to the wealthy trickling down to the middle class. I was in the House of Representatives in the first part of the last decade when President Bush came to us. We had a huge budget surplus. In fact, in 2001, we had the largest budget surplus in American history--surplus, not deficit. Look what we are dealing with now.

So what happened? Two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a bad idea to go into Iraq, a contentious issue. The intelligence wasn't right that Congress was given. Many of us voted against it.

But put that aside. Nobody paid for the war in Iraq. Then there were the tax cuts that went overwhelmingly to the wealthiest people in our society. Nobody paid for those tax cuts. Then there was the Medicare partial privatization prescription drug bill. Nobody paid for that. So we went from the biggest budget surplus in American history to the biggest budget deficit. At the same time, the economic geniuses of the time that were running the government didn't use the words ``trickle down,'' but that is what it is. They said: If we cut taxes on the richest people of our country, all that wealth will trickle down to the middle class and to working families and the poor and everybody will get richer and the economy will take off.

We had 8 years of that experiment. What happened? Between 2000 and 2010, we lost 5 million manufacturing jobs under those economic policies of giving huge tax breaks to the rich. The fundamental tenet and central core of that policy was huge tax cuts for the rich. What happened? We lost one-third of our manufacturing jobs. It is only since we have begun to bring some more fairness with the Recovery Act, with Wall Street reform, with the auto rescue--especially important in my State--and other things we have done did we see the economy grow from 2010. The unemployment rate in my State in 2009 was 10.6 percent. Now it is 7.3 percent. That is not good enough, but it is certainly progress. There were 5 million manufacturing jobs lost between 2000 and 2010. Since 2010, almost every single month we have gained, in the aggregate, some 450,000 to 500,000 manufacturing jobs.

So this policy of cutting taxes on the wealthy was going to create prosperity. It didn't work that way. We went from a surplus at the end of the Clinton years to massive deficits at the end of the Bush years.

Let's be clear. We are talking about returning the tax rates for the top 2 percent of the Americans to the 1993 level, the same year President Clinton balanced the budget. Opposition to our bill to extend the middle-class tax cuts says that if millionaires have to pay the same top marginal tax rate they did in the Clinton years, then job creation will suffer. But it doesn't make sense. We want to go back to tax rates for the richest people in our country to what they were under President Clinton. During that 8 years, jobs increased by 22 million in this country. During the Bush years, with low tax rates for the rich, we lost 5 million manufacturing jobs and had absolutely anemic economic growth. One doesn't have to be an economist to make this comparison. Look at tax rates during the Clinton years and the Bush years.

I don't want to blame everything on President Bush. That doesn't get us anywhere. It makes people quit listening. But I do want to learn from history. Look at the tax system we had during the Clinton years and the tax system we had during the Bush years and make the contrast about what happened: 22 million jobs created; not so good during the Bush years, with very anemic job creation.

For too many people in my home State, the recession didn't mean they had to delay buying a new yacht. Workers in Steubenville, in Norwood, and Norwalk were struggling to stay afloat. They struggled to make ends meet. Too many are still struggling. That is why we have a responsibility to the people in New Hampshire and the people of Ohio and all over to pass the Middle Class Tax Cut Act of 2012.

The median household income in Ohio is $47,358. For those families, a $2,000 tax cut means a whole lot. We know that 98 percent of Americans who would benefit from this tax cut are going to put that money back into the economy. This isn't trickle down. This is, someone gets a tax cut like that and maybe they can put a downpayment on a car, maybe they can help pay their son or daughter's way to community college, maybe they can do some remodeling in their house, maybe they can do some things around the house that they need to do or take their kids to a movie or go out to dinner once in a while. But that $2,000 truly means a lot for a family with an income of $47,000. That is why this legislation is so important.

We can't afford to stall on this important middle-class tax cut for the Americans who need it most. The middle class in our society has been beat up long enough, for 10 years, where wages have been stagnant, where people are too anxious about layoffs, where people simply haven't had the opportunity to do what they need to do to build this great country.

I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Madam President. I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about a very important bill, the Violence Against Women Act. It is hard for me to believe it has actually been months now since we first came to the floor to talk about this important legislation, which is why we are here again this afternoon: to try and pass a bill into law that has consistently received broad bipartisan approval. It is a bill that passed the Senate now almost 3 months ago by a vote of 68 to 31.

