Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise to speak against amendment No. 2107, the one that talks about pharmaceutical products, medicines. We know how important the prescription medicines are in improving health in this country and the need to make sure those drugs are safe and affordable. Prescription drugs have brought great advances in health outcomes. Just look at how much longer people are living. Over the past century, life expectancy increased from 49 years to 77 years. We know that beneficial drugs need to be more affordable and more readily available. But allowing drugs to enter into the United States from other countries is not the answer.

The Department of Health and Human Services found that importing prescription drugs might save 1 to 2 percent on their prescription drugs--and I am not describing that as insignificant--but these are modest savings compared to what the outcome might be.

Importing risky prescription drugs from other countries could cause more health problems, more suffering, and in the final analysis, more expensive treatments. Americans buy medicine to lower their cholesterol, fight cancer, prevent heart disease. Some of these have had remarkable effects. Heart disease is much less threatening. It is still a dangerous disease but much less than it was years ago. Imagine what would happen to a mother or a child if they were relying on imported drugs only to find out that the drugs were unsafe. We need to be absolutely certain that we are not putting Americans' lives at risk.

That is why I am opposing amendment No. 2107, the McCain amendment, which would allow potentially unsafe prescription drugs to be shipped across our border, directly into the medicine cabinets of homes throughout America. Instead of safeguarding American patients, this amendment could bring potentially dangerous and ineffective drugs from Canada. I say that because, though Canadian drugs may seem safe, we already know that drugs that claim to be from Canada are not always reliable. They are not worth the risk. An FDA investigation found that 85 percent of drugs imported from Canadian Internet pharmacies were actually from 27 other countries. Many of these were pure counterfeit.

The Senate already recognized the danger that imported drugs pose to Americans. On five previous occasions, this Chamber has asked the Department of Health and Human Services to certify that importation will not put people at risk. The Secretary still has not been able to confirm that imported drugs would be safe.

I wish to make another observation. I find it kind of amusing to watch Republican colleagues talk about how wonderful the Canadian health system is. Last I checked, Canada's health care system is socialized medicine. During the health care reform debate these same colleagues were decrying the Canadian system as a horrible socialist experiment. My colleagues need to make up their minds. Do they prefer socialized medicine? If so, it comes with some risks.

I am proud that many of our country's drugs originate in the State of New Jersey, commonly known as the Medicine Chest State. In fact, there are over 46,000 highly skilled people in my home State working to produce lifesaving drugs. It would be wrong to undercut the hard work of these trained New Jerseyans, only to put Americans in danger.

Right now the drugs in our country are safe and effective, as we have seen by the results. Thanks to Senator Harkin and Senator Enzi, this bill will even make our drugs more safe. Americans deserve real peace of mind. When

they open the pill bottle and swallow their medicine, they have to know the product is safe and effective.

I urge my colleagues to support keeping medicine in our country safe and affordable. I urge the drug companies, the medicine companies, to do whatever they can to make drugs, medicines, more available at cheaper prices. I urge my colleagues to vote against amendment No. 2107.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I come to the floor today because we dare not stand here while a menace threatens children across our country with too many untested chemicals present in everyday consumer products, products intended for children's use, such as baby bottles and nursery furniture. Many of them contain chemicals that have never been tested for human safety. These chemicals should be tested in industry laboratories, not in our children's bodies. It is time to update the law to protect them.

This picture shows some of the moms, many who traveled long distances yesterday to come to the Capitol with signs demanding ``safer chemicals now.'' Many of the moms had little children with them.

They are pleading with us. They are saying: Senators, understand what is taking place. Threats to our children should not be tolerated in America.

These moms are right to be concerned that their families are not being protected from dangerous chemicals. It is our responsibility, the responsibility of those in the Senate and the House, to fix our broken chemical laws. But until these laws are fixed, toxic chemicals--the word ``toxic'' is a replacement word for poisonous--toxic chemicals will continue to gnaw away at our children's bodies, their health, and their well-being.

Studies by CDC scientists found 212 industrial chemicals, including 6 carcinogens, coursing through America's children's bodies.

