Floor Statements

First, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 4 minutes, the Senator from Rhode Island be given 6 minutes to conclude, and we vote immediately thereafter.

First, I would just like to make one preliminary comment, and then I would like to address what my colleague from Alaska has said and this bill.

Fiscal Policy

On another issue, I just heard that Vice President Cheney came to address the Republican caucus on our fiscal cliff. I would suggest that the man who said deficits do not matter is not a very good teacher for the Republican caucus when it comes to deficit reduction and the fiscal cliff. They could get better teachers than that.

As for this issue, first, I wish to thank my colleague from Alaska for her heartfelt comments. She is what we need, somebody who cares about this issue, somebody who has great reach across the aisle, and somebody who is willing to work with us.

It is true, it is obvious we will not have the votes to win the DISCLOSE Act. It is simple disclosure. We tried to make it--under the leadership of Senator Whitehouse; I will address that in 1 minute--we tried to make it as narrow as possible. We tried to deal with all the objections we heard about labor unions and others. That is why there is a $10,000 amount--far beyond the labor union dues of any union I am aware of. We tried to make it as down the middle as possible for simple disclosure.

But I understand where my colleague from Alaska is coming from. I respect it, and I look forward to working with her. She might be the bridge we need because, mark my words, if we do not do something about this, we will not have the Republic we know in 5 years. It is that simple. This great country we all love has been dramatically changed by Citizens United. The failure to correct its huge deficiencies, to have such a small number of people have such a huge influence on our body politic--we have never seen it before. Oh, yes, we have read about our history, and we know there were small groups that were powerful in the past, the robber barons, et cetera. But never, never, never have a handful of people had such awesome tools to influence our political system in a way they choose without any accountability--never.

The robber barons were more accountable and more diffuse. The small group that led America, supposedly, in the 1920s was more accountable and more diffuse. The military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned about was far broader and more diffuse. To have a small number of people--most of them angry people, most of them people who do not even give any attention to someone who does not agree with them--to give them such awesome power, which is the power to run negative political ads over and over and have no accountability as to who is running them, that is a true danger to the Republic.

It befuddles me that our U.S. Supreme Court does not see it. We want our courts to be insulated from the vicissitudes of politics. But to have a Court that is so insulated that it does not see, smell, hear, touch what is going on in this Republic does not speak well of that Court. I think it is the main reason its popularity has declined. I hope our Justices will wake and realize what they are doing.

I would say again--first, I wish to thank Senator Whitehouse. He has been a great leader on this issue. I wish to thank all my colleagues. We have been debating this bill for 10 hours--more than 10 hours, I believe--and there has not been one quorum call, which means there has been speaking time from about 6 last night until 1 in the morning----

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, the most astounding fact that has emerged since the Citizens United decision is that just 17 people have given over half the money to the Republican super PAC. There is very little disclosure, and there are huge amounts of money cascading in from a small few.

My colleagues, whether one is a Democrat or a Republican, we have to admit this is corrosive to our democracy. This gets further away from the idea that each of us has an equal say than anything that has been done in the last 100 years.

I hope my colleagues will join us in this modest measure, which doesn't even limit how much people can give but simply says they have to disclose; they have to tell they are giving. When ads are disclosed, they are less vicious and there is some semblance of truth that has to float around them.

I urge my colleagues, for the good of this country, the sake of our future, to support this modest, truly modest, piece of legislation.

Mr. President, first, I wish to thank all my colleagues who have been so diligent, hardworking, and prescient on this issue. Of course, Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island, the leader of our task force, led us to this point. Senator Merkley has been very active and involved, as have you, Mr. President, as well as Senator Shaheen and Senator Bennet. There have been so many people on the task force who did a very good job, including Senator Udall and so many of our colleagues.

The fact that we have been on the Senate floor now for close to 5 hours and there hasn't been a moment's pause says something. It talks about the broad support that this modest but powerful act has on our side of the aisle. The fact that no one, unfortunately, on the other side of the aisle has come to debate this issue says something as well. The only debate, in fact, we heard was the Republican leader in a brief speech that was almost 1984ish. His reason we shouldn't disclose is that people who give would be harassed.

If we go by that, we should probably have everything be in secret because, of course, in an open democracy, when we do things in the political arena, we are subject to criticism. That is what freedom is about. To come up with this inside-out argument that we shouldn't disclose because people might be criticized for the contributions they make or the ads they fund is the most antidemocratic, anti-U.S. Constitution argument I have heard. It just doesn't even pass the laugh test. I am surprised. My colleague is one of the most brilliant political minds we have around here. Even when I disagree with him, I respect his mind. But this argument is--to say sophistry is kind. I don't think it is going to catch on with people.

Anyway, we have had very few comments, other than that made by colleagues on the other side of the aisle tonight, and that is truly unfortunate. We should have a debate on this issue, but I have a feeling most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle realize by their previous statements, by the previous position of the Republican Party, and by knowing them, we are right.

Disclosing contributions is only fair and only right and American and in keeping with our democracy and our Constitution. I think the reason so few people have shown--or no people on the other side have shown is that the reason they are not supporting us is not out of conviction but out of short-term political advantage. Obviously, the super PACs, large multimillion dollar contributions are coming mostly from the other side and may indeed benefit them in the election. In the long run, it is bad for our democracy. In the long run, it is bad for the Republican Party to shy away from not only debating this issue but supporting this bill because the issue of disclosure is so simple, so easy, and so right. The issue of disclosure is one that is now wracking the Presidential campaign. You can run, but you can't hide. The argument of disclosure will, in a sense, chase you down and beat you so you may as well join in now and do the right thing.

I would like to make a point. The two top advertisers in this election cycle are predictably the two candidates' campaign. What is the third just after the Obama campaign and the Romney campaign? It is something called Crossroads GPS. In the last week alone, Crossroads GPS announced almost $25 million in advertising against the President and the Senators. The group, Crossroads GPS, has a name, and it doesn't mean much. They don't have to disclose a single one of their donors. In fact, reports indicate that Crossroads GPS raised $77 million in its first 2 years of existence, and 90 percent of that came from, at most, 24 donors. That is an average of $2.9 million per donor.

So far in this election cycle, as of May 31, super PACs have spent $135.6 million in an election year. Twenty percent comes from 501(c)(4) organizations, ``social welfare organizations'' that don't have to declare their donors at all thanks to the decision in Citizens United. Many of the donors behind the other 80 percent of super PACs could also be anonymous. That is because people can donate to the 501(c)(4)s that require no disclosure and then the 501(c)(4)s can donate to the 527s which requires some disclosure. The level of disclosure under our present law isn't just inadequate, it is laughable. The voters deserve to know the truth, ugly or not, of who is behind the super PACs. If the wealthy special interests want to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in our government, then they should pay their fair share of taxes rather than fund candidates who will give them special tax breaks paid for by middle-class Americans.

Yet because of the flawed Citizens United ruling, the corporations that can't vote in our elections are trying to buy the electoral outcomes that benefit them, and it is all in secret. Our solution is simple: The DISCLOSE Act simply restores transparency and accountability. There are many of us who would limit what people can give and how they can give it.