The Violence Against Women Act has successfully helped provide lifesaving assistance to hundreds of thousands of women and their families. Every time we have reauthorized this bill we have included bipartisan provisions to address those who are not being protected by it. But here we are back on the Senate floor urging support for a bill that should not be controversial.

So, today, the women of the Senate and the men who support the Violence Against Women Act have come to the floor with a simple, straightforward message for our friends in the House of Representatives: Stop the games and pass the inclusive, bipartisan Senate bill without delay.

In the coming weeks we are going to be making sure this message resonates loudly and clearly both in the Nation's Capital and back home in our States because we are not going to back down, not while there are thousands of women across our country who are currently excluded from the law. In fact, for Native and immigrant women and LGBT individuals, every moment our inclusive legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act is delayed is another moment they are left without the resources and protection they deserve.

The numbers are staggering: 1 in 3 Native women will be raped in their lifetimes--1 in 3--and 2 in 5 of them are victims of domestic violence. They are killed at 10 times the rate of the national average.

These shocking statistics aren't isolated to one group of women: 25 to 35 percent of women in the LGBT community experience domestic violence in their relationships, and 3 in 4 abused immigrant women never entered the process to obtain legal status, even though they were eligible, because their abuser husbands never filed their paperwork.

This should make it perfectly clear to our colleagues in the other Chamber that their current inaction has a real impact on the lives of women across America who are affected by violence--women such as Deborah Parker.

Deborah is the vice-chairwoman of the Tulalip Tribe in my home State of Washington. Deborah was repeatedly abused starting at a very young age by a nontribal man who lived on her reservation. Not until the abuse stopped around the fourth grade did Deborah realize she wasn't the only child suffering at the hands of that assailant. At least a dozen other young girls had fallen victim to that same man.

He was a man who was never arrested for his crimes, never brought to justice, and still walks free today, all because he committed these heinous acts on the reservation and is someone who is not a member of the tribe. It is an unfortunate reality that he is unlikely to be held liable for his crimes.

Reauthorizing an inclusive VAWA is a matter of fairness. Deborah's experience and the experience of other victims of this man do not represent an isolated incident. For the narrow set of domestic violence crimes laid out in the Violence Against Women Act, tribal governments should be able to hold accountable defendants who have a strong tie to the tribal community.

I was very glad to see Republican Congresswoman Judy Biggert and several of her Republican colleagues echo these very same sentiments last week. In a letter to Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor, the Republican Members explicitly called on their party leadership to end this gridlock and accept ``Senate-endorsed provisions that would protect all women of domestic violence, including college students, LGBT individuals, Native Americans, and immigrants.''

So today we are here to urge Speaker Boehner to listen to the members of his own caucus and join us in taking a major step to uphold our government's promise to protect its people. I was so proud to have served in the Senate back in 1994 with Senator Boxer, who is here with me today, when we first passed this bill. Since we took that historic step, VAWA has been a great success in coordinating victims' advocates, social service providers, and law enforcement professionals to meet the challenges of combating domestic violence. Along with this bipartisan support, it has received praise from law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, victim service providers, faith leaders, health care professionals, advocates, and survivors.

VAWA has attained such broad support because it works. Where a person lives, their immigration status, or whom they love should not determine whether perpetrators of domestic violence are brought to justice. These women across this country cannot afford any further delay--not on this bill.

Today the New York Times ran an editorial on this bill that gets to the heart of where we are. It began by saying:

House Republicans have to decide which is more important:

Protecting victims of domestic violence or advancing the

harsh antigay and anti-immigrant sentiments of some on their

party's far right. At the moment, harshness is winning.

But the editorial pointed out, it doesn't have to be that way. It pointed out:

In May, 15 Senate Republicans joined with the chamber's

Democratic majority to approve a strong reauthorization bill.

Finally, it ends with what we all know we need to take this bill forward: Leadership from Congressman Boehner.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Today the effort we are beginning in the Senate is an effort that will continue for as long as it takes. It is a call for the same thing: Leadership. It is time for Speaker Boehner to look beyond ideology and partisan politics. It is time for him to look at the history of a bill that again and again and again has been supported and expanded by Republicans and Democrats. It is time for him to do the right thing and pass our inclusive, bipartisan Violence Against Women Act because the lives of women across the country literally depend on it.

