Floor Statements

Mr. President, our Nation faces enormous and worrisome fiscal challenges. There is no question we must reduce our budget deficit in the medium-term and prepare for a longer-term future in which an aging population stresses Medicare and Social Security funds. And we face, at the beginning of January, the prospect of automatic, unprioritized, and unwise budget cuts that would do tremendous harm to just about every program in the government, from domestic programs to our military, and would in the process threaten our economic recovery.

The way to address those enormous challenges is by coming together to address the sources of our budget deficit. The solutions must include prudent, prioritized spending cuts. They will undoubtedly include reforms to entitlement programs to ensure their long-term viability. And, as just about any objective observer has repeatedly pointed out, the solutions must include restoration of revenues lost to the Treasury through unjustified tax cuts for the wealthiest and unjustified tax loopholes.

Democrats have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to address these areas--even in painful ways that have a real impact on programs about which we feel strongly. President Obama has repeatedly reached out to Republicans in trying to craft a bipartisan agreement that deals with spending, entitlements and revenues. Senator Conrad and many others on this side of the aisle have said they will work with our Republican colleagues to deal comprehensively with the deficit.

Rather than seeking compromise, Republicans seem determined to draw uncompromising lines in the sand. Today we will vote on extreme budget proposals that would sacrifice vital programs like education, transportation and research in order to protect tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

The Republican proposals before us today demonstrate that our efforts to deal constructively with the deficit have so far fallen on deaf ears. Rather than offer prudent, thoughtful spending cuts, these proposals would gut programs that Americans have repeatedly told us to preserve. Rather than recognize the obvious fiscal reality that revenue must be part of the equation, these proposals demonstrate a continued, ideologically motivated refusal to even consider what must obviously be part of any serious attempt to address the deficit. Rather than reform entitlement programs so we can maintain our commitment to seniors, these proposals would upend that commitment.

Perhaps the clearest statement of all of Republican intentions is the budget passed in the House, one of the proposals we will vote on today. This budget eliminates the decades-long guarantee of health care for our seniors, replacing Medicare with a voucher program that would cause skyrocketing out-of-pocket costs for seniors.

There is more. The Ryan budget proposes to cut billions and billions from domestic programs, but gives us no specifics as to how those cuts would be accomplished. It proposes almost no specific spending cuts, though it promises massive savings. We can see just how devastating these cuts would be if we assume, in the absence of specific proposals, that they would be distributed evenly across the budget. If that were the case, we would lose more than $100 billion in funding over the next decade for science, including the search for new cures and other new technologies. We would have space for 2 million fewer Head Start students to get a jump on their education. More than 9 million college students would lose $1,000 in Pell grant funding to afford college.

This budget would slash spending to educate our children and to train our workers. It would cut funding to support new sources of energy and to protect our national parks and historic sites, and for environmental protection and other natural resource programs. It would slash funding to pave our roads and bridges and meet other transportation needs.

And the Ryan plan does not address what budget experts of all ideological stripes tell us we must address: the need for additional revenues. Rather than restore revenue, this budget is premised on the notion that high-income earners haven't gotten enough in tax cuts--and so it slashes the top tax bracket.

If you are not willing to address revenues, you are not serious about addressing the deficit. The Ryan budget and the other Republican proposals before us fail that test. I hope we can dispense with these proposals and get to the challenging work of dealing with the deficit.

Mr. President, Members of the Senate have a duty and obligation to carefully consider the votes we take on nominations to the Federal courts. Our Constitution has established a judicial branch with vitally important responsibilities and with considerable independence from the other branches of government. The Founders were right to do so. They were also right to give this body a say on nominations to that independent branch. It is the one chance that the people, through their elected representatives, have to influence the makeup of the Federal courts.

I do not begrudge any Senator the right to carefully question judicial nominees, to carefully weigh their qualifications, and to exercise their best judgment as they exercise their responsibilities that the Founders assigned to the Senate.

The question we must all answer is this: When do careful consideration and the exercise of good judgment become damaging delay? For just as we can fail to serve our constituents by failing to properly scrutinize judicial nominees, we can fail to serve them by failing to act on these nominations after there has been sufficient time for the Judiciary Committee and the Senate to scrutinize them.

Today nearly 1 in 10 Federal judgeships is vacant. Roughly half of all Americans live in judicial districts or circuits in which the Federal courts have declared a judicial emergency, meaning according to the standards established by the Supreme Court, residents face the prospect of unacceptable delays in having cases heard because vacancies have led to a troubling backlog of cases.

It is a precept of Western judicial thought that justice delayed is justice denied; that even a correct verdict can be without justice if it comes too late to matter to the parties involved, especially if that delay is not justified by the circumstances or the complexity of the case.

The dangers for our Nation in these judicial emergencies are great: First, that Americans may be robbed of justice by unjustified delay; second, that Americans may come to doubt that the courts are capable of dispensing justice because they cannot function effectively; and, third, that in seeking to clear the growing backlog of cases the courts may rush to judgment and may fail to apply the rigor that Americans expect and deserve.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed for an additional minute.