I believe, frankly, that Buckley v. Valeo is not as bad a decision as Citizens United, but it is a bad decision. I introduced legislation, a constitutional amendment, to undo it years ago. Two years ago, I joined my colleague from New Mexico who had spearheaded this drive in the House to support his legislation.

I believe there ought to be limits because the first amendment is not absolute. No amendment is absolute. A person can't scream ``fire'' falsely in a crowded theater. We have libel laws. We have antipornography laws. All of those are limits on the first amendment. What could be more important than the wellspring of our democracy? Certain limits on first amendment rights that if left unfettered, destroy the equality--any semblance of equality in our democracy of course would be allowed by the Constitution. The new theorists on the Supreme Court who don't believe that, I am not sure where their motivation comes from, but they are so wrong. They are so wrong.

I hope we are going to move to change this law. I hope we are going to pass first this DISCLOSE Act and then the broader bill that has been introduced, which also has disclaim. I hope eventually we will find a Supreme Court that allows reasonable limits on campaign contributions. That is so important for the future.

I have to tell the Chair I am an optimist, and I love this country. We had our DSCC retreat this weekend, and we heard stories about people who had risen from poverty to now run for the U.S. Senate after having careers of great accomplishment. I am not going to name specific individuals, but you heard them. They were moving. It is what America is all about, being there. It made me so proud to be an American. Most of our families are examples

of this. My father was an exterminator. He didn't go to college. I am here. What a place.

Despite my love for this country and my fervent belief in its future, the thing that worries me most is the effects of the Citizens United case. To have 17 people contribute half of the money to Republican super PACs and to have the vast majority of that money undisclosed is frightening.

I know maybe our Supreme Court Justices do think in absolute terms. After all, this is the first amendment. But I am sure of one thing: None of them have run for office. They have no idea of the power of these negative undisclosed ads, the corrosive effect it has on our democracy, and the influence that those who offer these ads have. It makes me worry about the future of this country if we continue along this path. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court seems to have very little doubt based on the Montana case where they even refused to hear it. We have to worry about the fundamental fairness of how our system functions.

We are not a pure democracy. We are a Republic, if we can keep it, and a Republic says there ought to be some intermediation. There is an understanding in a Republic that the Founding Fathers were very much aware of it. I guess Alexander Hamilton, my fellow New Yorker, leading this part of it, that those who have achieved success in America deserve some influence--maybe a little more influence than others--they believed that; that is how our Republic is set up.

The pendulum has swung so far that I truly, for the first time in my life, worry about the future of this democracy. If a small group of people can control the entire political process through the powerful vehicle of undisclosed ads shown on television time and time again. If when people run for office they are afraid to offend those who have great wealth or power because these ads may be run against them, it presents one of the greatest dangers to this democracy that we have had in over 200 years.

Maybe one of those nine--particularly one of those five--on the Supreme Court are watching so they have some understanding of the damage this decision is doing to our democracy. Do they understand that when they write: We are not against disclosure, and that as long as Citizens United continues to exist it is almost a catch-22--the way our political structure works, the heavy money that comes in on the other side--and then not a single Republican, even many of those who probably agree with us in their hearts are willing to vote even for disclosure-- means we will never get it and it is an empty promise. Do they understand the so-called independence of independent expenditures has become a joke, that the very underpinnings of their decision in Citizens United does not square at all with reality? Do they understand what every 1 of the 100 of us here and the 435 Members of the House on the other side and Presidential candidates are living with? Do they have any understanding of that?

So here we are. What else can we do? We are here late at night desperately trying to either persuade our colleagues whose self- interests mitigate against them joining us to persuade the people-- although the issue of campaign finance is often an abstract one at a time when people are so busy working hard paying the bills, raising their families, and experiencing the vicissitudes that life and that God gives and visits on each and every one of us. In fact, maybe one of the Justices on the Supreme Court is sort of living in a fantasy world as their decisions undo the very democracy they are supposed to preserve.

We are trying. That is all we can do. The one thing I want to assure my colleagues of on both sides of the aisle, the American people, and everybody else who is involved in this issue is we are not going to stop trying until we succeed.

Dr. King, one of the great men of America, said that ``the arc of history is long, but it bends in the direction of justice.'' He was talking about justice for people of color. There also has to be a justice for average folks who can't reach into their checkbooks and spend $1 million on an ad, undisclosed, that excoriates, often unfairly, someone they disagree with. They need justice too, those average folks. They are not going to get it until this simple measure, and others that are stronger than it, start succeeding.

We are going to keep at it. We are not going to stop until we succeed. Under the leadership of many who are here tonight sitting in this Chamber, we will keep working and working and working until our government is truly one of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, before I get into the substance of my remarks, I heard the concluding remarks of my colleague, Senator Rubio, talking about ideas and education and small business growth.

I agree with his basic concept that we are still the greatest country in the world, that we encourage entrepreneurs and people with great ideas, that education means a great deal to making that happen; that no other country inspires young people, middle-aged people, even older people to start new businesses. I hope it means he is going to vote for the proposal that is now before us. Because what this proposal does is take that young person within walking distance of Washington, DC, who has a great idea and, once they start a business, allows them to get that business to move more quickly. There are lots of those businesses, and probably some within Washington, DC, as well. So I hope my colleague from Florida will vote for our Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act.

The proposal will spur economic growth. It will create nearly 1 million new jobs in this country. If my Republican colleagues care about small business in America, they would work with us to pass this commonsense bill immediately instead of playing procedural games that are thinly veiled attempts to block these tax cuts that spur hiring. The bill is based on bipartisan ideas that have traditionally enjoyed Republican support, yet they are obstructing their passage. Why are our Republican colleagues changing their tune? The only explanation is that Republicans continue to block proposals that will help create jobs and spur our economic recovery for their own political gain.

This is a simple proposal. It is a smart proposal. It is a tax cut proposal. In my home State of New York, small businesses from Cattaraugus to Clinton County are poised to grow and make the jump to the next level. These business owners know the economy is slowly turning a corner, but we are not there yet to full unthrottled growth, so they are looking for Congress to do more--not less--to spur hiring.

This initiative is aimed at the small businesses that are truly the lifeblood of our Nation, and we need to help them jumpstart expansion plans this year. There is simply no time to waste.

There is a business in Cortland, NY, central New York, called Precision Eforming. It is a great small business that would use this tax cut to buy a new piece of equipment called a Dipcoater to help the company create high-end acoustics such as hearing aids. With the Dipcoater, Precision Eforming will increase yield and need to hire new employees.

There are stories like this throughout my State. Napoleon Engineering Services, a new ball-bearing plant in Olean, hopes to hire more employees and will purchase new equipment for its growing business. Quinlan's Pharmacy and Medical Supply in Livingston County wants to add an additional location in Schuyler County. In Staten Island, the owner of a small restaurant chain recently told me this proposal could help him expand to additional locations.