``Toxic Chemicals Pose Significant Health Risks.''

This chart tells a very bad, a very sad story: Five percent of pediatric

cancers, 10 percent of diabetes, 10 percent of Parkinson's disease, and 30 percent of childhood asthma are significant health threats to children. And instead of protecting us from harmful chemicals, our current law falls short.

A law called TSCA was designed to eliminate these threats to children's health. It passed in the 1970s. It is so severely flawed that the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office testified that it is a ``high-risk area of the law.'' Imagine that: TSCA, because of the fact that it is so severely flawed, is a high-risk area of the law.

In nearly 35 years, TSCA has allowed EPA to require testing of only 200 of more than 80,000 chemicals. Thousands of new chemicals are introduced every year in industrial and research facilities, but only 200 over that time were tested. What does that say? When you think about the number of children we are trying to protect, 80,000 chemicals, and EPA could require testing for only 200 of them, and only 5 were banned. It is hard to believe the chemical industry fought for years to keep the status quo alive at the expense of our lives, our children's lives, our children's health.

Recently the Chicago Tribune exposed how the industry used dirty tricks and junk science to drive their public misinformation campaign. They wanted to mislead the public about what is going on. Their series detailed how the industry repeatedly bullied and lied to State legislators to prevent commonsense reform. They bankrolled phony experts. A doctor in one instance prominently stood up there and defended a chemical material, a fire retardant. They are brought in there to invent stories that spout the company line, protecting not the health of children but protecting their profits. It is a terrible exchange--all at the expense of safety and health.

It is clear that chemical manufacturers purposefully hid the dangers of toxic flame retardants. We have a chart here that shows the average couch, for instance, has over 2 pounds of flame-retardant chemicals in its foam cushions, chemicals that have been linked to developmental problems and other health risks. The Presiding Officer has cautioned us about this, as well, that there are discharges when these are compressed that release the toxic chemicals into the air. Scientists have warned us about these chemicals since the 1970s, and yet they show up in household furniture, including baby crib mattresses and high- chair cushions.

The Chicago Tribune report said that:

A typical American baby is born with the highest recorded

concentrations of flame retardants among infants in the

world.

But we are not here to attack chemicals. We are saying sort out those that are necessary and good for our sustainability, but there are hidden in there products that are dangerous, that are contaminants, that can bring terrible things to children, terrible health threats. Hundreds of useful everyday products contain chemicals, but it is our responsibility to make sure they are all safe, and today we don't know what is in the air, the atmosphere, and is poisonous.

Here is an example. Everybody recognizes what this is, a baby bottle. We have all bought them or seen them used for our kids. But chemicals in some baby bottles have been linked to serious health threats. Imagine, as a child takes nourishment, they are taking in a substance that can be dangerous to their health and make them sick--or worse.

When we use these products, the chemicals in them can end up in our bodies. In essence, the American public has become a living, breathing repository for chemical substances. No one should accept this standoff, and most do not. Those who are aware of what is taking place don't want to hear any excuses. They say: Get rid of these things. Let us know what is in there so we can protect our children and shield them from these threats to their health and their well-being.

Everyone--from some chemical manufacturers to businesses that use chemicals in their products, to environmental, labor, and health groups--has called for reforming our chemical laws, and we will not wait. I ask my colleagues not to wait here. Join us in this quest to save our children's health to make sure they grow up as healthy as we can enable them to do. We will not wait any longer, and we cannot let lobbyists run out the clock.

Lobbyists. Those are people, who for a fee, will represent almost anybody. But in this case, we are looking at not those who bring in good information or a good product, but those who are defending companies that are producing products that are dangerous for all the children who are exposed.

My bill, the Safe Chemicals Act, lays out a vision for strong, effective, and pragmatic regulation of chemicals. The bill simply requires the chemical makers to prove that their products, their chemicals are safe before they end up in children's bodies by being put into a product that children use.

Most of the thousands of chemicals we use every day are safe, but this bill will separate the safe chemicals from the ones that are not-- the ones that threaten our children and our families. It will ensure that chemicals are tested and that EPA can take unsafe uses of chemicals off the market.

