Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to honor National School Nurse Day. Today we recognize the contributions that school nurses make every day to improve the health and learning outcomes of our Nation's children, especially as our children face more challenging chronic health issues than ever before. A top priority of this Nation should be ensuring that our children have a healthy and successful future. School nurses make this vision a reality each day. Quite simply, healthy children learn better and are more likely to become successful members of society.

In New York there are about 3,700 school nurses who are serving our students out of the more than 76,000 nationwide. School nurses provide a non-negotiable value to schools, families, communities, and this Nation as a whole. By keeping children healthy, in school, and ready to learn, school nurses save money and save lives. Every teacher deserves to stay in the classroom and focus on educational outcomes, and every parent deserves to be able to go to work and send his or her child to school with a nurse who will keep his or her child safe and healthy. School nurses have the knowledge, skills and judgment to manage potentially emergent situations and provide daily care for students with increasing chronic health conditions, ranging from asthma to childhood obesity to Type-2 diabetes to severe food allergies. Research shows that when a full-time school nurse is present, student attendance rates increase and hospital utilization rates decrease. The school nurse also plays a vital role in promoting prevention and wellness, from detecting outbreaks of communicable diseases, such as H1N1, and taking action to prevent cases from developing to administering immunizations and ensuring students are compliant with regulations. Every day, school nurses are on the front lines, providing access and delivering health care services to our Nation's children.

In 1897, after several outbreaks of infectious diseases that affected the New York City schoolchildren, the city's department of health appointed the first doctors to examine students for contagious diseases. With the concerns over uneducated and unhealthy youth growing, Lina Rogers Struthers became the Nation's first school nurse. The impact of nursing services proved dramatic, and after only 1 month the city voted to set aside money to employ trained nurses in its schools.

Today, the National Association of School Nurses celebrates the specialized practice of school nursing, acknowledging that school nurses advance the well-being, academic success and life-long achievement and health of students. The American Academy of Pediatrics has also reaffirmed the crucial role of school nurses ``in the seamless provision of comprehensive health services to children and youth.'' ``The Role of the School Nurse in Providing School Health Services,'' AAP, Pediatrics, Vol. 121, No. 5, May 1, 2008, pp. 1052 1056.

National School Nurse Day highlights the need for a full-time nurse in every school, every day--which is why I have introduced a bill, the Student-to-School Nurse Ratio Improvement Act of 2012, S. 2047. This legislation would help lower the ratios of students to school nurses and evaluate the correlation between access to professional student health services and improved educational outcomes. This Nation must invest in programs and services that seek to improve the health and well-being outcomes of children, which include supporting school nurses.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing today as National School Nurse Day so we may continue to honor school nurses and the care they provide to students day in and day out, paving the path for a healthier and more successful future for all of our Nation's children.

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

Madam President, I am speaking today on the need to Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act of 2012.

It is obvious how hard it is to pay for college these days. It is not just hard for poor people--and we have some programs that help poor people out at the Federal level, Pell grants in particular, and that is a good thing. But you can be making well above the Pell grant allowance level, well above the income that you need for a Pell grant, and have a difficult time paying for college.

College is extremely expensive. The average private college cost a year is over $30,000, and the average public cost has gone way up. With all the cutbacks at all the Federal, State, and local levels, it is about $17,000. If you figure that if you are an average family anywhere in America making $65,000 or $70,000, $17,000 a year after you pay your taxes and pay your mortgage and pay for the necessities of life is a heck of a lot of money. Wisely, the Federal Government has provided some loans. A few years ago, under the leadership of Senator Kennedy, we decided to have the Federal Government pay for those loans because when the banks did it, it ended up being far more expensive than it had to be. Those loans were originally 6.8 percent around when the banks did it. They went down and down, and they settled to a nice level of 3.4 percent.

Now 3.4 percent is still interest. Particularly these days it is not such a low rate of interest given that the cost of money is quite low, but it is a lot better than 6.8 percent. But, unfortunately, the law that Senator Kennedy shepherded and many of us voted for and President Bush signed--I believe it was in 2007--expires come July 1.

What will that mean? That will mean millions of students throughout America will pay a lot more interest on the loans that are a necessity for going to college.

We all know how important college is. We all know these days the statistics show that the unemployment rate among college grads is one- third that of high school grads. We know that at your income level, you make thousands of dollars more each year if you have a college degree. There was a recent study that even showed you live longer if you got to college. I don't know what the correlation was, but it was a broad- based study. It was trumpeted in many of our leading newspapers. So a college degree is very important, and one of the ways we measure America versus other countries in terms of our future is what is the percentage of our kids who get a college degree. Unfortunately, that has been declining. We used to be first. Now I don't think we are even tenth, and it is declining because of the cost of college. So a high interest rate on top of the basic cost--$17,000, $36,000, whatever--is bad for students, bad for their families, and, frankly, bad for America.