Simply put, this bill makes equipment purchases and capital improvements for thousands of small businesses cheaper, and, by doing that, provides a real jolt to the economy. In fact, it is estimated that every $1 of tax cuts devoted to writing off the cost of a business's purchases generates about $9 of GDP growth. Let me repeat that. One dollar of tax cuts devoted to writing off the cost of a business's purchases generates nine times that in GDP growth. Why wouldn't we do it? Economists of every stripe will tell you that hiring incentives like the ones in this bill are the best ways to kick-start an economy and get people back to work. Why wouldn't we do it?

In fact, a new nonpartisan analysis of the proposal before us has determined it will create nearly 1 million jobs this year. Look at your State: 22,000 in Washington State, 10,000 in Nebraska, 11,000 in Iowa, 40,000 in Pennsylvania, 63,000 in my home State of New York, 77,000 in Texas. Huge numbers of new jobs will be created by this proposal. Why won't our colleagues move forward on it?

It is estimated that 93,000 jobs will be added to the construction industry, 61,000 new jobs added to manufacturing. The report concludes that the proposal's impact would be felt across every State and in a range of industries, with a significant jump in employment in construction and manufacturing. The proposal is targeted toward the mom-and-pop Main Street businesses that will benefit most from this relief.

You want to talk about job creators? You want to help job creators? Well, these small business owners are real job creators and they are the ones who make this country run. They come in early, they stay late, they work hard, and they deserve a tax break.

Here lies an important contrast between what we are proposing and a different tax cut proposal that the House Republicans have passed. The House Republican proposal is neither focused on true small business nor does it make the tax cut dependent on a company doing any hiring at all. Our proposal rewards actual job creation by true small businesses, rather than giving more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires who may not create a single job. They have profits; they get a cut in their taxes for their profits even if they fire people. Does that

make any sense? Our bill's commonsense measures have had broad bipartisan support. There is no reason Democrats and Republicans alike should not support them now. The relief in this bill would be a grand slam for our economy as a whole. It puts more people to work, expedites the expansion of successful small bills throughout the country, expands businesses to new communities, and keeps money flowing through local economies. For too many business owners, this relief simply cannot wait. Let's get this bill to the President's desk and get our business owners started on the developments that will propel them into the next decade.

Once we pass this bill, we must work together to give certainty to American families that they will not see a mass tax hike at the end of the year. We should all agree our small businesses deserve tax cuts and a Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act that will help them hire workers. We should all agree no middle-class families should face a tax increase at the end of the year. Let's take care of our areas of agreement and then we can turn to debate on whether our country can afford to give more tax breaks to the wealthiest 2 percent.

I yield the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a bill that would bring a statue depicting Fredrick Douglass to our Nation's Capitol. The life and deeds of this great American need no introduction. He escaped the shackles of slavery to become a leading writer, orator, publisher, and a leader in the abolitionist struggle towards equality for all. I am proud that Fredrick Douglass called Rochester, NY home for 25 years. But others claim him as well. He was born into slavery in Maryland, and lived as a free adult in Massachusetts and, at the end of his life, in Washington, DC. He died here in the Nation's Capitol and is buried in upstate New York. During his time in Rochester, he published the leading African American newspaper in the country. His influential best-selling autobiography, ``Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass,'' served as a rallying cry for the abolitionist movement and helped bring an end to that cruel institution. It is therefore fitting that this Fredrick Douglass statue should find its home in the Capitol.

The addition of this statue of Frederick Douglass to our Capitol is long overdue. It is important that the Americans depicted in portraiture and in sculpture in the Capitol reflect the true heritage of our nation and the people who have helped to make it great. Today too few of our artworks depict the richness and diversity of great Americans. In fact, of more than 180 statues and busts in the Capitol, only two are of African Americans. This resolution is a small step toward correcting that imbalance. The acceptance of this Fredrick Douglass statue into our Capitol is appropriate both because of who Fredrick Douglass was as an American and because of who we all are as Americans.

Mr. President, I wish to inform all Senators that on Friday, May 25, 2012, the Committee on Rules and Administration adopted amendments to the following regulations:

Senate Office Building Regulations; and

Smoking Policy--Rules X, Rules for Regulation of Senate

Wing.

These regulations as amended are effective immediately.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the regulations as amended be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I rise in support of the words of the majority leader and the majority whip. Many of us have been frustrated lately by the glacial pace of activity in the House of Representatives. The Senate is supposed to be the cooling saucer, but, these days, the House is where jobs bills and other important measures go to die.

They are dragging out negotiations on a highway bill that would put millions to work. They refuse to even allow a conference on a bipartisan Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, even though the Senate produced a bill with 68 votes. They have refused to act at all on a bipartisan bill that cracks down on China's unfair currency practices--something which their own party's nominee for President claims to support.

Why the stalling? Well, we got our answer in the pages of Politico 2 days ago.

Eric Cantor, who controls the floor schedule in the House, has decided to forgo legislating in favor of politicking full time.

Despite all the major challenges this Congress faces--despite the crisis of confidence that may hit our markets in the fall due to uncertainty over the looming fiscal cliff--Eric Cantor has declared a moratorium on any serious legislating until after the fall elections.

The House of Representatives is like a computer that has been turned on sleep mode, and it does not plan to be rebooted until after November.

This is a breathtaking admission by the No. 2 Republican in the House. I would not be surprised if Leader Cantor wishes he could take his statement back. It contradicts the rhetoric from many on his own side.

Just last month, in a speech at the Peterson Institute, the Speaker of the House made a great show of calling on the administration and Congress to tackle tax cuts and the debt ceiling now--before the election. Here is what Speaker Boehner said:

It's about time we roll up our sleeves and get to work.

Unfortunately, Leader Cantor's comments seem to reflect House Republicans' true intentions more so than Speaker Boehner's quote. And that is a terrible shame. Leader Cantor and the House Republicans are shrinking from a potentially historic moment.

I have a message for Leader Cantor: You may have abandoned any intention to legislate this year, but we will not bow to election-year politics here in the Senate. The Nation needs us, and we have too much to do.

All around this Chamber, there are green shoots of bipartisan activity. In the last 2 months alone, we have overhauled the postal system, approved a multiyear transportation program, renewed the Violence Against Women Act, streamlined drug approval rules at the FDA, renewed the Export-Import Bank, and passed a bill to help business startups. We have confirmed 20 judges and put the Federal Reserve Board at full strength for the first time in 6 years. And just this morning, we moved to proceed to a farm bill--the first overhaul of agriculture in 5 years--by an overwhelming 90-to-8 vote.

Every one of the issues I mentioned had broad bipartisan support. Each would not have been accomplished without bipartisan support. These are items, certainly, that are not the same as the big challenges that await us on taxes and spending, but they are not trivial. They are not post office namings either. They are real accomplishments.

``The Senate is on something of a roll,'' the New York Times recently reported. These accomplishments could very well prove to be the building blocks for bipartisan compromise on the bigger issues that await our Nation. So the House may already have entered election mode, but, I daresay, the Senate may be starting to gel at just the right time.