This bill is common sense. I am sure those who might be listening and those who might read the story from the Chicago Tribune and the research they did will find it very difficult to understand why it is we can't take the steps in here in the Congress to make their children safe. We do it in all kinds of ways to protect our kids. We want them to be able to grow and develop as children should--healthy, healthy kids.

Some chemical industry lobbyists say the cost of testing all these chemicals would be too high. Talk to a parent whose children carry lots of toxins in their bodies already. Talk to the mothers who carry these toxins in their bodies and can transmit them very easily to their children, particularly in pregnancy. So, too high? Too high has to be judged not by the chemical company making a profit and wanting to make more.

We cannot violate our responsibility to the mothers and fathers and the relatives and the families, where little kids live and enjoy life. What about that cost to the damage of their health? What about the cost to them? How high is that cost?

I would like one of these chemical manufacturer executives to stand up to parents who are worried about the health and the well-being of their children and say they are not making enough money and they are going to have to pump more of these threatening materials into the atmosphere without submitting them for testing. What about the cost to the parents who have to pay for their care?

The bottom line is this: If we don't act to protect Americans from thousands of toxic chemicals in everyday consumer products, who is going to do it? It is our responsibility.

Throughout this process we have invited input from all sides of this issue, including the chemical industry. I have extended an open invitation to my Republican colleagues: Think about it. Look at it through the eyes of your children and of your families. Think about it. Or would you rather go to the bank with a larger deposit because you are doing something that is a threat to children of any age and any stage? So I asked colleagues from the Republican side to work with us. Work with me to fix this broken law.

The one thing we will not do--and I know I speak for many others who are cosponsoring this legislation--we will not accept inaction. It is time to act. We want to mark up legislation to reform TSCA and move this legislation to the Senate floor, where decisions can be made. Opinions of individuals who may say, No, we would rather go ahead and enlarge our bank accounts, our cash reserves--let them say it in front of the public. That is when we will be conducting the kind of a test we should be doing here.

We want to move the legislation to the Senate floor and have a vote on it. Hopefully good judgment and good sense will prevail and this will get through and get to the President's desk so he can sign it and start the process of protecting our kids. It is time to come together to finally fix this law and protect our families from toxic chemicals.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 23, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 23, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Progress in Health Care Delivery: Innovations from the Field.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 23, 2012, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``The Law of the Sea Convention (Treaty Doc. 103 39): The U.S. National Security and Strategy Imperatives for Ratification.''

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 May 23, 2012, at 10:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Secret Service on the Line: Restoring Trust and Confidence.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session on May 23, 2012, to conduct a hearing on ``Seamless Transition: Review of the Integrated Disability Evaluation System.''

The Committee will meet in room SD 562 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building, beginning at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 23, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protecting Our Children--The Importance of Training Child Protection Professionals.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Security and International Trade and Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 23, 2012, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reviewing the U.S.--China Strategic and Economic Dialogue.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 23, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask for recognition from the Presiding Officer to move ahead with my statement.

We will give the Senator a good greeting.

Mr. President, one thing we know is that a budget isn't just a collection of numbers, it is an expression of principles and priorities and direction.

While I have the floor, I will take a moment to say to our friend and colleague from North Dakota that he has been one of the strongest chiefs of the Budget Committee. I sat on the Budget Committee for a long time. I think it is fair to say, Republican or Democrat, the Senator from North Dakota deserves the thanks and respect from everybody here for the detail and for the arduous task he took on to make sure our budgets were clear. No matter how often the challenges came, Senator Conrad would stand and give the background and give the details that got him to a point of view, and we are grateful, and we will certainly miss his presence here.

The budgets the Republicans have put forward today confirm their true priorities.

I had a good business career before coming to the Senate, and I remember that during the Second World War we raised taxes on high incomes and on excess profits because the country needed the revenues. We needed to make investments.