In New York, my State, 423,000 college students would pay $341 million more in loan payments if we didn't pass this legislation.

I would say one other thing, and that is that this affects almost all college students. You say, Well, I started college last year and I am at 3.4. You are at 3.4 for your freshman year if you are a freshman in college. But when you go to your sophomore year and renew your loans July 1, you are going right up to 6.8 percent. So it affects everybody in college except--luckily for them--the senior class that is graduating this year.

It will also affect the new class of freshmen who are coming in, and I would bet many of them are watching this debate and deciding whether they can go to college or they can go to the college of their choice-- one that they deserve to go to because of their grades and record and accomplishments--based on this bill. And so, wisely, Senator Jack Reed and Senator Tom Harkin and Senator Sherrod Brown have put in legislation that would keep the rate at 3.4 percent.

When they first did this--and President Obama has been fully supportive and he has talked about this at length on campuses throughout America and in other places throughout America. When they put it in, amazingly enough most of our Republican colleagues, in places such as the Club for Growth and American Enterprise Institute, said: We are against it. Let the students pay 6.8 percent. That was sort of the 21st century analog of Marie Antoinette saying, Let them eat cake, because in these days college is much more of a necessity than it ever used to be, even for jobs like machine welder or auto mechanic. These days, our cars are filled with computers and you often need some college education, at least a 2-year college education, to be proficient in skills that maybe 40 years ago you just needed a wrench for. So it was amazing to me that so many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle said they were against keeping the rate at 3.4 percent.

They began to get a lot of flak, I am sure, from families across the country. So they decided they couldn't be against it, per se, and so in the House they actually--and the President was making a lot of hay with this and scoring a lot of points. So over in the House they then decided, Okay, we can't say we are against this. Of course, we all want to pay for it, and so we will propose a bill that pays for it by cutting preventive services in health care.

There are two points about that. One, our preventive services in health care are needed, whether it is child immunization, whether it is diabetes prevention--the fastest growing disease around--whether it is mammograms which wouldn't start this year but would start next year as a result of the prevention money--prevention is vital to keeping health care costs down and keeping America healthy. To say the only way we will give you student loans is to take away preventive health care is akin to telling a family: Your little grandson cannot get immunizations if you want your children to be able to pay for their college. It does not make sense and everyone knew it.

The second point is everyone knew it at the time. I don't think there was a person in this town who thought that paying for it by cutting prevention would have a chance in this body. But, frankly, I think that is what some of my colleagues in the other body wanted. Their MO for the last year and a half has been obstruct without fingerprints. In other words, they want to obstruct everything. They want the government to be a mess. They want people to be unhappy so they will change things in the election.

But they know, if they are caught obstructing, it is not going to work out too well for them. In the first half of this year, I have to give them credit, they carried out this strategy of obstruction without fingerprints quite well. Part of it is because the media likes to say ``on the one hand, on the other hand.'' There is a very good article, tangential to this, by Norm Ornstein at the American Enterprise Institute and Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, one from a conservative group and one a more liberal group, which basically laid this out.

In the second half of the last year and now this year their little strategy of obstructing without fingerprints is not working. It didn't work on the debt ceiling. It didn't work on the payroll tax cut. It didn't work on the highway bill. It didn't work on the postal bill, and, ``gloriosky,'' we are passing legislation because they can no longer obstruct without fingerprints. Faced with the choice of being caught obstructing or not obstructing, they stopped obstructing. Good for America. Good for bipartisanship. If it was good for them on the other side, fine.

On this one, they are back to their old ways because they put in this pay-for they know cannot pass. What was the pay-for we put in? We thought it would pass. We thought it had bipartisan support. It was one of the things considered in various groups in committees, bipartisan, on how to pay for the deficit. I think this was considered in the August group of last year.

What we say is simply this. If you are a partnership--a big law firm, accounting firm--there are some of them, a small number, not most, most did it the right way, but they want to avoid the payroll tax. How do they do it? They say we are giving our partners

dividends as opposed to salaries, and they do not pay a payroll tax, the payroll tax we all pay up to the first hundred-and-some-odd thousand dollars of salary.

That seems reasonable and fair. It was a loophole. It was called a loophole when John Edwards was caught doing it in his law firm, by Rush Limbaugh, by others as well--many conservatives. They called it a loophole that ought to be closed. I wish I had the language.