In the Senate there is a hunger to legislate. Republicans and Democrats alike in this Chamber sense our Nation is at a crossroads, and their first instinct is not to pause to contemplate its political implications, but to get things done. For this, I must salute the growing number of my colleagues across the aisle who are seeking to work across the aisle.

Even as the loudest voices on the Republican side cite the President's defeat as their No. 1 goal, I believe there is a silent majority within the Republican Caucus that yearns to come together and address the Nation's problems, free of partisan politics.

Even after the extreme elements in their own party have claimed two of the most esteemed Members of this body--one by retirement; one in a contentious primary--a silent majority of brave Republicans still dares to believe that compromise is a virtue, not a vice.

My colleague from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, is a Senator I admire. He has taken the lead in bringing Members together to tackle the big issues that await us at the end of this calendar year.

I was at a briefing this week organized by Senator Alexander, a Republican, and Senator Warner, a Democrat. Believe me, no one in that room thinks, as Leader Cantor apparently does, that these issues should be put off till the election. The conversations were quite preliminary, for sure, but the motivations of all the Senators who attended were pure.

Senator Coburn is another brave Republican. I may disagree with Tom Coburn on most issues, and even on many of his tactics, but I admire the courage he displays on a daily basis by standing up to even the most powerful special interests in his party. He does not talk the talk about bucking his party's orthodoxy on revenues. He walks the walk. Just this morning, I watched him on one of the morning news programs making great sense about the need for both parties to show leadership in confronting the big issues. He also made a point of saying that, unlike Leader Cantor, he does not believe these issues should wait till the election.

My colleague from South Carolina, Senator Graham, is another such brave Republican. We have our differences on many issues, but he is a statesman, plain and simple. He has been quite vocal on his wish to overturn the defense cuts in the sequester. But while others in his party propose to replace these cuts on entirely their own terms, Senator Graham has bravely signaled an openness to make the tradeoffs needed to help bridge the partisan divide. Asked by the New York Times recently about the potential for tapping revenues to replace some of the sequester cuts, Senator Graham bravely bucked his party's orthodoxy. ``I have crossed the Rubicon on that [one],'' he said. Be assured, Senator Graham is someone we can negotiate with.

Senators Alexander, Coburn, and Graham are not alone. There are others who realize the need to act in a bipartisan fashion.

Senator Alexander's colleague from Tennessee, Senator Corker, recently called out his own party for famously rejecting a deal, a hypothetical deficit deal with a 10-to-1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases.

Senators Isakson and Collins said in the same Politico article that they, too, would be open to supporting a grand bargain that includes revenues as well as spending cuts.

And my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, is featured in the pages of Roll Call today for his Herculean efforts to get House Republicans to be reasonable on a long-term highway bill, along with his colleague and our friend Senator Boxer.

I suggest that the House majority leader reconsider his remarks to Politico and take a page from the book of these brave Republicans. The House may be in an all-politics mode, but the Senate is not done legislating--not by a long shot. And let's be honest: If a solution to these big issues is at all possible in the lameduck, or maybe even before the election, it is not going to come from the House. It is going to come out of the Senate.

So I suggest to Leader Cantor, Washington does not need an election to bridge our differences. It needs the Senate.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I am speaking on the majority's time.

No. I am speaking on the McCain amendment.

Mr. President, I am going to speak for a brief moment on the amendment No. 2146 and then on a different issue, which is the reaction of some to the proposal Senator Casey and I made about Eduardo Saverin and others who renounced their citizenship for tax purposes.

First, on 2146. I am glad this amendment has now finally passed the Senate. It places synthetic drugs on schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act as totally banned substances, which are where they belong.

These synthetic substances are also known as bath salts or, in the case of synthetic marijuana, Spice incense. Synthetic drugs aren't sold on street corners by slingers who keep hidden stashes; instead, these drugs are legal--even though they are dangerous--and can be found in local corner stores across the country. They are as easy to buy as a lollipop or a carton of milk but far more dangerous, even more dangerous than the common illegal drug on which they are based.

By passing this amendment, we finally get these poisonous drugs off our shelves and keep our Nation's youth out of emergency rooms.

I wish to thank Senators Klobuchar and Grassley for working with me on this amendment, as well as Chairman Harkin and Senator Enzi, Chairman Leahy, Senator Grassley, and Senator Feinstein for their leadership, and I want to thank Senator Harkin and Enzi particularly for getting us in this package and Senator Portman for working with us on this amendment.

Eduardo Saverin

On the issue of Eduardo Saverin, last week, Senator Casey and I introduced the Ex-Patriot Act. It is a bill that makes sure that people that renounce their citizenship for tax purposes do not escape what they owe and cannot come back without repaying all that they avoided paying this great country.

It is a modest proposal, made in response to the regrettable effort by a person named Eduardo Saverin, who renounced his American citizenship to avoid paying even the historically low level of 15 percent on capital gains for the several billion dollars in windfall profit he is set to receive from the Facebook IPO.

Mr. Saverin is no longer involved in the day-to-day running of the company, and it bears mentioning that the current, active leadership of Facebook is comprised of responsible corporate citizens who meet all of their responsibilities and obligations.

Mr. Saverin, on the other hand, has chosen to disown the United States to save some money on his taxes.

Senator Casey and I have proposed a response. Our bill would bar Saverin--and others like him--from reentering the country. It would also re-impose taxes on investment income earned in the United States even if an expatriate is living abroad.

I believe that the vast majority of Americans, of all parties and persuasions, think that renouncing citizenship in America to avoid taxes is troubling, unwarranted and ungrateful.

It is upsetting, to say the least, when a person who has benefitted so thoroughly from being an American--a person who accessed and enjoyed so many exceptional aspects of American society--just takes the money and runs, rather than doing the right thing and repaying the debt he owes to a nation that nurtured, facilitated and cheered his success.

And I think that the vast majority of Americans are receptive to suggestions for how we can address this kind of unacceptable behavior.

Look, nobody enjoys paying taxes, but Americans know that we would not have a functioning society without them. We argue and debate about the proper rates, and what is fair, and what level will sustain and grow our economy and our middle class.

But I think that most Americans agree that paying a mere 15 percent in capital gains taxes on a sum of $3 billion or $4 billion is not too much to ask a person, especially a person who fled

their own homeland because their native society could not provide a reasonable level of security to their family.

While the real point here is not just about this one case--our bill addresses a small group of evaders over the last decade or so--it is worth pointing out that in this particular case the Saverin family found security here thanks to taxpayer funded cops and stability thanks to a taxpayer funded military, and a world-class university system, like that at Harvard--again underpinned by public support.

And they also found an expansive middle class that would become the market for his product. And a dynamic, entrepreneurial, free market economy that allows for significant accumulation of wealth. And functioning capital markets that were recently saved from the brink of catastrophic collapse through who? The American taxpayer.

And they found a government that invests in research and development, in things like creating the internet, and the web, and GPS, and microprocessors, all of which are necessary precursors to what Saverin and his cohorts created via Facebook.