I am delighted my colleague from California is here with me. She has been with us every step of the way in this bipartisan bill that we have moved forward. With the women and men who support us, we are going to continue to be loud and strong. We need to pass the bill, and Speaker Boehner needs to take it up for the women who are watching and waiting.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, let me begin by thanking my colleague from California for her leadership over many years and her steadfast courage and vision on this issue; likewise, my colleague from the State of Washington who spoke before her, Senator Murray, for her leadership, as well and others in this body who passed VAWA, the Senate's version of that measure, S. 1925, by an overwhelming bipartisan margin, in fact, 68 to 31, back in April.

This measure truly is bipartisan, and it has commanded overwhelming support in this body and, more important, from across the American public.

In Connecticut, I hear again and again from men and women, members of all communities, that the Violence Against Women Act is an idea whose time came 18 years ago but continues to demand the kind of respect and support the Senate has given it.

Now is the time for the House to adopt the Senate bill because it is more inclusive and more effective. For a bill that works, as this measure truly does, to include more potential victims, to provide more tools of enforcement is absolutely appropriate and necessary at this point in our history.

Of course, I hear from Connecticut constituents such as Hillary from Fairfield, who tells me:

One in four women, worldwide and in the U.S. is at risk for

violence at some point in her life. Men are at risk too, and

VAWA supports provisions for men to be safe and healthy in

their relationships as well. VAWA supports programs for both

men and women perpetrators of abuse to get the help they need

to stop the violence, and it ensures that women and their

children have a safe place to go when in danger.

Susan from New Haven:

Reauthorizing VAWA sends the message that survivors of

sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and

stalking must have the tools to heal and reclaim their lives;

that women and girls, our communities and our families, must

be safe; that the next generation must be engaged in this

effort--and that the evolution of our collective thinking on

how to break the cycle of violence is a national priority. To

send any other message is unconscionable. Congress must act

swiftly. Renew VAWA now.

Renew VAWA is the message we carry to the House: Renew VAWA with the improvements and reforms we have wisely adopted in this body and continue a measure that has benefited 54,000--let me repeat that, 54,000--domestic violence victims in Connecticut alone, millions across the country, and has provided organizations in Connecticut nearly $5 million in just the last fiscal year from VAWA programs.

These measures make a difference in people's lives. So often we can speak and think in this Chamber without the kind of connection to individual lives, where we see legislation, our acts here, making a difference. This measure offers us the opportunity to make a difference by broadening and making more inclusive this measure.

It makes it more effective. I am proud it makes it more effective with an amendment I offered to prosecute criminals who use the Internet to intimidate, threaten, harass, and incite violence against women and children.

The use of the Internet is increasingly prevalent for these kinds of crimes. The legislation I introduced, included in the Senate's bill, enhances current law for the Internet age. That section of the bill is not in the House version. It should be. That is a reason I am urging the House to adopt the Senate version.

But it is also more inclusive in including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender constituents--whom all of us have--in these protections.

LGBT Americans experience domestic violence at the same rate as the general population, but they often face discrimination in accessing services. In fact, a survey found that 45 percent of LGBT victims were turned away when they sought help from a domestic violence shelter. There is a real need--an unquestionable and immediate need--to improve the access and availability of services for LGBT victims, and our measure does it; the House version does not.

Over 800 constituents--and I welcome them in contacting me--have written me to urge that we preserve the LGBT provisions of the Senate bill as VAWA moves forward.

S. 1925 also includes protections for Native Americans that are absolutely vital. One of the invisible, unknown, unrealized, unacknowledged facts about this community is that nearly three out of five Native American women are assaulted by their spouses or intimate partners. One-third of all American Indian women will be raped during their lifetime. Those numbers alone should dictate the result. The members of the Tribal Council of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation and others across the country--the Mashantucket Pequots happen to be from Connecticut--have appealed to me to protect the tribal provisions in the Senate measure, not to waiver, not to relent to the House version.

Again, I urge the House to adopt our measure.

Protecting immigrant populations ought to be a given for the Senate. The House version of VAWA would ``endanger the safety of noncitizen victims and society as a whole.'' That is a quote from the International Institute of Connecticut, which has urged me to hold firm to support the provisions of the Senate bill and not surrender to the House and relent on protecting immigrants who need this help.

Again, I quote. The House version would ``endanger the safety of noncitizen victims and society as a whole.''

VAWA symbolizes for our immigrants, those who come to this country, what makes America great. We protect everyone who needs it. We enforce the laws equally without discriminating against people as to their national heritage or origin or ethnicity or race or other background. Equal protection of the law is one of the unique constitutional principles of the American democracy and the American Constitution. Our landmark measure enhances and enforces equal protection of the law.