I will ask unanimous consent to add to the Record the language of several leading conservative commentators and gurus about what a loophole this was.

Anyway, we put this in and we thought they would accept it. Of course, to our surprise last night not a single Republican voted to move forward and debate this bill. We will let them put their pay-for on the floor to substitute for ours. They are not even willing to do that. Leader Reid said this over and over. I just heard him say it at 2:15 when we had a little gathering by the Ohio Clock.

We are here on the floor tonight, and I see the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Maryland--we are here on the floor tonight to ask families and students throughout America to let their Senators know they want this legislation passed and they want the games to stop.

On my Facebook page, and on the Facebook page of many of my colleagues, is a description of the bill, of what people need to do. We ask people to send us, on our Facebook pages, their stories--why they need it, why it is so important to them. Senator Jeff Merkley already read a letter from a student from Oregon. Senator Stabenow got over 70 responses already of students from Michigan. We also hope they let our colleagues on the other side of the aisle know how important it is they vote for this bill.

The bottom line is simple. This should be a no-brainer. If there were ever an example of Washington tying itself in a knot, this is the issue. If our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have other pay- fors, we will take a look at them--but make them real. Make them truly subject to bipartisan compromise as opposed to something they know we cannot accept.

I heard the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Brown, introduced something, but the CBO scored it as not bringing in any money. We have all agreed we should not increase the deficit to do this and we should find a way to pay for it. Our preferred way is closing a loophole that everyone admits is abusive and a way to get around the payroll tax. But we are willing to sit and listen to other suggestions from the other side of the aisle so we can help our college students.

The bottom line is we have to pass this bill. It is an extremely important bill for the future of our country because every time a young man or a young woman deserves to go to a college of their choice and doesn't go, goes to a different one that less suits their needs because they cannot afford it, they lose, their family loses, and America loses. Let's stop the games. Let's come together. Let's pass this bill, and let's make sure students of this and future generations are able to afford the college education that is so important to a better future for their lives.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague from Minnesota who has the dual experience of being both a prosecutor and a woman who understands how important these issues are. We men try to join in, but women know this so well and so strongly, whether from their own personal experiences, friends they know or--as in the case of the Senator from Minnesota who has done a great job on this--from their professional experience as well.

I care a lot about this issue. I carried the Violence Against Women Act, the first bill, in 1994. Then-Senator Biden put it together in 1992. Senator Boxer carried it when she was elected to the Senate. They asked me to carry it, and we got it passed.

It has changed the world. VAWA has changed the world. It used to be, before VAWA, a woman would show up bloodied and bruised at a police station, and the police officer--who had no training and no knowledge of what to do, not his or her fault--would say: Go home. It is a family matter.

Now, of course, we have laws, we have training, we have shelters, and women are far more protected.

We were much too close, in 1994, to the old rule of thumb that a husband could beat his wife with a stick, provided it was no thicker than his thumb. We are much further away from that because of this law, and it makes a great deal of sense.

But similar to any good and important law that has changed the world, we have to keep updating it. We have to keep learning from what has happened and make it better and stronger and tougher and covering more ground. We need it.

Still, despite VAWA's good acts, in my home State, on Long Island alone, during 2009 and 2010, there were 19,417 cases in which local, county or State police officers were called to the scene of a domestic violence complaint. That is just in two counties in one State in this country.

That is why I am so glad to see Members on both sides of the aisle have finally seen that saving the lives of women is, once again, above politics.

It has been a pleasure, over the years, to work with my colleagues, and I wish to thank Chairman Leahy and Senator Crapo for their great leadership. It is truly a bipartisan effort, with 61 cosponsors, and that is how it has been in the past. It has always been bipartisan. It is a tribute not only to Chairman Leahy but to my female colleagues, many of whom have spoken out this morning and have been constant champions of the Violence Against Women Act.

So this bill should be an easy one. The Violence Against Women Act should be low-hanging fruit. Even in a disputatious Congress, this should pass easily. It passed unanimously--Democrats and Republicans-- in 2000 and 2005. Recognizing today's tougher times, as well as the successes with which our past efforts have already been met, Chairman Leahy and Senator Crapo cut spending by 20 percent and reduced duplicative programs. So you would not think there would be opposition, but, unfortunately, there has been.

So this fact is clear: It would be unacceptable to show less support now in 2012 for our national commitment to stop violence and abuse and to protect women against this plague than we have over the last 20 years. We should not step backward. We should not halt progress. ``Replace'' is the operative word. What has been offered is not a substitute or an improvement for the Violence Against Women Act. The so-called alternative would take violence against women and replace it with a different program.