Again, the budgets the Republicans have put forward today confirm their true priorities. What are they? They really are pushing, working hard to make sure people who make millions can get tax breaks. It is a little hard to understand, with the shortages we have and needing to invest in more programs, that they are worried about those who make more than $1 million a year. I have had a good business career, and I want to make sure our country is strong, and I want to make sure my contribution is included among those who should be paying.

What Republicans do not seem to care about in their budgeting is seniors, children, and middle-class Americans. At a time when our economy is

fighting against strong headwinds and too many Americans are out of work, the Republicans are offering the same old prescriptions: tax cuts for the rich and austerity for everyone else.

Now, I have seen this country of ours through adversity many times, and I have seen it come out stronger on the other side. But our recoveries have never been spurred by starving the middle class while giving tax breaks to the wealthy. Prosperity has never trickled down from the wealthy few. Prosperity has always grown up from a broad middle class. We can't build a building starting with a chimney, and we can't build a society's strength by starting from the top. It has to have a foundation at the bottom that is strong and has the ability to support the needs of our total society.

But a strong middle class depends on a first-rate educational system--and forgive the personal annotation here for a moment more. When I got out of the Army--I was a high school graduate. I enlisted when I was 18, and I was lucky. I was able to get an education paid for by the government. I was one of 8 million soldiers--service people--who got our education paid for virtually because of the fact that we had served in the military. As a result, half of those who were in uniform--8 million out of 16 million--got a college education.

I can tell my colleagues that it enabled me, working with two colleagues, to start a company that the three of us founded, a company that took years and years to build. Slowly and energetically it began to develop. Today that company produces the labor statistics every month for the worldwide knowledge of what is happening with working people, what their wages are, what employment is like. The name of the company is ADP. We have 50,000 employees now. We were three poor boys with nothing going for us except the willingness to work hard, and that is the value. What did we get? It was determined that was the greatest generation. Why? Because an education was given to so many who could learn but didn't have the ability to get to college.

What we need is a society with affordable and accessible health care and a tax system where everyone pays their fair share.

The Republican budgets include vicious cuts to the middle class. Just look at what they do to education. They slash funding for education by $19 billion. They want to do that now when we desperately need the skills and the knowledge that education brings and the opportunity for invention and creation. They want to take away $19 billion. That is not going to help us get out of the hole we are in.

The Ryan budget coming from the House of Representatives would cut education, as I pointed out, by $19 billion. They don't want us to see the specific programs they cut, but let's look at the devastating consequences if their cuts were distributed evenly.

I don't know whether Head Start is a familiar operation in our country, but it is one of the most valuable. I believe there are about a million children who participate in the program. Look at the face of this child, looking through a narrow prism. There are 200,000 of these children who will be told: Stay home. There is no room for you. We can't afford to pay for you.

I recently went to a Head Start school in New Jersey and I met the children. I am such a professional grandfather that all little kids look beautiful to me. I met the children. What they were learning was that learning is fun. Words mean something. Pictures mean something. They were prepared, when they got to kindergarten or first grade, to say that learning is good.

I met a child there. The children lined up to greet me. This is a school that is bilingual.

I said: What is your name?

The little boy standing in front of me said: My name is Julio.

So I put my hand out to shake his hand, and he pushed it aside and instead he wrapped his arms around my legs and gave me a hug. All the little kids who followed thought he was the leader, so they all gave me hugs. It was one of the best days I have had, to see what happens when we treat these little kids to an opportunity to learn. Imagine slashing funding for a program that will help children learn how to learn.

These cuts are shortsighted. They are cruel. Ten million college students could see their Pell grants cut by more than $1,000 in 2014-- very painful.

With less support and rising costs for higher education, young people would be forced to take on more debt in order to attend college because we see college tuition is going up rapidly across the country.

The Republican budgets address student debt too. They would let the interest rate on the new student loans double, increase by twice. It is an outrage. Why are Republicans putting obstacles in front of young people seeking an education? I never would have been able to attend, as I said, Columbia University without that government help for me and the services that ADP provides. It enabled me to cofound one of America's most successful companies. The investment this country made when we came home from World War II helped to create the momentum and direction of this country with decades of prosperity.