I hope this body stands firm. I hope the House understands that it is not one body being better than another. We are way beyond that kind of comparison at this point. It is one version of the same legislation, one set of provisions seeking a common goal, doing it better, more inclusively, and more effectively in the great tradition of the legislative process.

I urge the House of Representatives to put partisanship aside, to put aside any kind of cameral personal differences and take immediate action to support all in America who are victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the need to extend the current tax rates and to reject the tens of billions of dollars in higher taxes the President and Senate Democrats want to impose next year. I believe the upcoming vote or votes will be some of the most important votes the Senate holds this year.

As early as tomorrow, we will hopefully vote on tax plans that represent two competing philosophies. One plan, introduced by Majority Leader Reid and supported by Senate Democrats and the President, proposes higher taxes on American entrepreneurs, investors, and small business owners.

The Democratic plan represents the philosophy that if only the government could raise enough money, Congress could somehow spend our way to prosperity. It is a viewpoint that holds that the Federal Government can spend hard-working American tax dollars better than they can. Rather than leaving the money in the private economy where it can be invested or spent by private citizens, this view holds that the government should instead bring these dollars here to Washington, DC, to redistribute them through the Federal bureaucracy. This philosophy was probably best articulated by the President recently when he said, ``If you've got a business--you didn't build that. Someone else made that happen.'' In other words, no one is extraordinary by virtue of their hard work and accomplishments. When someone works hard and succeeds, we should not celebrate that person as an example to others, we should instead take from him or her in order--again, as the President said--to ``spread the wealth,'' to quote another of his lines.

I am hopeful that the tax-and-spend philosophy of the Reid tax plan, however, will not be our only option. I hope we will also have the opportunity to vote on legislation introduced recently by Senator Hatch and Minority Leader McConnell. This plan takes a very different approach by following the view that now is not the time to raise anyone's taxes. This view holds that our American free enterprise system works best when government gets out of the way, leaving Americans free to pursue their hopes and dreams. One way we can leave Americans free to pursue their dreams is by not raising their taxes next year. And we especially should not raise taxes when Americans are struggling to get by.

Ironically, the view that we should extend current tax policy at a time when the economy is weak was articulated, interestingly enough, by the President just 2 years ago when he signed an extension of all of the tax rates. At that time, President Obama said that raising taxes would have ``been a blow to our economy just as we're climbing out of a recession.'' Interestingly enough, real GDP growth when he made that statement was around 3.1 percent. That was the average when the President made the statement that if we raised taxes, it would have ``been a blow to our economy.'' Well, real GDP growth this year is on a pace to average 2 percent and possibly less. Those numbers are consistently being revised and being revised downward. If it did not make sense to raise taxes when our economy was recovering, why does it make sense now to raise taxes as our economy is slowing? How does it make sense to raise taxes in an environment where over 23 million Americans are out of work or underemployed, when the unemployment rate has been stuck at over 8 percent now for 41 consecutive months?

The votes tomorrow are incredibly important--not because either plan is likely to become law immediately but because Americans deserve to know where their Senators stand when they go to vote this November. Do you stand for stable tax rates that encourage work and investment or do you stand for increasing taxes on the very businesses we rely on for job creation? Do you stand for a free enterprise system that rewards hard work and innovation or do you stand for making it more difficult for small businesses to grow and succeed? These are the important choices that will have a real impact on hard-working Americans and on our economy at large.

Consider the Reid tax plan. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, this plan will impose a tax increase on nearly 1 million business owners. Proponents of this increase are going to argue that it will only affect a small segment of our economy. Yet the Joint Tax Committee estimates that the President's tax increase in the Reid plan will hit more than 50 percent of all income earned by businesses that pay their taxes at individual rates. These are so-called passthrough businesses, and they apply to S corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, and LLCs. They are the ones who are going to see their cost of business go up next year for no other reason than the desire by the Senate Democrats to ``tax the rich.''

Small businesses, which accounted for two-thirds of the net new jobs over the last decade, will be particularly impacted by these tax increases. According to a survey of small businesses by the National Federation of Independent Business, 75 percent of small businesses are organized as passthrough businesses. NFIB also found that the businesses most likely to be hit by the Reid tax increases are those businesses employing between 20 and 250 employees. According to the U.S. census, the data that they collect, these businesses employ more than 25 percent of the workforce. So the million small businesses that, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, will see their taxes go up under this proposal employ 25 percent of the American workforce and account for over 50 percent of all passthrough income. So you are going to see taxes go up dramatically on over 50 percent of passthrough income and on small businesses that employ 25 percent of the American workforce.