And let's not forget, a non-corrupt legal system, which decided a case in his favor that made him a billionaire.

Yes, Eduardo Saverin did well by being in America.

And I think that most Americans know full well that what he accomplished was not done in a vacuum and that his success is the also the outgrowth of his participation in an extraordinary American society--a society that we collectively support.

No one gets rich in America on their own. And when people do well in America, they should do well by America.

I believe the vast majority of Americans believe this, too. So when I introduced our legislation I was sure it would garner wide and deep support, and in general, it has.

That is why it is baffling that extreme right wing Republicans, people like Grover Norquist, the de-facto leader of the Republican Party on tax matters, would rush to the defense of a man who is turning his back on America by dodging taxes.

Amazingly, the extreme right-wing echo chamber has made Saverin into a cause celebre, defending his decision to disown the country as somehow ``heroic''--Their words, not mine.

I was amazed. Just amazed. I took it as a given that citizenship--and all that it implies in terms of loyalty and duty to America--was axiomatic.

But that is no longer the case. Here is just some of what was said.

Forbes said that ``For De-Friending The U.S., Facebook's Eduardo Saverin Is An American Hero.'' An American hero? Renouncing your citizenship now qualifies as heroic for the hard right wing? George Washington was heroic. Rosa Parks was heroic. John McCain and Gabby Giffords are heroic. Navy SEALS are heroic. Eduardo Saverin is not.

National Review's Mario Loyola says, ``It is the foolish and counter- productive tax policies of the left that are chasing Eduardo Saverin to another country. . . .'' I'm sorry. 15 percent capital gains rate on several billion dollars is so onerous that it is chasing him away? I am sure any American worker would love to have that rate.

And if 15 percent is too high, what does Mr. Loyola or Mr. Norquist think the proper capital gains rate should be? Do they think we should have even lower taxes on capital gains, which disproportionately goes to the highest income earners?

What is the proper capital gains rate, Mr. Norquist? Should we make it 10 percent? 5 percent? Or should it be zero?

They won't say. Because if they did, they would be laughed out of town.

The Wall Street Journal says we are ``oppressive and demagogic.''

No. In America, You are free to leave. But if you leave to purposely avoid paying your fair share, then we will attach a consequence to that dodge.

Right wing blog after blog--from the American Thinker to the Daily Caller--echoes that, ``punishing Saverin for tax dodging is un- American.''

Really? Silly me. I thought that renouncing one's citizenship was un- American.

While on right wing radio they ask:

If it's a more favorable tax haven than you can find

elsewhere, why is it automatic that you are unpatriotic? Why

is it automatic that you are a coward?

Because, my fellow Americans, when you renounce your nation to fatten your bank account, you are--by definition--being greedy and unpatriotic.

Grover Norquist: says our bill is like fascist Nazi Germany or apartheid South Africa or communist Soviet Union, while in American Thinker we of erecting a ``Berlin Wall.'' And In the Examiner they are accused say we are ``totalitarian.''

The comparisons are absurd on their face and burden on the odious.

The law Mr. Norquist references in Nazi Germany was purely; discriminatory. It targeted a particular race of people--the Jewish people--and--punished them for nothing other than being Jewish and exercising freedom of movement. It was meant to constrain that freedom by forcing Jews to reside inside Germany.

Our proposal targets no single race, creed or class. It doesn't punish you for factors beyond your control, like who your parents were. It applies based on actions you take--namely, disowning the United States to avoid taxes. Our law is not triggered by a wish to travel beyond America's borders, or even reside permanently in a foreign country. It is the act of renouncing one's U.S. citizenship--for the purpose of avoiding taxes--that triggers our bill.

Another right wing opinion piece asks: ``If you leave to protest heavy taxation why must you pay a penalty?''

I am sorry, gentlemen, but Mr. Saverin is not protesting anything If he was protesting, he would stay here, and fight for a lower tax rate-- not simply exempt himself and leave others like him to continue paying a rate he considers too high. What he is doing is free-riding on America, dodging paying his fair share, and pocketing the billions from an IPO windfall.

Yet another right wing blog says we are engaged in ``class warfare to vilify people that create wealth-just like the Nazi's did with the Jews.''--I know a thing or two about what Nazi's did--some of my relatives were killed by them--and saying that a person who made their fortune specifically because of the positive elements of American society, in turn, has a responsibility to do right by America is not even on the same planet as comparing to what the Nazis did to the Jews. That comparison is odious, but it is in a bunch of these right-wing blogs.

On and on it goes. The whole torrent of vitriol is absurd. Just absurd.

Mr. Saverin is, in essence, an economic tax dodger.

And once upon a time, the right wing castigated draft dodgers for failing to heed their nation's call. Those who fled the country were vilified by the right wing as cowards, as self-absorbed, as traitors.

Yet, in this case, the exact same kind of unpatriotic, un-American behavior is actually being defended by the extreme right wing.

It is off the deep end.

And when a view this irrational has overtaken one end of the political spectrum, it has serious, negative consequences for our ability to solve our nation's problems.

If those on the other side of the negotiating table are this obsessive on taxes--that they consider their minimization a higher priority than preserving our national identity--then it is no wonder a grand bargain on taxes and spending has been so out of reach.

In the last several years, the far right has disregarded one historically conservative priority after another in favor of an all- consuming obsession with protecting low tax rates for the wealthiest Americans.

First, it was the deficit. The Republicans have for years claimed that deficit reduction was their top priority. But that has since been exposed as a myth.

Every independent economist will tell you that the deficit problem cannot be solved except through both spending cuts and revenue increases. In fact, preserving tax cuts for the very wealthy is counterproductive to the goal of reducing our annual deficits.

Yet the far right marches on in defense of tax cuts for millionaires, deficits be damned.

Last August, our Nation's creditworthiness became a second casualty of the far right's insistence on low taxes for the wealthy. The right wing was so dug in against any reasonable fiscal

compromise that they forced a manufactured crisis over raising the Nation's debt limit. This caused the first-ever downgrade of our Nation's credit rating.

Unbelievably, the far right prioritized millionaire tax breaks over our Nation's full faith and credit.

Despite that unreasonableness, we thought we had finally figured out a way to force the far right to come to grips with the need to deal with revenues. We come up with a mechanism called the sequester that would trigger harsh defense cuts if the Republicans continued to refuse any new revenues.

Surely, if there was one thing conservatives prized as much as tax cuts, it was defense spending, right?

Wrong. As we speak, the far right remains unwilling to cede an inch on revenues, no matter what it means for the Pentagon. The deficit; the Nation's creditworthiness; National security--all of these have taken a backseat to the far right's idolatry on taxes. Now they have gone so far, they have taken this idolatry all the way to its extreme end point by making Eduardo Saverin into their patron saint.

In the name of low taxes for the wealthy, they have lionized an inherently unpatriotic person.

The hero worship of Saverin is Norquist's extreme right wing anti-tax agenda being carried to its logical conclusion. And it is a scary, absurd place where even a tax dodger who renounces America for his own 30 pieces of silver is celebrated as a patriot and an American hero.