This program has worked. It needs improvements. That is why we are here. But it is has worked. You do not start over for ideological or political reasons. Most notably in the act from my colleagues across the aisle, the word ``women'' has been taken out of the program that forms the cornerstone of the Violence Against Women Act and the word has been replaced with ``victim.'' No one here would argue against the principle that all violent crimes, all domestic crimes are tragic and serious. But this so-called substitute negates centuries of women's experience that proves that violence against women, especially violence caused by spouses and partners and family members, is a uniquely pernicious and entrenched practice, one that has not even always been illegal. There was never a rule of thumb that governed the size of a stick that wives would use to beat their husbands. That sums it up in a nutshell. Men were never banned from juries. Men were never banned from police forces and prosecutors' offices. It is this horrific and shameful history to which we responded in 1994 when we first crafted the Violence Against Women Act.

There is another point to be made. Anyone who respects the proper role of the Federal Government in fighting crime should recognize that it is entirely rational for us to limit our police powers and funding in this area to a particular type of crime, one that has civil rights implications, one that has been hard for States and localities to prosecute without special support and training. That is why there is no substitute for the Violence Against Women Act.

There are a number of priorities that have been included in the bill that I have cared a lot about.

First is making sure that sexual assault victims do not have to pay for their own forensic exams. While the last reauthorization took some steps to fix this problem, we go further.

Second, VAWA, having contributed immensely to our understanding and prevention of domestic violence, has been reinvigorated and retargeted at sexual assault crimes. Many aspects of the new bill will improve the reporting, law enforcement training, and victim support.

Third, it expands programs that are available to victims and law enforcement in rural and underserved areas. This is extremely important to upstate New York, which has one of the largest rural populations in the country.

Fourth, as I mentioned, Senator Leahy and Senator Crapo should be applauded for including more oversight and accountability for programs in this bill and finding a way to trim the authorization by 20 percent by consolidating programs where it makes sense.

To make the continued need for this bill concrete personal, I would like to point out one massive success story in New York that has been made possible by VAWA. There are many others, but I want to point out one.

On Long Island, thousands of women each year seek help from the Nassau County Coalition Against Domestic Violence. The coalition offers confidential, specialized services for victims of domestic and dating violence, elder abuse, children who witness domestic violence, and sexual assault survivors. They have a 24-hour hotline, group and individual counseling, legal advocacy, Safe Home emergency housing, and various other outreach programs. Without VAWA, these services would be drastically cut back.

Specifically, the coalition receives $650,000 over 2\1/2\ years through a VAWA legal assistance to victims grant, $38,000 through a VAWA crisis intervention grant, and $12,000 through a rape advocacy grant. These last two may not sound like large sums of money, but they go a long way toward helping prevent domestic violence and dealing with it when it, unfortunately, happens.

The reauthorization of VAWA is more important than ever. In today's economy, local municipalities, as we know, in New York and throughout the country are slashing their social service budgets and contracts right and left. Without VAWA, many groups such as the Nassau County coalition would be left bereft and all of the good work they have done over the years would no longer be there. Without agencies such as this one, where will a sexually assaulted Levittown woman turn for help? Well, I do not want to find out. I, for one, will do everything in my power to ensure that day never comes by supporting this VAWA, not some new law that has not been tested.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 26, 2012, at 10:30 a.m. in room SR 328A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 26, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 26, 2012, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Legislative Proposals in the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's FY 2013 Budget.''

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 April 26, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., in room 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 April 26, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Tax Filing Season: Improving the Taxpayer Experience.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 26, 2012, at 2 p.m., to hold a business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 26, 2012, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Biological Security: The Risk of Dual- Use Research.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on April 26, 2012, at 10 a.m., in SD 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during session on April 26, 2012.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 26, 2012, at 3 p.m., to hold an East Asian and Pacific Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``U.S. Policy on Burma.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 26, 2012, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Financial Literacy: Empowering Americans to Prevent the Next Financial Crisis.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 26, 2012, at 10 a.m.

I call up my amendment No. 2050.

I ask unanimous consent further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, there are more than 35 million households and businesses that receive door delivery in every State across the country. As originally written, the postal reform bill would have pushed the Postal Service to stop delivering mail to individual doors and mailboxes. Instead, the Postal Service would install apartment complex style group boxes, where all the mail for a given street or neighborhood would be delivered to the boxes that were grouped together in one place. Rather than have mail delivered to their mailbox or door, homeowners could have been forced to travel further from their home simply to pick up the mail. My amendment simply preserves the same door delivery only for customers who already receive it. In other words, not for new complexes. But for existing houses, they should keep the delivery the way it is.