But instead of offering a helping hand to this generation of students, the Republican proposals close the door in their faces. Government investments in science, technology, and medical research are cut by more than $100 billion over the next 10 years. Medical research funding alone could take a hit of nearly $6 billion by 2014.

What does that do? It delays research on new treatments for diseases such as cancer, childhood asthma, and juvenile diabetes. Imagine telling a parent of a sick child that we could not help find the money to help him get back with his friends out in the play yard or the schoolroom or going to school on a regular basis. Is that where America wants to be? Right now we are finding across the country that there is a greater likelihood that autism will enter into a family's difficulties with a child being born with autism. How can we say no when we see, in my State alone, that 1 in 29 male babies has autism? That is a plague. That is a terrible statistic.

Then we want to talk about cutting back on health research? In their budgets, instead of helping seniors retire with dignity, Republicans have proposed to end Medicare as we know it, giving seniors a voucher instead of guaranteed care. If that voucher cannot cover the cost of needed medical services, Republicans say: Hey, too bad; you are on your own. We have heard comments from them saying: Well, so what if you are poor. It does not matter.

I look at this chart that says: ``Ends Medicare As We Know It To Provide Tax Cuts For The Wealthy.'' They want to say that to people who need the care, who are fortunate enough now under present conditions to be able to have long-term care with a disease that is terminal.

The Republican plan would also cut Medicaid. Medicaid is a program for those less able to provide for themselves because of low income or no income. The Republican plans also want to cut that by more than $800 billion over 10 years. Medicaid provides vital resources such as pregnancy services for expectant mothers and nursing home care for seniors.

We created Medicare and Medicaid because it was decided in this country as a society that we have to be there for seniors and the poor when they get sick. But now the Republicans are proposing to break that promise. They seem to do it without shame.

Republicans are not even exempting the hungry from their cuts. They would eliminate food stamps for up to 10 million Americans over the next decade.

In their obsession with austerity, they cut through far more than the fat in the budget. They cut into the bone.

Many on the other side--and I do not say all; a lot of people on the other side are good people concerned about their constituents, concerned about what happens--but many on that side say balancing the budget is the mission, the only mission. And in order to do it, they want to make sure that includes a high priority for tax breaks for the millionaires.

We could reduce our deficit if we required the wealthiest among us to pay at least the same tax rate as middle-class Americans on all of their income. But, instead, a Republican budget would give millionaires an average tax cut of almost $400,000 a year. Their

plan shreds the safety net for seniors and the poor while padding the mattress for the rich.

I ask my colleagues, please get your priorities straight. America needs your help across the board. Your families, your neighbors, your State, all need your help. Millionaires do not need more tax cuts, and they certainly should not get them at the expense of seniors, children, and the middle class.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleagues on this side to urge our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to move quickly to confirm highly qualified judicial nominees. They passed review by the Judiciary Committee. They passed all kinds of scrutiny.

We are on the verge of serious economic improvements. As that takes place, we have a lot of parts to keep moving. We must do everything we can to fill the positions that can help, directly and indirectly, to resolve disputes or problems, to help Americans across the country to find work, stay in their homes, provide their children with health care and education. We have to cooperate on all fronts to accelerate the pace of the recovery we see ahead of us.

One of the places both sides benefit is to keep our justice system moving efficiently. People need to know they can get disputes resolved, hopefully quickly, but heard and decided. One of the things that looms large is the trial of those who are charged with felonious deeds, criminal acts. Let's get those who are convicted finally punished if it is called for. But let's make sure that part of our judiciary functioning is moving as rapidly as it can be.

Property rights are at risk. Businesses need certainty about rights and responsibilities. Unfortunately, delays in confirming qualified judicial nominees who have passed the scrutiny of the Judiciary Committee are threatening to grind the wheels of justice to a halt when there are vacancies around. Nearly 1 in 11 judgeships across the country is awaiting the position to be filled. If these positions were physicians, firemen, cops, and 1 out of 11, almost 10 percent of these jobs, were not filled, we would do something as rapidly as we could to get them resolved. At this point in President George Bush's Presidency, the Senate had confirmed 25 more judges than have been confirmed since President Obama took office. These are seriously needed nominees who have been forced to wait nearly four times as long as the Bush nominees to be confirmed after being favorably reported, as I mentioned, by the Judiciary Committee.