The Judiciary Committee has favorably reported 17 judicial nominations that are now awaiting votes on the floor of the Senate. There is no question that the wait for many of the judicial nominees of President Obama has been unacceptable. Under the previous President, at this point in his term the average district court nominee waited 22 days from favorable report by the Judiciary Committee to Senate confirmation. The average circuit court nominee waited 28 days.

By contrast, the average district court nominee under President Obama has faced a wait of 97 days, and the average for circuit court nominees is 138 days. Yet the vast majority of these nominees are not controversial. They enjoy bipartisan support. We should move quickly to confirm these nominees who have been receiving bipartisan backing, particularly, and to review, debate, and act as expeditiously as we can on the small number of nominations about which there is some debate.

There is a great deal of discussion about which party is to blame about the ever-slower pace of judicial nominations. I have my own strong beliefs on that question. Our constituents are best served not by arguing over blame, but by our exercise of the responsibility the Constitution bestows upon us. I simply ask all of my colleagues to consider on each of these nominations the damage done by delay and inaction, and to carefully consider the threat to justice from the growing crisis of delay in our courts. We can and should act promptly on the 17 nominees on the calendar.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is voting on H.R. 2072, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2012. This bill will reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, which has been operating under temporary extensions. We are overdue to reauthorize and expand this important agency.

The Export-Import Bank is an important tool U.S. companies can use to promote the export of American-made manufactured goods, particularly exports of small- and medium-sized manufacturers which make up the largest portion of the Export-Import Bank's transactions. The Export- Import Bank provides financing to foreign purchasers of U.S. goods when private financing is not available. That financing allows U.S. businesses to sell more U.S. goods abroad, which means we create more jobs here at home. And the reality is that many of our trading partners that compete against us in the global marketplace use aggressive export financing to advantage their companies. We need to offer the same type of support to American manufacturers so that they can compete in overseas markets on a level playing field.

Over the last 5 years the Export-Import Bank helped 148 Michigan companies export $2.7 billion worth of goods overseas, supporting and creating jobs in Michigan. Over 100 of these Michigan, companies were small businesses selling a broad range of products manufactured in Michigan, including fabricated metal products, machinery, auto parts, chemicals, wood products, paper, and food. The three top export destinations for these Michigan exports were Mexico, Turkey, and Canada.

The Export-Import Bank is self-financing and in fact contributes money to the U.S. Treasury every year. This is a win-win situation to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank and increase its authorization level at no cost to the government so that we can export more American-made goods and create and support U.S. jobs here at home.

Mr. President, I yield back.

Madam President, first, I commend my friend from Iowa for being such a phenomenal champion of preventive health care. He has been fighting for this as long as he has been in the Senate, and he has had some great victories. He has had some setbacks but mainly victories. It is because of his energy and effort that we are where we are today in terms of getting this money for preventive health care, and his continued effort to fight for it and to preserve this fund is notable. It is going to succeed. If it does, and when it does, it will be mainly because of our friend from Iowa.

Our Republican colleagues could have allowed us yesterday to begin debate on legislation to fix the looming increase in student loan interest rates. They could have helped us avoid adding to the already crushing weight of student debt that families in our country face. They could have joined us in taking a step toward letting parents do what parents desperately want to do, which is to help their kids to a better future.

American families are waiting for us to act. On July 1 the interest rate on student loans is going to increase from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. It is going to double unless we act. For every year we fail to act, it will cost the typical college student and their family $1,000. That is $1,000 that most families do not have to spare. More than 7 million students and their families nationwide would be affected. So the need to act is urgent.

Instead, in what has come to be a damaging ritual in the Senate, Republicans have filibustered a motion to proceed to important legislation. Republicans have voted against even allowing the Senate to begin to debate a bill. Why not debate it? Why not offer relevant amendments? Why not address this important issue?

No. By their filibuster, our Republican colleagues have refused to let the Senate even start this process. Republicans say they too want to prevent this increase in student loan interest rates. They differ with us, they say, on how to pay for it. Republicans say the only way they are going to support this legislation to prevent the rate increase is with cuts from a fund that helps to prevent infectious and chronic diseases.

The program Republicans seek to eliminate has provided more than $8 million to my State to help fight major health problems, such as influenza, diabetes, HIV, heart disease, and cervical cancer. These funds even helped to provide funding for childhood immunizations programs. So what the Republicans propose is this: choose between helping college students and their families and helping to prevent expensive and debilitating health problems, choose between education and health care. Choosing to allow more health problems in order to help students and their families is not a choice at all.

Democrats are offering a different alternative. We recognize the Tax Code is full of loopholes and special breaks that allow some individuals and some corporations to avoid paying taxes. In this case, what is identified is a tax break that allows some professional service providers such as lawyers to avoid paying their payroll taxes by organizing their businesses as so-called S corporations and then paying themselves in the form of dividends instead of salaries. The Government Accountability Office recently examined this issue and found widespread problems, costing taxpayers and the Treasury billions of dollars each year in uncollected revenues.