What some people may not know is the Postal Service already has the authority to eliminate door delivery, but the Postal Service has not mandated such a change because they know how unpopular it would be. By removing the door delivery provisions from this bill we can ensure the Postal Service will continue to provide the door delivery service our constituents expect and rely upon.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, April 25, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., to hear testimony on S. 219, the ``Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Lynden Armstrong at the Rules and Administration Committee on (202) 224 6352.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I am not going to object, but I wish to reiterate the comments of my colleagues from California, Maryland, and Rhode Island. I know my colleague from Louisiana will do the same. We have a broad bipartisan bill. Transportation and highways are a linchpin of our economic recovery, not only in the jobs they create now, rebuilding and building highways, but in making our economy more efficient.

China is building four times the infrastructure we are. India is building more infrastructure than we are, and in the Senate--to the credit of both sides--we have a broad bipartisan bill that moves us forward. It is not everything I would want or any of us would want. It was put together masterfully by Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe, who are political opposites.

The House, in its paralysis--because there is a small group who, frankly, don't believe the government should be an infrastructure at all--ties it in a knot and forces us with the awful choice of either shutting things down because they are not going to budge or just renewing an old bill which needs updating, which throws people out of work. They are creating paralysis in this country in the case of infrastructure and in many other cases.

If the public wants to know why the country is not growing at a greater rate, wants to know why there is such high unemployment in the construction industries, look at the ideologues over there and their refusal to face reality, to deal with their colleagues, and to put this country--not us--in a take-it-or-leave-it position. This 90-day extension is not the way to go. The way to go is to pass the Senate bill, and I hope those on the other side of the aisle, pushed by outside folks from business management and others all across the country, will see the error of their ways and change their ways over the next few months.

I thank my colleague, and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time under the control of the majority be divided as follows: Mr. Schumer for 10 minutes, Mr. Cardin for 10 minutes, Mr. Sanders for 10 minutes, Mr. Levin for 10 minutes, Mr. Reed of Rhode Island for 10 minutes, and Mr. Merkley for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the legislation authored by my good friend from New Jersey, Senator Menendez. But before I do, I want to call attention to the highway bill and its holdup by our colleagues in the House.

Once again, we are facing the specter of an unnecessary shutdown caused by intransigence in the House Republican caucus, and time is ticking away. Should we reach the March 31 deadline without passing a bill, States' contract authority for construction projects will cease, and 2.9 million jobs will be put at grave risk.

It doesn't have to be this way. Speaker Boehner has once again been painted into a corner by the extreme wing of his caucus, which is committed to blocking a responsible highway bill at every turn. It has become clear Speaker Boehner has run out of options. He has tried to pass a highly partisan House-drafted highway bill, and that failed. He has tried to pass a 90-day extension on Monday, and that failed. He then tried to pass a 60-day extension on Tuesday, and that failed as well. Now we have learned the House will not

vote on any type of extension today either.

Time is running out. Speaker Boehner simply cannot pass a transportation bill of any length without Democratic votes, and it is time he accepts that.

Fortunately, Mr. President, there is an easy way out that already has a stamp of approval from some of the most conservative Republicans in Congress. The House could pass the Senate bill. If Speaker Boehner put the Senate bill on the floor, there is virtually no question it would pass by a large majority.

You know, this is beginning to look a bit like a replay of the payroll tax cut episode. Just like then, the Senate passed a bipartisan bill by an overwhelming majority. Just like then, the Speaker originally said he would act based on the Senate compromise, but then went back on what he said. Just like then, with the deadline looming, the Speaker is unable to pass an alternative measure and is resorting to asking the Senate for a conference.

We all know how the payroll tax cut saga ended. Republicans started turning on the Speaker and asking him to pass the Senate bill. Now that is happening here too. Earlier this week, three House Republicans from mainstream Republican districts--Congress Members Dold, Biggert, and Bass--joined the growing calls for Speaker Boehner to put the Senate's 2-year highway bill on the floor. These are major cracks in the dam, and we believe it is the start of a trend.

Earlier today my friend from New York, Pete King, also said he would support the Senate bill if the Speaker put it to a vote. Now, that doesn't come as a surprise, as Congressman King is a strong fighter of New York's transportation needs, including mass transit, which are protected in the Senate bill.

The Senate bill is about two dozen publicly declared Republicans away from having the votes to pass. We believe we have those two dozen Republicans in the House and more. They may not be publicly declared, but they are there. The Senate's 2-year bill can be a lifeboat for Speaker Boehner. He should take it before it is too late.

As we speak about the highway bill over in the House, in the Senate Democrats are hard at work taking on Senator Menendez's fine legislation. He was prescient to focus on this idea years ago, and I am glad this bill has come to the floor. I look forward to a debate on the issue.