It is perverse.

Reasonable Republicans rightly seem wary to embrace taking things this far. House Speaker John Boehner labeled Saverin's move ``absolutely outrageous'' and said he would support legislation to stop wealthy ex-pats relocating to avoid taxes.

Others have been quiet, perhaps cowed by fears of being the next target of the right wing echo chamber.

Shouldn't loyalty to America--and the broader responsibilities and duty of citizenship--trump base, non-essential financial self-interest?

Sadly, the answer of the extreme right is no.

The Wall Street Journal attacked the thrust of our proposed legislation as an example of the ``age of envy.'' Well, it is not envy. In fact, I am happy those who intended and invested in Facebook got very rich. Having an idea and succeeding and maybe getting rich off this great idea is the American way. More power to them.

However, what is not the American way is taking a free ride on all the exceptional aspects of American society. What is not the American way is deriving massive advantage from various publicly supported elements of that society and then skipping town when you hit the jackpot. Yes, you are free to leave. You have a right to be selfish-- even greedy--when renouncing this Nation.

I understand this will make you more money and there is a rational, simplistic argument to be made in favor of doing it--if the only factor that mattered was always getting richer and all other values were irrelevant. But we Americans have other values too.

America is special for many reasons. It is secure, it offers freedom of expression, it is diverse and tolerant, it is entrepreneurial, and it is economically and culturally dynamic. Looking out for the common good is in our blood. It is a part of our shared history and vision of our Founding Fathers.

We provide for the common defense. We promote the general welfare. We are not just out for ourselves. No. We look to secure the blessings of liberty not just for ourselves but for our posterity. It is this, and so much more, that makes America an exceptional society.

I am appalled by the reaction. I am not appalled by a debate on tax policy. I am appalled by making heroic a man who renounces his citizenship to escape a tax rate, capital gains of 15 percent.

Too often I think every action and dilemma we face is now reduced to a question of whether this means bigger government or smaller government. Since those on the extreme right believe we must have smaller government at all costs, they vehemently oppose all taxes. But sometimes, as with this case and others like it, it is not just about the size of government. It is about doing what is fair and right and just based on your responsibilities as a citizen.

Citizenship is not simply a business decision, it is not just a transaction. Those on the right, such as Grover Norquist, defending this economic draft dodger are saying something very different. They are saying the social contract somehow excludes the accumulation of money. We know we give up certain rights and freedoms to live in a place like America, but we cannot just carry out vigilantism to pursue justice.

So in conclusion, being an American is not a one-way street. There are enormous benefits to being a citizen of our Nation and a member of the amazing society that has spawns. But there are also responsibilities and duties, such as patriotism, service, contributing your fair share, and commitment to community and family.

As we approach critical debates on the matters of taxation and fairness and job creation so critical to keeping America, the greatest Nation on the face of the Earth, I certainly hope it is these values, not glorified self-interest, that drowns out all other values that guide our actions.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S. 739, a bill which authorizes the Architect of the Capitol, AOC, at no cost to the Federal government, to create and install electric vehicle recharging stations in Senate parking facilities.

This bill likely would have never seen the light of day it were it not for the perseverance and hard work of my good friend Senator Levin. He worked tirelessly to make this bill a reality, and I am so proud to stand with him. This bill was drafted with bipartisan support. Senator Alexander and I join Senators Kerry, Murkowski, Bingaman, Merkley and Stabenow in supporting this bill sponsored by Senator Levin.

It bears repeating: This bill creates a program that will not cost the Federal government one dime. S. 739 funds the installation and maintenance of the charging stations by billing the individuals who use the plug-in stations. S. 739 works on a simple premise: the more people who drive electric cars on campus, the more plug-in stations the AOC will install. S. 739 insures that the demand for plug-in stations will match the number of dues paying participants who fund the program.

This bill is needed as more and more people decide to buy electric cars. Currently, the Architect does not have the authority to install plug-in stations on the Capitol campus. This bill fixes that problem in a smart, cost effective manner.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Kansas for finishing his speech in a timely manner.

I come to the floor to talk a little bit about the DISCLOSE Act and Citizens United. For the last 2\1/2\ years, Americans have heard us talk about the need for full disclosure of money donated to campaigns. It is time for Congress to stop stalling and let the American voters find out where the money being spent on elections is coming from once and for all.

All of our predictions in the aftermath of the flawed Citizens United decision unfortunately are coming true. This decision handed a megaphone to the wealthiest voices among us and strapped a muzzle on every other American. Sure, average Americans can talk to one another, but they are not spending $10 million on TV ads, and we know what kind of an effect that has. If anything, the situation is even worse than we could have possibly anticipated because unlimited spending by just a handful of the wealthiest Americans has put true democracy in danger--a true democracy of one person, one vote, of true equality. This is worrisome when we have such huge amounts of money being spent by so few people who seem to speak with one voice and one conservative point of view.

The list of the top donors to super PACs reads like a who's who of the richest people in America. The contributions to super PACs that were released in the most recent disclosure reports are truly astonishing. Six-figure sums seem like pocket change now compared with today's trend of seven- and eight-figure donations.

Let's take Bob Perry, for instance, top donor to Mitt Romney's super PAC, Restore Our Future. People may know him as the former top donor to Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, the group that ran smear ads questioning John Kerry's military service in 2004. When we add up his donations to super PACs this cycle, we have almost $14 million of political influence from just one man. Another example is Harold Simmons. When we combine his personal donations with the corporation he owns with his wife, we get contributions of over $17 million to six different super PACs.

Because disclosures to the FEC are only made publicly available once a month, this paints a mere fraction of the picture of total super PAC spending. The reports don't even address spending through so-called nonprofit organizations. As we all know, 501(c)(4) organizations are able to serve as conduits for huge sums of anonymous funding that are never publicly disclosed. I call them ``so-called'' because they function the same as the super PACs, except they can't say ``vote for'' or ``vote against,'' but their effect on campaigns, obviously intended, is just as real.

It doesn't stop at the Federal level. We are also seeing the concern over corporate spending at the State level through the Montana case, American Tradition Partnership v. Attorney General Bullock. This case hinges on a challenge to Montana's century-old campaign finance law by special interest groups that want to take advantage of the anonymous political spending made possible by Citizens United. In fact, the fundraisers in this case, a group called American Tradition Partnership, solicits contributors by actually bragging about their secrecy. In their promotional literature, they promise potential donors:

We're not required to report the name or the amount of any

contribution that we receive. So, if you decide to support

this program, no politician, no bureaucrat, no radical

environmentalist, will ever know you helped make this program

possible.

It is no surprise, given mounting concerns about the corruptive effects of unlimited and often anonymous campaign spending on our democracy, that so many individuals and groups have filed amicus briefs to this case--including Senators Whitehouse and McCain, several House Democrats, and dozens of others--urging the court to uphold Montana's 100-year-old law.

We cannot sit idly by and watch our democracy put up for sale to the highest bidders. Full disclosure--the kind the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 requires--is still necessary to shed light on which groups and individuals are funding our elections, to keep some modicum of faith that the voters at least know what is going on.