What our bill would do is require the professional service providers with incomes above $250,000 a year to pay payroll taxes on the income they derive from these S corporations. We would use the revenues from closing that loophole for those with incomes above $250,000 to prevent the interest rate hike that is going to hit middle-income families. At the same time we are going to be able to do that, we are also going to avoid increasing the deficit or slashing important programs.

Our Republican colleagues have accused us--to quote one of them--of raising taxes on ``the people that are doing some of the very serious job creation in this country.''

Well, not long ago Republicans were saying something different about this loophole. For starters, they actually called it a loophole. That is what former Vice President Cheney called it during his 2004 Vice Presidential debate.

He called it a ``special loophole.'' He accused his debate opponent of dodging $600,000 in payroll taxes using this loophole. Likewise, a Republican candidate for the Senate not long ago called this ``a deceptive tax scheme to get around the IRS.'' There were no Republican cries then about raising taxes on job creators.

The fact is this loophole ought to be closed, no matter who is taking advantage of it, Democrats or Republicans. Closing it, at least for those with incomes above $250,000, in order to avoid another blow in a long series of blows to middle-income Americans just makes sense and is fundamentally fair.

Hundreds of thousands of students in my State of Michigan depend on student loans to help afford college. They and their families know college is not going to get any cheaper. They do not need a doubled interest rate on top of tuition increases. For many an affordable loan is the difference between staying in school or giving up the dream of a college education. We should not let this loophole stand in the way of those dreams.

I urge our Republican colleagues to end their filibuster of this vital bill. If Republicans think they have a better way, let's debate their alternative and let's vote. Let's end this filibuster. Let's end it today.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I am pleased that the Senate will pass the Brian Terry Memorial Act today, and that it has the overwhelming support of my colleagues.

Agent Terry, a native of Flat Rock, MI, dedicated his life to public service and the protection of our country and its citizens. He served honorably in the U.S. Marine Corps and continued his service as a police officer with the cities of Ecorse and Lincoln Park in Michigan prior to joining the U.S. Border Patrol. He was a member of the 699th Session of the Border Patrol Academy assigned to the Naco Border Patrol Station within the Tucson Sector. Tragically, in December 2010, while on patrol 14 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border, Agent Terry was shot and killed during an armed confrontation with suspected criminals.

Agent Terry gave everything in the defense of our country. As we sit here today, thousands of agents are putting their lives on the line to secure our borders and protect our Nation. Agent Terry exemplified that courage and heroism, and we honor him today with this legislation that will designate the station of the U.S. Border Patrol located at 2136 South Naco Highway in Bisbee, AZ, as the Brian A. Terry Border Patrol Station.

I thank my colleagues for their support of this worthy tribute to Agent Terry.

Mr. President, in 1994 and again in 2000 and 2005, the Senate took a strong, bipartisan stance against acts of domestic and sexual violence that alter the lives of far too many American families and especially American women. With the passage and later reauthorizations of the Violence Against Women Act, Congress provided invaluable aid--sometimes lifesaving aid--to hundreds of thousands of Americans. There is no reason we cannot reauthorize this legislation again this year with overwhelming bipartisan support, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers of Congress to support this bill.

Since its passage, the Violence Against Women Act has provided comprehensive support to survivors of domestic and sexual violence and to the Federal, State, and local agencies that confront this scourge every day. The original legislation passed in 1994 laid a strong foundation that helped establish a coordinated response to violence against women. Reauthorizations in 2000 and 2005 strengthened that foundation. Today, through violence prevention grants, services to survivors of sexual assault, legal assistance, transitional housing grants, assistance to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors, and other efforts, VAWA has made an enormous difference.

Deaths due to violent acts by intimate partners have decreased significantly. And according to a cost-benefit analysis, VAWA saved nearly $15 billion in its first 6 years of existence by avoiding the high social costs violence against women exacts on our Nation. William T. Robinson, the president of the American Bar Association, calls VAWA ``the single most effective federal effort to respond to the epidemic of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking in this country.''

For all its successes, VAWA has not ended our responsibility to act against violence. Domestic and sexual violence remain far too common for us to abandon our efforts. And just as we have in past authorizations, the legislation before us would strengthen our ability to confront violence in new ways.

Now, some of these new efforts have become controversial. Some of our Republican colleagues have questioned provisions that extend VAWA's antidiscrimination protections. Some have questioned extending the umbrella of this Nation's protections to immigrants. And some have questioned provisions designed to protect Native American women from sexual and domestic violence. In fact, some of my colleagues have denied that these provisions are necessary, and some have criticized them as ``political.''

I certainly do not consider extending the successful protections of this legislation to all Americans as ``political.'' I consider it common sense. I consider it our duty to help these survivors get the assistance they need. I strongly support these important extensions of the act's protections, and I encourage my colleagues to support them as well.