In the last election, voters gave those of us who have the privilege of serving in this Chamber two distinct mandates. They told us to do two things at once: First, and perhaps foremost, make the economy grow. Create good-paying jobs. Make sure the American dream burns brightly-- the dream that says to the average middle-class family: The odds are pretty good if you work hard you will be doing better 10 years from now than you are doing today, and the odds are very good your kids will do better than you.

For that dream, which has burned so brightly in this country for hundreds of years, the candle began to flicker a little in this decade. Median income actually went down even before the recession, which meant even if people had a job--and we know there are millions out of work despite the fact they look hard for jobs--their income was declining. Buying power was declining for the average person. That is difficult. Even people who do have work have a difficult time when they sit down at that dinner table Friday night after dinner trying to figure out how they are going to pay the bills. The costs and needs keep going up, and even when they have a job the income doesn't seem to keep up.

So we first think of the people we have met who are struggling because they don't have jobs, and then we look at the people lucky enough to have jobs who are still having a difficult time making ends meet. We know this Congress must focus like a laser on jobs, the economy, and the middle class. So this is one obligation voters sent to us, and it is a justified one. Secondly, they said, in no uncertain terms, to rein in that Federal deficit--rein it in. They are right.

So that brings us to today, where we are fighting to grow the economy through projects such as those in the highway bill, which will bring good-paying jobs to communities across the country, and we try to rein in this out-of-control deficit by passing the Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act. It would be hard enough to accomplish one of these goals, but we are trying to do both.

We can do it because this choice is simple. It is obvious that at this time, when there are so many needs, that giving oil companies the kind of tax breaks we do makes no sense at all. Getting rid of these corporate subsidies to Big Oil is a no-brainer. At the time these subsidies were passed decades ago, oil was $17 a barrel and there was a worry there wouldn't be enough production. Maybe it made sense in those days to give oil companies an incentive to explore and produce. But with oil hovering at $100 a barrel, and Big Oil reaping record profits, this outdated subsidy makes no sense. Yet it remains on the books, amazingly enough.

It defies logic for this government to spend billions of dollars in tax giveaways to Big Oil; for taxpayers to give dollars out of their pockets every year when they are struggling and Big Oil is making record profits. Believe me, the free market gives the oil companies enough of an incentive to produce. When oil is $100 a barrel, they do not need an extra subsidy from the government to produce. They are going to produce every bit of oil they can. They make huge profits, so they do not need a financial nudge from Washington. At the same time, middle-class Americans get hit with a double whammy. They are paying $70 or more to fill up their gas tanks and then some of their hard- earned dollars are being used to line Big Oil's pockets.

Economists estimate the typical family will pay almost $1,000 more on gasoline this year than last year. But families in my home State of New York and across the country are still struggling to make ends meet. As the economy slowly recovers, they cannot afford to get gouged at the pump.

With billions of dollars worth of tax subsidies, and gas prices at near record highs, it is no wonder the top five oil companies are on track for another record-breaking year. These companies are not only the most profitable businesses in the United States, they are among the most profitable in the world. In the past decade, they took home $1 trillion--not $1 billion, $1 trillion--in profits.

Now, there is nothing wrong with profits in and of themselves. In America, we celebrate success. We want the private sector to survive and thrive. But at a time when the government is looking to tighten its belt, and we are grappling with painful cuts because we have the dual goal of growing the middle class and also reducing the deficit, it boggles the mind that we would continue to subsidize such a lavish industry.

I have watched my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stand idly by while the type of funding that helps our middle class is threatened. Now they are going to choose these subsidies to Big Oil over money to help kids pay for college, over cancer research, over helping our veterans, over keeping our highways and transit systems reliable. Hardly any American would agree with that. Hardly any American--Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Moderate, Conservative--from the Northeast, South, or West would agree.

Try to wrap your head around that. Big Oil is reporting record profits, gas prices are at an all-time high, and we, the American taxpayers, are still subsidizing the oil industry. We don't need the imagination of Lewis Carroll to come up with a more ridiculous scenario. That is why I strongly support and am proud to cosponsor Senator Menendez's Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act.

If our Republican colleagues are serious about deficit reduction, the Menendez bill is the chance to show it. There is no good reason not to support this sensible legislation.

In fact, Speaker Boehner himself has said as much. Let's not forget, he was in favor of repealing oil subsidies before he was against it.

So the bottom line is this: At a time of sky-high oil prices, it is unfathomable to continue to pad the profits of oil companies with taxpayer-funded subsidies. The time to repeal these giveaways is now.