In 2010 the original DISCLOSE Act passed the House and had widespread support in the Senate and from the President but failed to gain cloture by one vote because not one Republican was willing to step across the aisle and do what the American people clearly regard as the right thing. Well, now there is no excuse. We have removed the original provisions my Republican colleagues most objected to. All that remains is disclosure and disclaimer, plain and simple.

The time to act on campaign finance reform is now. While America's richest billionaires can afford to keep contributing millions of dollars to super PACs and 501(c)s, America cannot afford to be kept in the dark any longer.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes; immediately thereafter, the Senator from Ohio, Senator Brown, be permitted to speak for 5 minutes; and then the Senator from Kansas, Senator Moran, be permitted to speak for 5 minutes.

I will be brief. First, I wish to thank our chairman, Senator Johnson of South Dakota, for being so steadfast in bringing this bill to the floor. He worked in tandem with Senator Shelby, whom I thank as well. Senator Menendez has been a true leader on these issues and has been the lead sponsor of many of the pieces of legislation to tighten the economic noose on Iran. I wish to thank my friend and colleague Senator Graham from South Carolina as well for being so instructive on this issue.

We have had a lot of divisions between Democrats and Republicans, but on the issue of making sure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, we are united. The threat, the specter of an Iranian nuclear weapon, will continue to bring Democrats and Republicans together. I hope the Iranian Government recognizes that, because we are going to continue to tighten and tighten and tighten restrictions so that Iran realizes that not just the United States but just about all of the civilized world is against her gaining a nuclear weapon. The Iranians can't talk about why shouldn't have it when everyone else does. With the kind of saber rattling and verbiage that comes out of that regime about what they might do to Israel or other countries, it shows they are not a mature enough nation to be possessing this God-awful power.

The point I wish to make here tonight is this is another step forward. We are further tightening the sanctions. We will continue to tighten them so that the answer for Iran, if they persist with moving forward on producing a nuclear weapon, is economic chaos for the Iranian leadership and, unfortunately, for many of the Iranian people.

Let Iran beware. This is just another step. We will not stop. We are united as two parties, we are united as a Nation, and we are united as a family of nations to make sure we do everything we can to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. That would represent a disaster to the nations of the world, and one we cannot tolerate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with gratitude to thank and honor my good friends and esteemed colleagues Senator Alexander and Senator Johanns. The willingness to vote on two of the President's nominees to serve as members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve that they have expressed today is exactly the sort of bipartisan approach that has historically made the Senate work. I would like to honor their efforts to get us back to that proud tradition and thank them for their efforts to bring these two distinguished men to a vote.

Serving on the Banking Committee together, I know Senator Johanns to always do his due diligence when reviewing any proposed legislation or in this case nominees. I am grateful for it. I am also grateful my good friend Senator Alexander is the ranking member of the Rules Committee. His hard work and insight were invaluable as we worked together to streamline presidential appointments and to pass a bill in the Senate to reduce the number of positions requiring Senate confirmation last year. He has always worked for the betterment of this body. Today is another example.

Yet despite our work last year, we face a backlog of nominations which

gridlocks other important legislative business. That is not how the process should work.

The Senate was designed to be a thoughtful and deliberative body. But the American public is harmed when we are not able to get qualified people confirmed to positions in a timely manner. Nominees of impeccable qualifications and indisputable support have been frozen out of the confirmation process. Thankfully that will not be the case today.

At a time when our economy is struggling to maintain forward momentum, and the Federal Reserve is faced with difficult decisions about how to help the recovery now without creating problems in the future, it is absolutely critical that we not leave the Fed undermanned. For months now, the Fed has been operating with only 5 of its 7 board members, while nominees languish in the Senate confirmation process. There is no real question that both of our nominees are qualified and bipartisan.

Jeremy Stein is a well-known Harvard economist, with strong expertise in monetary policy and financial regulation. In between two stints at Harvard, Stein was on the finance faculty at M.I.T.'s Sloan School of Management for 10 years. Stein's research has covered such topics as: the behavior of stock prices; corporate investment and financing decisions; risk management; capital allocation inside firms; banking; financial regulation; and monetary policy.

He is currently a coeditor of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, and was previously a coeditor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and a member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's Financial Advisory Roundtable. From February to July of 2009, he served in the Obama administration, as a senior advisor to the Treasury Secretary and on the staff of the National Economic Council.

Jerome Powell is a visiting scholar at the Bipartisan Policy Center here in Washington, where he focuses on Federal and State fiscal issues. He is also a former lawyer, with experience in investment banking and private equity who will bring valuable and broad private sector expertise to the Board. From 1997 through 2005, Powell was a partner at The Carlyle Group, where he founded and led the Industrial Group within the U.S. Buyout Fund. So he has broad experience working with manufacturing companies and other industries at the heart of the U.S. economy.

Powell has served on the boards of several charitable and educational institutions. He is currently a member of the board of directors of D.C. Prep, a charter school operator in Washington, DC; the Bendheim Center for Finance at Princeton University; and The Nature Conservancy of Washington, DC and Maryland.

There is no requirement that the President nominate governors from the other party, but Mr. Powell is also a Republican who served as Undersecretary of the Treasury for Finance under President George H.W. Bush, with responsibility for policy on financial institutions, the treasury debt market, and related areas. So this is not a partisan issue or ideological battle. We have one nominee who served in the Obama administration, one nominee who served in the Bush administration.

It is very good that we have come to an agreement. We hope it can set the tone for agreements well into the future, this year and in 2013 as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the extraordinary, selfless, and faithful commitment of Monsignor Joseph C. Ansaldi to the Catholic Church. On Saturday, June 2, 2012, Monsignor Ansaldi will celebrate the 50th Anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood.

Monsignor Ansaldi attended both a Catholic grammar school and a Catholic high school where he learned the

value of such a wonderful religious education. He realized early on that he wished to devote his life to the Catholic Church and the community in which he grew up. Following his early education, Monsignor Ansaldi attended and graduated from St. Joseph Dunwoodie with bachelor's degrees in philosophy and theology and later received his master's degree in history from Fordham University.

Ordained in 1962, his first assignment was chaplain at Mt. Loretto's Girls' Division. He then spent 6 years at Cardinal Hayes High School, where he taught history, German, and religion prior to his appointment there as dean of students. He then was appointed academic dean to St. Joseph by-the-Sea, and then in 1982, then archbishop of New York, Terrence Cardinal Cooke, appointed Monsignor Ansaldi as principal of St. Joseph by-the-Sea. Finally, in 1990, Pope John Paul II named Josepha C. Ansaldi a monsignor, and in 1991, Cardinal O'Connor appointed Monsignor Ansaldi Vicar of the Staten Island vicariate.

Under Monsignor Ansaldi's tenure, enrollment at St. Joseph by-the-Sea rose by more than 25 percent to over 1,300 students. He also expanded the physical plant of the school to ensure that these students had the resources necessary to prosper. Many of his students became National Merit Scholar finalists and are forever grateful to the extraordinary leadership of their principal.