This is not a partisan issue. I hope the Senate can, as it has in the past, send a strong bipartisan message of support to survivors of domestic or sexual violence. And I hope our colleagues in the House of Representatives will quickly take up and approve legislation that will make an enormous positive difference in the lives of so many.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, Senator McCain and I are introducing, by request, the Administration's proposed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013. As is the case with any bill that is introduced by request, we introduce this bill for the purpose of placing the administration's proposals before Congress and the public without expressing our own views on the substance of these proposals. As Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, we look forward to giving the administration's requested legislation our most careful review and thoughtful consideration.

Madam President, while the amended bill before us is far from perfect, I will vote in support. Failure to pass a bill could result in the Postal Service pursuing a misguided course of post office and facility closures. Such a dramatic course would irreparably harm the ability of the Postal Service to provide postal services and would in fact, threaten the viability of the US Postal System. While, as a whole, the USPS needs to be a rate-payer supported organization, not every post office needs to post a profit. In fact, while some post offices are too small to turn a profit, they are still an important part of the Postal System and a vital part of their community. And, based on the estimates I have seen, the projected cost-savings from the proposed closing of the 3,700 post office locations would offset but a tiny part of the USPS's current financial problems. These closures would deliver a painful blow to the communities they serve, but would reduce the Postal Service's deficit by less than 1 percent.

The bill includes an amendment that I offered with Senators Tester and Franken that requires that substantial economic savings be shown before a post office or processing facility is closed and clarifies that a proposed closure shall be suspended during appeal to the Postal Regulatory Commission, PRC. This amendment will help ensure that any post office and facility closures do not unduly impact a community's access to postal services and that any such closure is economically justified.

There is no doubt that the Postal Service has faced a decline in first class mail volume over the past few years and will need to make significant adjustments in the future. I am hopeful that the Postal Service will work with Congress as the mail system continues to transform so that postal services can be continued and to ensure that the Postal Service is able to offer new and innovative services so it can remain viable in the 21st Century.

Mr. President, we find ourselves debating yet another effort in the campaign against working men and women in this country. Over and over again in this body, and in State legislatures across the country, some have sought to undermine the ability of their constituents--dedicated teachers, electricians, assembly-line workers, and civil servants, just to name a few--to come together to bargain for fair wages and benefits. The resolution of disapproval before us is just another attempt to weaken unionized labor in this country, and I will not support it.

The representation process we are debating, which is overseen and administered by the National Labor Relations Board--NLRB--is used when a group of workers want to hold a union representation vote or when an employer wants to hold a similar vote to decertify a union.

Now let me be clear. What we are considering is a resolution that would effectively nullify a number of worthwhile rule changes intended to streamline and modernize the process for administering a union representation election. And, if adopted, it would essentially bar the NLRB from promulgating any similar rules in the future.

These changes will help cut down on needless delays that can occur at preelection hearings, eliminate the arbitrary minimum 25 day waiting period following a decision to hold an election, and will clarify the election appeals process. And, the new rules will allow for the use of modern technologies, including email and other forms of digital communication.

The NLRB proposed these amendments last summer, allowed for ample time to consider public comments, and finalized the changes this past December. These are reasonable updates meant to accommodate modern forms of communication and discourage delay tactics that can unfairly stall a representation vote for months on end. The finalized rules will help ensure that the unionization process is fair and timely for employees, employers, and unions. And despite what some of my colleagues have stated, the rules are not encouraging an ``ambush.'' They are encouraging an election. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this disapproval resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the bill before us would make some important changes to existing law. There is little doubt that change is necessary; the Postal Service faces an extraordinary financial challenge, and it must make changes to take into account a new reality in which physical mail has in many cases been replaced by electronic communication.

But in making these necessary reforms, we must ensure that all the American people can continue to rely on the United States Postal Service to provide universal service, as it has since our Nation's founding. And we must ensure that in making changes, any reduction in facilities and personnel yields real cost savings to the Postal Service that outweigh the loss in service. One of the things we can do to assure that is to require that there be a real, objective way to test and challenge Postal Service proposals to close facilities. In an effort to meet those goals, I have joined with Senators Tester and Franken and others to propose an amendment that would

make some important changes to the substitute amendment before us.

Here are some of the provisions of our amendment. Under current law, any interested party can appeal a proposed closure of a community's main post office to the PRC, the Postal Regulatory Commission. The substitute before us extends that opportunity for appeal to branches of a post office. The substitute does not, however, extend that same appeal right to postal processing facilities. While the substitute acknowledges the need for some oversight over the closure of processing facilities, it is important to provide a meaningful chance to appeal a proposed closure of a mail processing facility. Our amendment does that.