Does that make sense in this economy? It should be no wonder that the political party advocating this kind of tax policy has also presided over the weakest economic recovery literally since the end of World War

Madam President, many of our Republican colleagues argue that we can't extend tax relief for middle-class families unless we also extend tax cuts for the wealthiest. They argue without tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent, we will harm job creators and slow the economy. Their arguments rely on faulty assumptions, mistaken beliefs, and misleading statements. Let's get to the facts.

It is a fact that every American taxpayer would receive a tax cut under our bill on the first $250,000 of their income. It is a fact that compared to the middle-class tax cut act now before us, the plan the Republicans have put forward would increase the deficit by $155 billion. It is a fact that the bill Republicans have put forward, despite their professed support for tax cuts, would raise taxes on the middle class by failing to extend the 2009 tax cuts for middle-class families, including the American opportunity tax credit and credits that help families with children.

What is unfolding on the Senate floor now is the culmination of a rigid Republican adherence to tax cuts for the wealthy as the supreme goal of public policy. Republicans have demonstrated a willingness to risk government shutdowns. They have demonstrated a willingness to risk grave economic damage, to risk rising taxes on the vast majority of Americans in pursuit of their highest priority: lower taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent of us. They want to risk all of that in service to an idea that has already proved a failure.

When historians look back at the Republican dedication to the tax cuts for the wealthy, they will find it remarkable that so many fought so long and so hard to go back to a failed policy. Income for the typical American family peaked in the year 2000, not coincidentally just before the Republican tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy mania reached its zenith.

A June study by the Federal Reserve found that the average middle- class family's net worth had fallen by 40 percent from 2007 to 2010. In 2010, the bottom 99 percent of income earners reaped just 7 percent of total income growth while 93 percent of all growth flowed to the top 1 percent.

As David Leonhardt of the New York Times reported on Monday:

The top-earning 1 percent of households now bring home

about 20 percent of total income, up from less than 10

percent 40 years ago. The top earning 1/10,000th of

households--each earning at least $7.8 million a year, many

of them working in finance--bring home almost 5 percent of

income, up from 1 percent 40 years ago.

Perhaps this vast accumulation of wealth would arguably be acceptable if it had resulted in faster economic growth that produced new jobs and helped average Americans prosper. Indeed, since the time of President Reagan, America has been told that the rising tide lifting up the wealthy would lift all boats, and that the benefits would trickle down to all Americans. Our Republican colleagues today argue that we must continue the President Bush tax cuts for the wealthy or risk harm to the ``job creators.''

But the Republican emphasis on policies that are more and more generous to the wealthiest have utterly failed to spark economic growth or create the jobs we need. Their experiment failed.

The Bush tax cuts coincided with the slowest rate of job growth in American history. Economic growth, even before the financial crisis, nearly sent our economy into depression and was woefully short by historic standards.

The failure of the Bush policies to spur economic growth and job creation underlies the failure of another promise from supporters of tax cuts for the wealthy, the promise that those cuts would pay for themselves. Republicans backing the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 painted those grand scenarios that grow so rapidly that it would yield increased tax revenue. But instead of growing Federal coffers, we got a flood of red ink.

So the policy of tax cuts for the wealthy failed as a fiscal policy. It added to our deficit. It failed as an economic policy, coinciding with weak growth and economic output and job creation, and it failed as a vital test of public policy in a democratic society because it failed the fairness test. Instead, it facilitated massive accumulations of wealth for a fortunate few while most Americans have struggled just to tread water.

Yet our Republican colleagues persist in their pursuit of their failed policy--persist, in fact, to the point that they are willing to force a tax increase on more than 90 percent of taxpayers and potentially send our economy tumbling back into recession in adherence to that failed policy.

We are not arguing against this policy of tax cuts for the wealthiest because we seek to denigrate success or to stoke class warfare, as some Republicans allege. We are arguing against these policies because they are broken, they have failed, and they are unfair. We should reject them lest they do even more harm. We should reject the Republican pursuit of tax cuts for the wealthy at all costs, every other consideration be damned. We should allow middle-class families to keep a few of their hard-earned dollars and pass the Middle Class Tax Cut Act. At a minimum we should vote tomorrow to overcome the filibuster threat and proceed to debate this singularly important issue.

Madam President, I yield the floor.