Monsignor Ansaldi reminds us all about the tremendous role that educators play in the lives of students. Thousands of students have gone to college due to the efforts of Monsignor Ansaldi and many have been inspired to follow in the footsteps of Monsignor Ansaldi.

The extraordinary vibrancy of New York is greatly enriched by its strong religious community. These communities owe much of their prosperity to the tireless efforts of religious leaders. Monsignor Ansaldi, who has served the people of New York for 50 years, is one shining example of the important role religious leaders can play in the lives of thousands of people. They have provided their communities infinite wisdom and counsel during times good and bad. Monsignor Joseph C. Ansaldi is a true leader who has selflessly and faithfully devoted his life to the betterment of the Catholic Church and to all mankind.

Mr. President, it is my honor to acknowledge the achievement and contributions of Monsignor Joseph C. Ansaldi on this 50th anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood in the Catholic Church.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Social Security Administration: Is it Meeting its Responsibilities to Save Taxpayer Dollars and Serve the Public?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2012, in room SD 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:15 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Fulfilling the Federal Trust Responsibility: The Foundation of the Government-to- Government Relationship.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2012, at 10 a.m., in SD 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and the Coast Guard of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2012, at 10:30 a.m., in room SR 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Stemming the Tide: The U.S. Response to Tsunami Generated Marine Debris.''

Mr. President, before he leaves, I want to say that the Senator from Vermont has done an incredible job on the Violence Against Women Act. He has put together a bipartisan coalition, and I would like to second his words that the House pass our bill. It is a careful compromise, and it is a delicately crafted compromise.

I thank my colleague for the time.

Again, I want to compliment the Senator from Vermont and agree with him and hope we can move the bill forward.

But, Mr. President, I am here to talk about the budget. All afternoon I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle repeat over and over that we haven't passed a budget. As my friend from North Dakota knows, that is clearly not the case.

Last August, President Obama signed a budget for this year that reduces the deficit by $2 trillion. It is called the Budget Control Act. It was passed 74 to 26, bipartisan, with many Republicans voting for it on August 2, 2011.

Despite what we hear on the floor today, after the Budget Control Act passed, several Senate Republicans, including Senators Grassley, Alexander, and Collins, admitted it constitutes a budget. So watching this debate on the Senate floor is a sort of through-the-looking-glass experience. We are watching our colleagues call for something they acknowledge already happened and they supported. This is nothing more than petty politics. We should be focused on jobs and the economy. Instead we are forced to spend hours debating something that already happened. It doesn't make sense.

But let's put that aside for a moment and look at the extreme plans we are voting on today. The only real differences between the four Republican budgets--the only real difference between the four Republican budgets--is how quickly they race to end Medicare as we know it. The Republican budgets all cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans and leave the middle class to foot the bill. They all allow student loan rates to double. They all provide tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. And they all put the middle class last instead of first.

When I first examined the Ryan budget passed by the House GOP this year, I thought it was the height of irresponsibility. But now that we have seen three other Republican budgets, we know they make the Ryan budget almost seem reasonable by comparison, and that is no small feat.

I have nothing against the wealthy. I am glad they make money. That is the America way. God bless them. Many are living the American dream. But in order to keep that dream alive and get our country on firmer fiscal footing, I think we need a little shared sacrifice. The bottom line is any budget that jeopardizes the middle class while filling the pockets of the wealthy with greater tax breaks is ultimately untenable and will never pass the Senate. While we are certainly open to compromise, Democrats will not tolerate an assault on the middle class. It isn't fair and it isn't right.

We hope the coming debate will yield a sound serious agreement. But if it doesn't, Democrats are happy to take this contrast of priorities into November because we know we have the high ground.

I thank the Chair, and I yield my remaining time back to my friend and colleague from North Dakota.

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

Mr. President, we are still here. We have not gotten much of a response from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle about our legislation that would help students throughout America pay their tuition costs and pay a reasonable amount of interest on their loans. I don't know what my colleagues are waiting for. We all know the crisis in America. College has become more and more important. To many, it is a necessity, and it has become more and more expensive. That equation is not only hurting the kids who go to college, it is hurting their families and hurting this country.

When the percentage of people who graduate from college declines vis- a-vis other nations, that is a very bad sign for America. We can talk about the problems of quality in our K 12 schools, and those are important issues, but our higher education system is still rating just about the best in the world. That is shown by the fact that hundreds of thousands from around the world, including places such as China and India, apply to our schools, come here and attend. It is a shame we send them back even if they want to stay, but that is an immigration issue not an education issue.

Our schools are great, and the big problem with higher education in America is not quality--although, of course, it could be made better-- it is affordability. It is not the same as K 12.

Yet here we are, sitting here, and the other side is in a certain sense twiddling their thumbs and making it worse.

How is America going to stay the greatest economic power in the world when fewer and fewer of our bright, capable, hard-working students can afford college and when more and more of them decide they are not going to go to school or, if they go to school, not to the college of their choice for financial reasons?

We put a reasonable offer on the table. The proposal is we pay for our college tuition act by closing a loophole that people such as Rush Limbaugh said should be closed when John Edwards was found to have used it in his law firm, when other leading Republicans in 2004 said this is one of the greatest abuses of the Tax Code they had ever seen. All of a sudden our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they cannot vote for it. This was an issue that was talked about as we talked about dealing with the budget gap in August or in December--during last year, whenever it was. Again, we did not hear objections from the other side: Take that one off the table, we can't live with it.

It seems what is going on is very simple. Our colleagues know that it is certainly politically unpopular, but probably it is politically wrong to allow interest rates to double. But they can't just say they are against it. They tried to say they are against it, but when the President went around the country and talked about it they had to back off that.

So in the House they came up with a pay-for which was sort of laughable. Everyone knew that would never pass, and no one took their position seriously. But we had always hoped that our colleagues in the Senate who, frankly, have been much more reasonable in the last little while--we passed a highway bill with bipartisan support, we passed a postal reform bill with bipartisan support, we passed the Violence Against Women Act with bipartisan support, and we thought we could get this done with bipartisan support.

Our goal is not to draw a difference between the parties--that has been apparent--but to get this done. We thought when we put our proposal on the Senate floor they would accept it. At minimum we thought they would at least come back with an offer: Let's debate it. Let's try and see if their amendment passes in terms of a different pay-for. Let's see if our amendment could get support. Instead, what have we found? A filibuster blocking the Senate from even considering this reasonable measure.

I am going to yield the floor because I see my colleagues have arrived, the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from New Hampshire, who I know have strong beliefs about this issue. We have an all-New England cast in the room, with a little help from the Mid- Atlantic.

I hope they will reconsider. I hope they will reconsider because it is better for the politics of this country to come together once again on reasonable issues, as we have done in the past few months. It is better, frankly, for their own politics. I am not wishing them ill. But most of all, it is better for the future of our country. Please reconsider. Let's move forward and debate this bill and let's not let the high cost of going to college get unnecessarily higher.

I yield the floor.