The importance of providing a meaningful appeal process was reinforced by a recent experience of mine. In February, I wrote to Postmaster General Donahoe about the decision to close six processing facilities in Michigan. In my letter, I asked four questions: How many jobs would be affected at each facility? Of those, how many would be transferred to other facilities? How far would each transferred worker have to transfer? And what were the projected cost savings or additional costs at each affected facility? It seems to me that information is crucial to making informed decisions about whether to close a facility. But when the Postal Service responded to my letter nearly 8 weeks later, the response did not answer any of these questions satisfactorily. An inability to provide that kind of basic information indicates to me that a fair opportunity to appeal is crucial.

Our amendment also clarifies that during the appeal process for post offices, branches, and processing facilities, the proposed closure shall be suspended--not just that it ``may be'' suspended, as is the case under current law. If the Postal Service can close a post office, branch or processing facility while the closure is under appeal, the appeal would be a sham.

Also, under current law and the substitute before us, the PRC has the authority to affirm a proposed closing or order that the matter be returned to the Postal Service for further consideration. Our amendment would grant the PRC the additional authority to reverse a closure decision.

Our amendment would also require that the Postal Service consider whether a proposed closing or consolidation is consistent with new retail service standards that the bill requires, and whether the proposed action achieves real and substantial cost savings. And our amendment provides that the PRC set aside Postal Service decisions to close post offices and branches that do not achieve substantial economic savings. If our goal is to help save the postal service money, surely it is important that we do not allow actions that degrade service to our communities without actually saving money.

Postal reform is among the most significant issues we will consider this year. It touches every town and village, every person and every business across our Nation. The Postal Service's universal service obligation--the obligation to ensure that all Americans have access to an affordable, efficient postal system in order to communicate with one another--is among the most important obligations any agency or department has. It sets the Postal Service apart from private-sector firms that are under no obligation to serve all markets. The Postal Service's first obligation is not profit. It is service.

Historically, the United States Postal Service has played a vital role in uniting Americans across the vast expanse of this continent, in connecting Americans far from home with their loved ones, in helping businesses reach customers across the Nation and the globe. Establishing a postal service was among the first acts of the Continental Congress, an act that predates even the Declaration of Independence. The need to establish an efficient postal system for the colonies was deemed so important that Benjamin Franklin, one of the most respected leaders not just in America, but the world, was named our first postmaster general.

I have heard from many of my constituents on this issue, as I am sure all of us have. They recognize the need to reform the Postal Service and find efficiencies so that it can continue to serve all Americans. But they also want us to do this the right way--to ensure that any changes we make, in fact, put the Postal Service on a sound financial footing, and that we carefully balance the need for savings with the need to maintain service for all people and in every community across the Nation. I believe our amendment will help us meet those goals, and I urge the bill's managers and all our colleagues to support its adoption.

Mr. President, this is a week to bear witness. Today, April 24, we mark Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day--the day on which we remind one another of the organized campaign of deportation, expropriation, starvation--and atrocity perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against its Armenian population, beginning with the detention and eventual execution of hundreds of Armenian community members on April 24, 1915, just as, a few days ago, we marked Holocaust Remembrance Day, bearing witness to the attempt by Nazi Germany to destroy Europe's Jewish population.

Why do we mark these days? Because in recognizing and condemning the horror of these acts, we affirm our own humanity, we ensure that the victims of these atrocities will not be forgotten, and we warn those who believe they can perpetrate similar crimes with impunity that they will not escape the world's notice. We remind ourselves that we must never again allow such mass assaults against human decency without acting to stop them. And we mark these atrocities because only by acknowledging the violence and inhumanity can we begin the process of reconciling populations who even today are haunted by the damage done decades ago.

The Ottoman campaign against the Armenians resulted in the deaths of over 1.5 million people. Large numbers of Armenians fled their homeland to seek safety elsewhere, including in Michigan and other communities in the United States. Some have sought to deny that these events constituted genocide, but the historical record is clear and undeniable. I ask any who deny the historical reality of the Armenian genocide to read ``Giants of the Earth,'' the moving memoir of native Detroiter Mitch Kehetian and his search for the fate of beloved family members during the tragedy.

It is important for us to remember that these atrocities were not committed by the Republic of Turkey. I hope that the governments of Turkey and Armenia, encouraged by the good will of the community of nations, can heal the divisions that remain from long-ago events that nonetheless remain painful. We should also remember that Turkey played a valuable role in supporting the international community's efforts to free Libya from dictatorship and value the role Turkey is playing today in helping to resolve the tragedy unfolding in neighboring Syria.

It is doubly tragic that the Armenian genocide is now seen as the beginning of a decades-long series of mass atrocities. The inability or unwillingness of the international community to come to the aid of the Armenians emboldened others--including Adolph Hitler, who told his commanders on the eve of the invasion of Poland, ``Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?'' And so, he launched the Holocaust, ending the lives of six million Jews simply because they were Jewish.

All people would like to believe that they live in a more enlightened age, one in which we have overcome the inhumanity of the past. And yet our own time is not immune from mass atrocity. Recent events in Libya and Syria, to name just two, remind us that violence, oppression, and disregard for human rights remain with us.