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

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Thursday, March 29, 2012, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on ``S. 2219, the ``Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act of 2012 (DISCLOSE Act of 2012).''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Lynden Armstrong at the Rules and Administration Committee on (202) 224 6352.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies will meet on Wednesday, March 28, 2012, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct its organization meeting.

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Lynden Armstrong at the Rules and Administration Committee on (202) 224 6352.

Mr. President I too want to speak of my dear friend Barbara Mikulski, who is just precious. She is precious to her family. She is precious to the people of the Third Congressional District that she represented for 10 years. She is precious to the people of Maryland, precious to the people of the United States, and precious to those of us who have the privilege of serving with her in this body.

She has been affectionately known as a few things: The dean of women; the breaker of the ceiling, as Patty Murray just said; setting the stage, setting the rule book--writing the rule book--for women in the Senate.

There will be 51 women in the Senate 1 day--there will be--and it will come much more quickly because Barbara Mikulski was the first. There is no question about that. The Senate will be a better place for it in so many different ways.

She is also not only known as the dean of women, we love her. She is known as Barb. I love calling her on the phone late at night and having her say: This is Barb. Please call me. Make sure you say the words and leave your phone number twice.

Of course, when Barb says something, we all do it. So I always leave the phone number twice.

I admire so much about her. But one of the things at the top of the list is who she is. She is the real deal. She knows where she came from. She has never forgotten where she came from. As I have told her personally, she has that internal gyroscope of who she is, what she should do, and how she should do it that guides her almost instinctively, and it is probably the most precious thing a politician can have. Not very many people have it, but hers is about the best I have ever witnessed.

It started from her upbringing and her faith, which she mentioned. We have talked about Willy. She has mentioned Willy. But you never forget how she reminds us because it is with her, and you can see it in her actions every day--how when people would come into the store that Willy had, the grocery store in east Baltimore, when they had lost their job or someone was very sick and Willy would say: Take the groceries and pay me later.

It reminded me of my grandfather Jake--we have talked about this--who was an exterminator, not quite the same as Willy and not providing the same services, but he would tell people: If you have roaches and rats in your house and you can't pay, I will still exterminate. Pay me when you have the money. So I understood that instinctively.

I would have loved Willy to have met my grandfather Jake because I am sure they were kindred souls in a lot of ways. And the guidance of Willy and Barb's mom--you can see it every day in the way she acts.

I just want to say another thing about Barb. She got into public service as a community activist. There was a highway that was going to tear up an important and historic part of her community, and she got involved. Being schooled by her and many of my colleagues, many women believed, oh, they would be excluded from politics if they went into politics directly. But when you are a community activist and you take a lead because something is bothering you about your home or your neighborhood, politics just followed sort of naturally. It is a little bit like Patty Murray's story as well.

These days, because of what Barb has done, I think my daughters can aspire--I do not know if they do, but they can aspire to go into political life directly. In those days, it was much harder. But there she was. She led this fight. She went on to the city council, of course the Third Congressional District in Maryland, and now to this august Chamber. She has done so much. It has been cataloged by all my colleagues.

Medical research: There are probably millions of people alive today because of the 35 years she has pushed to make that happen. They do not know who they are, but they are there; and they are living happy and healthy because of Barb Mikulski.

How about veterans and health care needs? Again, literally tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of our veterans are living much better lives because they were able to get the health care that Barb Mikulski spearheaded, particularly in the earlier days when this was not a popular cause.

The list goes on and on and on. She has done so much. In our Chamber she is beloved. Beloved. People are sometimes afraid of her when she gets mad. People want her approval. But most of all, I think what most of us seek is her advice, because after so many years in politics, she has that gift to understand what the average person needs and to talk directly to them. She does not talk through her colleagues or does not talk through the media or does not talk through some community leader or other politician. She still is talking to that family sitting in east Baltimore or in Hagerstown or in Annapolis. She almost has them in front of her eyes wherever she goes. That is why her speeches are so effective. She does not try to polish them. That is not her. She speaks from the heart directly to the people, and she cares so much about them that it comes through. It is an amazing trait.

I most admire people in political life who never forget where they came from. She is one of the most powerful people, not just women, one of the most powerful persons in America. I did not know Barb Mikulski when she was a community activist in East Baltimore, but my guess is she is exactly the same today. All the power and the accomplishments and the emoluments and the praise, all deserved, have not changed her a whit. That to me says an amazing thing about an individual.