Just as mass atrocity is still with us, so are human courage and the determination to stand against atrocity. When the international community came together to support the people of Libya against the oppressive Libyan regime, we helped accomplish something important and powerful for Libyans, but beyond that, we sent a message to other dictators that they might not escape a response from the international community.

I say ``might not'' because we still have a long way to go as a world community in confronting murderous dictators. The current regime in Syria is engaged in a campaign of attack and intimidation against its own people. The examples of history make clear the international community's obligation to speak out and to take action. It is unfortunate that nations in a position to do so, such as China and Russia, have blocked the United Nations from taking stronger steps. The United States and its allies must now seek to implement additional steps to protect innocent civilians and hold the Assad regime in Syria accountable, including the possibility of establishing safe havens along the border with Turkey.

While we mark these historic crimes, it is also important to recognize signs of progress. It is significant that the United States is now taking what promises to be not just a stronger approach to mass atrocities, but a more effective one. A presidential directive signed by President Obama last August states clearly: ``Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States of America.'' And yesterday, the President announced that he will implement the recommendations resulting from a comprehensive review of U.S. policy with regard to mass atrocity.

The creation of an Atrocity Prevention Board will ensure that prevention of these human tragedies is a focus of U.S. policy, a national security interest we will pursue, bringing all appropriate elements of American policy and power to bear. Importantly, U.S. policy recognizes that military action is not our only means to prevent mass atrocity, and that every aspect of our international involvement-- intelligence, diplomacy, economic and development policy, as well as, when called for, military power--can be called upon.

We cannot prevent the madness that, even in our era, too often leads to unspeakable crimes. But we can remember. We can speak out. And we can act, with the range of instruments at our disposal, to prevent those in the forefront of such madness from acting on their inhuman schemes. May Americans never forget the genocide visited upon the Armenians we remember today. And may our collective memories always remind us of our responsibility to prevent atrocity in our own time.

Mr. President, religious institutions play an important role in communities across the Nation. They are places where families bond; they are places where culture and traditions are handed down from generation to generation; and they are places where many turn for guidance. This Saturday, April 21, marks a significant milestone for one such place of worship in Jackson, MI. On Friday evening, Temple Beth Israel will celebrate the sesquicentennial anniversary of its founding on April 21, 1862. This momentous occasion will be commemorated through a service that highlights the congregation's rich history and important place within the greater Jackson community.

Since 1862, this close-knit synagogue has been a mainstay in Jackson and has helped to preserve and instill religious values and culture from one generation to the next. Nowhere is this better portrayed than in a short vignette on Temple Beth Israel's web site, which brings to life what may seem to be routine--scores of proud families pouring out of a service laughing, smiling and bonding with one another; providing a place for members of the Jewish community to come together in fellowship to learn, to seek spiritual guidance and to celebrate important religious and life events is at the core of Temple Beth Israel's mission.

Temple Beth Israel, situated on West Michigan Avenue, is the first and only synagogue in the city of Jackson and is at the center of Jewish life there. Four stained glass windows representing the ideals the congregation holds dear--Torah, peace, justice and good deeds-- adorn the synagogue's sanctuary. Through the years, there have been abundant examples of these ideals put into action.

Temple Beth Israel is a landmark, literally. Preceding the Temple's founding was the Hebrew Benevolent Society. One of the lasting achievements of the Benevolent Society was the purchase, along with others in the community, of land for burial in 1859. Today, it stands as one of the oldest Jewish cemeteries in continuous use in Michigan and has been recognized nationally as an important landmark through its listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Notable, also, is that Temple Beth Israel served as the student pulpit for Rabbi Sally Priesand, the first female rabbi in the United States.

I extend my very best to the Temple Beth Israel community as they commemorate this wonderful milestone. Through strong spiritual leadership and an active congregation, they have etched an impressive legacy for all to see. Jackson, MI is a better place because of their work, and as they look toward the future, I am certain it is equally bright. A hearty mazel tov to Temple Beth Israel.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Vermont yield for 2 minutes?

Mr. President, what we have just witnessed is an example of why the Senate is too often tied into knots. We have a bill that is critical to every one of our States that is pending, the postal reform bill. The leader tried to move this bill forward by saying: Let's stick to amendments relevant to the bill, which is a pretty broad standard, a lot broader than a germaneness standard. Then there is an objection to that because there is another matter which the Senator from Kentucky rightfully has an interest in. We all have an interest in various matters around here, many of which are $2 billion or more in terms of cost. But that amendment by the Senator from Kentucky is not relevant to this bill, and unless, he says, he gets his way and has a 15-minute debate on a $2 billion subject, he is going to object to us addressing a subject which involves every one of our States.

This is why we have so many difficulties, at times at least, moving forward in the Senate. Because any one of us at any time can object to moving legislation that is relevant and amendments that are relevant in order to get his or her way on a totally unrelated amendment.

I asked to be yielded 2 minutes. That would be up to the Senator from Vermont.

I just wish to simply say that then what happens is that then the majority leader is forced to fill the tree. That creates problems on the other side because the tree is filled. But that is in response to an unwillingness on the part of the Senator to let us proceed on a bill which is important to every one of us with relevant amendments. So we have a response from that Senator to the determination of the majority leader to move forward with a bill that affects all of us. Objecting to a UC, the majority leader is forced to fill the tree, and we are off and running.

So for 2 days around here--for 2 days around here now--we are going to go through the same thing we go through almost every single week. We will have amendments which will be sought to be offered. We have to set aside amendments. We get to a cloture vote. We end up with a far more restrictive standard than if we were allowed to proceed with relevant amendments. We end up with a germaneness standard, a lot narrower than the relevance standard which was proposed by the majority leader.

This was a self-defeating action, I believe, in objecting to a unanimous consent proposal which would allow us to proceed with relevant amendments. It does not accomplish the aim of the Senator from Kentucky because we are not going to get to that subject, and all it does is restrict the rest of us who are trying to offer relevant amendments in the next few days. It is a real example of what the problem is around this Senate.

Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Tennessee for his constructive comments. He and I have spoken about trying to work on a relevant standard at the beginning of a bill as a way of moving a bill forward with the greatest possible leniency, without getting into totally nonrelevant subjects.

I thought his comments were constructive. I wanted to thank him for it. I hope we can continue to work together on this relevance course, which is perhaps the best way to get us out of the kind of knots that we are frequently tied in. I want to thank my friend from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, we in Michigan love hockey, at all levels, from the Detroit Red Wings of the NHL to early mornings spent at local rinks watching our kids in youth league games. But even in Michigan, at the start of the men's college hockey season last winter, few eyes were on Big Rapids, MI, where Coach Bob Daniels was preparing for his 20th season leading the Ferris State Bulldogs.

In a preseason poll, the Bulldogs were ranked ninth in the 11-team Central Collegiate Hockey Association. Ferris State had made it to the NCAA tournament only once in its history. And even in our home State, hockey teams from the larger schools tend to get more attention than the team in Big Rapids. But the players at Ferris, a campus of fewer than 15,000 students in a town of just over 10,000 residents, were determined to let neither history nor expectations get in their way. They just started winning--eight games in a row to start the season, in fact, on the way to the CCHA regular season championship, two weeks as the No. 1-ranked team in the nation, 23 victories and a berth in the NCAA tournament.

Despite a phenomenal regular season, few picked the Bulldogs to go far in the NCAA tournament. Experts pointed to the fact that the team had no players who had been drafted by the professional teams in the National Hockey League, one of only three teams in the 16-school field without an NHL draftee. Top-rated Boston College, for example, had nine. But by now, exceeding expectation was nothing new. The Bulldogs defeated the University of Denver, and then Cornell, each by a single goal, to reach the Frozen Four in Tampa.

In the national semifinals, Ferris State was locked in a tight match with Union College. The Bulldogs were behind 1 0 late in the second period when senior Aaron Schmitt scored to tie the game, and it remained tied until just under five minutes remained in the third and final period, when junior Kyle Bonis scored the go-ahead goal.

That victory set up a championship match with Boston College, the odds-on favorite for the championship. The Eagles had outscored their opponents in three previous tournament games by a combined 12 goals to 1. Again, few gave Ferris a chance. But there they were, in the waning moments of the third period, down by just a goal and battling to tie the game.

The Bulldogs fell just short. Still, it was a historic season, one that brought immense joy and considerable pride to everyone in Michigan, but especially to Big Rapids and the Ferris State family.

I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Coach Daniels, seniors Aaron Schmitt, Chad Billins, Derek Graham, Michael Trebish, Jordie Johnston, Brett Wysopal, Tommy Hill and Taylor Nelson; their teammates, Scott Czarnowczan, Travis White, Jason Binkley, Cory Kane, Travis Ouellette, TJ Schlueter, Nate Milam, Garrett Thompson, Eric Alexander, Andy Huff, Justin Demartino, Matthew Kirzinger, Justin Buzzeo, Dom Panetta, Simon Denis, Kyle Bonis, CJ Motte and Rob Granett; coaches Drew Famulak, Mark Kaufman and Dave Cencer; and Ferris State fans everywhere. Thanks to the Bulldogs for a magical season.

Mr. President, one of the unfortunate characteristics of the American economy for the last few decades has been the rising gap between upper and middle-income Americans. Increasingly, those in the upper echelons of income and wealth have seen their fortunes rise, while the vast majority of Americans have coped with stagnant income and increasing insecurity. In recent decades, most families have had to cope with a reduced ability to afford the things middle-class Americans once took for granted a comfortable home, college educations for the kids, and a secure retirement. At the same time, incomes have risen remarkably for those at the very top of the income scale. Today, by some measures, income inequality is greater in our country than at any time since just before the Great Depression.