Barb, I know my colleagues are waiting, but we love you. We cherish you. And as Patty Murray said, I will put it my own way, I am sure that Barbara Mikulski, knowing her as well as I do, the best is yet to come.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, let me compliment my colleague from Louisiana for her diligence, her hard work. I don't think anybody effectively delivers more for her State in this Chamber than the Senator from Louisiana. I can assure you, knowing her, now that she has done this, she will have another proposal and she will be talking to us about it probably within a few hours. Because of her hard work and charm and many other good qualities, she never wears out her welcome, at least with the Senator from New York.

Mr. President, the big issue everyone is talking about is gasoline prices. Obviously, they are a scourge on average families and on our national economy. There are many long-term solutions we debate: the pipeline, incentives for green energy, more exploration, nuclear energy, and of course conservation--probably the No. 1 way to, in the long term, reduce imports of foreign oil into the country and reduce the price.

But everyone is asking, what are short-term solutions?

To me, there is obviously one that would matter more than all the others and that has the best hope of getting something done. So 2 weeks ago, in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, I asked the State Department to pressure the Government of Saudi Arabia to use its excess oil capacities as a means to calm oil markets. It has been my position that this is the quickest way to bring down gas prices, and the reason is very simple. The No. 1 thing jacking up prices right now is the fear in the markets that Iran will shut off its production.

We have an economic boycott, a majority of nations of the world, of Iran to prevent them from going nuclear. What are they trying to do? They are saber rattling: Squeeze us too hard, we are going to cut off oil. In fact, they cut off oil sales to Britain and France, although those are symbolic because Britain and France do not buy much Iranian oil. But with Iran's saber rattling that they might well cut off oil exports, the price has gone up and up and up. Those who speculate in oil use that and probably have it go up even further.

So that is why I have been, for the last 2 weeks, suggesting the Saudis say they will produce more oil and that they will replace every barrel of production Iran takes off the market for the foreseeable future with a new barrel. The Saudis of course can do that. The Saudis have 2.8 million barrels of extra production, they and the Gulf States. Iran's total sales to the rest of the world are 2.2 million barrels a day. Therefore, they have the ability to do it.

Today I was pleased Saudi Arabia declared it will fill any oil gap as a result of the Iran oil embargo. At the 13th International Energy Forum in Kuwait, the largest gathering of oil-producing and consuming countries, the Saudi oil minister, Ali al-Naimi, said the following: ``Saudi Arabia and others remain poised to make good any shortfalls-- perceived or real--in crude oil supply.''

Right after the Saudi oil minister made this announcement, prices dropped 0.6 percent. My belief is that if the markets believe this is real, the price will come down significantly further. So we are asking the Saudis to repeat this promise because, make no mistake, the more the Saudis repeat the promise to offset Iran's output, the more explicit they are, the more emphatic they are, the more they assure the markets they are for real and that this is not just a psychological device to calm the markets for the moment, the more markets will calm down more permanently and the more the price will come down.

I wish to compliment the Obama administration for doing tremendous work behind the scenes. I have talked to many people in the administration over the last few weeks and they assured me and told me some details of what they were doing and their pressure has finally gotten the Saudis to make this statement. This statement is a great start, but as I said, it should be repeated, reemphasized, and elaborated upon by the Saudis so the markets will be assured.

The President was right on money when he said we also need long-term to our dependence on foreign oil. He is right that drilling alone will not solve our problems. We are producing more domestic oil in the United States than we have in 8 years, and we have discovered a huge supply of natural gas. But we have to look at all fronts. We have to look at green energy, wind, solar. There are tax breaks that encourage these new industries that will employ thousands. We ought to pass them. Our colleagues voted against them on this highway bill. That doesn't make much sense. I, for one, would look at nuclear as something that produces clean energy, that doesn't produce global warming. It has to be safe. Of course, we have to continue to look to produce more oil.

I was one of six or seven on this side, actually--as the Senator from Louisiana is importuning--who voted to open parts of the east gulf to produce more oil and it has begun to do that and that will help.

The No. 1 one thing we have to do in the long run is conservation. The fact that we are getting more miles per gallon by 2020 will reduce our importation of foreign oil--which raises the price--by more than 1.1 million barrels a day. In fact, since we gave the President the ability to increase those CAFE standards further, and he did it, the prediction is, by 2030, we will not need to import any oil as our cars get 45 and 50 miles a gallon and the demand for gasoline goes down. The No. 1 reason we have to import oil is because of gasoline and diesel fuel and airplane fuel. Most of our energy can come from natural gas and can come from water power, wind power, and solar power.

The bottom line: This announcement is a good announcement. I hope the markets will heed it. I hope the Saudis will repeat it. I hope, as a result, the price of oil will come down. It is the best news on a very bad front; that is, of rising gasoline prices, that we have had in a very long time. Let us hope it brings together some good news.

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

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