This should worry us all. It should worry us because a way of life has become endangered. That way of life--one in which, if you work hard, play by the rules and plan for the future, you and your family will prosper came to be known as the ``American way.'' But increasingly, the American way has been replaced by one in which the very wealthy do well while everyone else struggles. Instead of all boats rising together, it is the yachts that have risen--good economy or bad--while all the other boats have been stuck in place and taking on water.

Today we have a chance to begin the work of closing that income gap between the wealthiest Americans and the middle class. We can, by adopting this motion to proceed, begin the debate on how best to address the worrisome and growing gap. But that debate cannot begin unless our colleagues on the Republican side agree to allow it to begin. I, for one, am eager to have this debate--I believe the American people want and deserve this debate. Our Republican colleagues have very different ideas about this problem, and may even deny there is a problem. But the people we represent believe this is a problem, and we should respond to their concerns.

There are some who question whether income inequality is rising. These denials melt away in the face of enormous evidence to the contrary. To deny rising income inequality is to deny plain facts. Here are a few of those facts.

As of 2008, the richest 1 percent of Americans took home almost 24 percent of total income. This is up from 10 percent in 1980. Half of all income in the United States went to the top 10 percent of Americans. And, the vast majority of Americans, the bottom 80 percent, received less than a quarter of total income in the United States.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report last year on changes in income distribution since 1979. CBO's researchers found that over that period, after-tax income ``for households at the higher end of the income scale rose much more rapidly than income for households in the middle and at the lower end of the income scale.'' CBO found that for the wealthiest one percent of Americans, real after- tax income grew by 275 percent. Those in the next 19 percent--that is, the top 20 percent minus the one percent at the very top--saw after-tax income growth of 65 percent. And for the 60 percent of Americans in the middle of the income scale, between the top and bottom 20 percent, after-tax income grew by just 40 percent. So, income for the top 1 percent of Americans grew at a rate nearly seven times greater than growth in middle-class incomes.

There are two striking things about CBO's findings. The first is that the biggest driver of growing inequality is the growing gap between those at the very top of the scale and everyone else. Even those in the top 20 percent of incomes--those doing very well by anyone's standards--have fallen behind the top 1 percent.

The second striking finding is what CBO found about the effects of federal tax and transfer policy. In fact, CBO reported that while the rise in inequality stems from a number of factors, one significant contributor is federal policies--including the decisions we all make here in this Congress. For instance, CBO said that the rise in after- tax income for the top 1 percent may come in part from tax changes we made in 1986. Those changes lowered the top personal income tax rate below the top corporate tax rate, encouraging many wealthy Americans to reclassify corporate income as personal income to qualify for the lower rate.

More worrisome is the fact that CBO found that federal tax policy has actually made inequality worse. Inequality of after-tax income is higher than inequality of pre-tax income. In part, that is because our tax system has shifted away from income taxes--which are progressive, asking the wealthier to pay a higher rate--to payroll taxes, a burden that falls on all income-earners regardless of how wealthy. These are the kinds of changes that have led to billionaire investors and hedge- fund managers paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries.

One way that government could fight this rising gap is with transfer payments--benefits paid by government to the less wealthy to try to counteract difference in income. Some, including some of our Republican colleagues, have made the case that transfer payments are growing larger, or that government policy is making people increasingly dependent on government handouts. The CBO report answers this argument. CBO found: ``The amount of government transfer payments--including federal, state, and local transfers--relative to household market income was relatively constant from 1979 through 2007, ranging between 10 percent and 12 percent with no discernible trend.'' So, while there has been a rising gap in pre-tax income since 1979, and government tax policy has widened that gap, federal transfer payments have done nothing to balance it.

These facts are telling. But we should not forget that behind all these numbers, all these facts and figures, are real people--and most of those people are struggling to get by. They should be uppermost in our minds.

The rise in inequality is not the result of a single factor, and it did not happen overnight. So we will not reverse it overnight. It will take sustained effort. That effort starts with acknowledging that there is a problem, and I hope our Republican colleagues will avoid the denialism that is all too

prevalent on this issue. But if we can first acknowledge the problem, we then can do something about it, beginning with this vote today.

The proposal before us simply says that those at the very top of the income ladder, those making more than $1 million a year, will, at a minimum, pay a federal income tax rate of 30 percent on their income above $1 million. Most Americans consider that simple common sense. The fact that wealthy corporate executives pay a lower tax rate than construction workers or waitresses or teachers or police officers is fundamentally unfair. And at a time when budgets are extraordinarily tight, and getting tighter, it makes no sense for government to subsidize, through tax policy, the growing income gap between the top few and ordinary Americans.

This bill will not solve all our problems. Even if it passes, there will be much more work to do--especially because this problem is, through tax policy in particular, a problem Congress has helped to create. But that work must start somewhere. The debate must begin--and it will begin, if we vote to let it begin. I hope we will begin that debate today.