As a result, the vacancy rate is nearly twice what it was at this point in President Bush's first term. These vacancies are not some remote problems that only lawyers and academics care about. Judicial vacancies affect the ability of everyday Americans and businesses to see justice served, and countless of them have had their cases delayed.

I am encouraged that we have been able to confirm a number of nominees lately, including two last evening. It is my hope that for the good of the country we will pick up the pace in confirming nominees-- particularly as I see

it from our State's point of view. In our State of New Jersey we have three distinguished nominees who have been approved by the Judiciary Committee and are awaiting votes by the full Senate so they can get to work fulfilling their obligation to dispense justice.

One of these people is magistrate judge Patty Shwartz, who has been nominated to serve on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. She passed with flying colors with an examination of her background. She would be the only woman from New Jersey serving as an active Third Circuit judge and only the second woman ever to represent New Jersey on that court. Her presence would tell women something important about our understanding of where women are in our society. Since 2003 Patty Shwartz has served as a U.S. magistrate judge in the District of New Jersey, where she has handled 4,000 criminal and civil cases. She spent almost 14 years as an assistant U.S. attorney, supervising hundreds of criminal cases, including civil rights, violent crime, drug trafficking, and fraud cases.

I review her qualifications only to make the case that this is a person eminently qualified to sit on the bench. We need her presence there to move the volume of cases that are awaiting review, and she is bottled up here by reluctance on the other side. She passed the test. Let's let her go to work.

John Lacey, past president of the Association of the New Jersey Federal Bar, said that Judge Shwartz is ``thoughtful, intelligent, and has an extraordinarily high level of common sense.''

Thomas Curtin, chairman of the Lawyers Advisory Committee for the U.S. District Court of New Jersey, said:

Every lawyer in the world will tell you that she's

extraordinarily qualified, a decent person, and an excellent

judge.

The American Bar Association clearly agrees. They gave her the highest rating of unanimously ``well qualified.''

Judge Shwartz graduated from Rutgers University with the highest honors. She received her law degree from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she was editor of the Law Review and was named her class's Outstanding Woman Law Graduate.

The two nominees for New Jersey's district court are similarly well qualified.

Kevin McNulty currently leads an appellate practice group in New Jersey. He spent more than a decade in the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Jersey, rising to the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division and Chief of the Appeals Division.

Mr. McNulty clerked for U.S. district judge Frederick B. Lacey after receiving his law degree from New York University, where he was a member of the Law Review, and his undergraduate degree came from Yale University. He was named Lawyer of the Year in 2008 by the New Jersey Law Journal, and the ABA rated him unanimously ``well qualified.'' I am confident that his work as a judge will earn him similar praise.

Judge Michael Shipp, yet another appointee, has equally impressive credentials. As a U.S. magistrate judge in the District of New Jersey since 2007, he has conducted proceedings in both civil and criminal cases, including ruling on motions, issuing recommendations to district court judges, and performing district court judge duties in cases with magistrate jurisdiction.

Judge Shipp previously worked in the New Jersey Attorney General's Office as assistant attorney general in charge of consumer protection and then as counsel to the attorney general, where he ran a department of 10,000 employees.

He has also worked as a litigator at a distinguished law firm, Skadden Arps, and as a law clerk to New Jersey Supreme Court Justice James Coleman, Jr.

Judge Shipp is a graduate of Rutgers University and Seton Hall University Law School, where he continues to teach as an adjunct law professor--a position he has held for more than a decade.

I review the qualifications of these judges to remove any doubt about whether they could do a good job. They can do a great job. Their backgrounds say they are ready to go to work, and here we are, frankly, seeing them held up, in my view, unnecessarily. Let's get this behind us. There are things on which we can cross the aisle without invading the province of the other Members, and I think we just ought to cooperate on judges. I think I can speak for the Democrats here that we will cooperate. We will consider the judges who are presented from their side, but we want to just get going with judges altogether.

I thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley for moving these nominees through the Judiciary Committee, but now it is time to bring them to the floor and confirm them. Judge Shwartz, Mr. McNulty, and Judge Shipp have brought honor to New Jersey and to our country, and they deserve to be confirmed. More importantly, the American people deserve to see these vacancies filled so the promise of justice for all can truly be fulfilled.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we arrive here at a moment when we once again have a chance to view the differences in thought and perspective which are exhibited at this moment in this institution. Today, we are talking about college education. We are talking about programs for young people to get an education and go to college.

For generations, affordable college education has been an essential tool for providing opportunity and building a strong society.

I know from personal experience that government plays a critical role in making higher education possible. I served in World War II, and when I joined the Army there was no prospect for me to go to college. I was 18 when I enlisted. When I finished my Army service--having been in Europe during the war--things looked bleak, but there was an opportunity that loomed in front of me, and that was an ability to attend college.

My family was faced with poverty and there wasn't much money in the family, but there was something called the GI bill. The GI bill gave me a chance to achieve a dream.

I joined with a couple friends to form a company. The company was called ADP. The company that produces the labor statistics every month that this country and the whole world sees. When I was able to start this company with two other fellows, none of us had any money. The two of them were brothers, and we didn't have any resources at all. We had to start from nothing. In the days that we had a chance to get going, the future was brightened a little bit by the fact that an education was possible to have. That company we started with nothing today employs more than 50,000 people around the world.

The country invested in my generation by helping us pay for college, and that investment helped create decades of prosperity. As a matter of fact, that generation--post-World War II--was called the greatest generation ever seen in American history. Out of 16 million people who served in the Army, 8 million people got a college education through the GI bill, and thus this generation that came out started us on a track for prosperity this country had never seen. The investment the GI bill made in people says that when we have a chance to educate people and get them to go to college or to attend a university, that is the way we create the next great generation.

Attending college has never before been this expensive. The cost of tuition at public universities is 37 percent more expensive now than just 10 years ago. Think about that. If the average cost for a college 10 years ago was $40,000, it now costs well over $50,000. As a result, more and more students are taking on massive loans that will plague them for years. I use the word ``plague'' because it is very difficult to get started in life, in business or start a family and be facing heavy debt at the same time.

Sixty-six percent of New Jersey students graduate with loan indebtedness. The average loan burden for New Jersey graduates is more than $23,000. No wonder we hear that technology companies are hungry to hire but can't always find people with the education and skills they need. The pricetag alone puts college out of reach for too many people

And the clock is ticking on even higher college costs. Unless Congress acts, interest rates on many student loans are going to double on July 1--less than 2 months from today. For many students, doubling rates will cost them $1,000 more for each year of college.

But instead of standing with students, our friends on the Republican side are playing politics. They made it clear that keeping student loan rates low is not a priority. They don't see it as something being worthwhile. Two Republican Senators have introduced budget proposals that would allow student loan interest rates to double.

Yesterday, we saw 44 Senate Republicans vote to prevent the Senate from even considering our bill to keep student loan rates low. How heartless. How thoughtless it is to punish our country this way. College is already too expensive. Why would we put up obstacles to getting an education?

Republicans should listen to people who are suffering from the high cost of college. There have been 1,400 people who have written to me through mail or Facebook to say: Don't let them do it. Don't let them double my rates.

A single mother from New Jersey who is helping her daughter pay for college wrote to say that any increase would create enormous hardship and an inability to continue to provide for the family. Another New Jerseyan says America will not be able to compete with the rest of the world if college is accessible only to those who have the ability to pay for it up front, and I agree. We will not be able to compete if we don't have the educated people necessary to fill the jobs that are available.

Our Republican friends say they want to prevent the doubling of interest rates. So why don't they step up to the plate? I don't understand that. They say one thing on one hand: Oh, yes; we don't want to increase the rates. On the other hand, they say we are not going to help keep them at the lower rate they are now. They say in order to pay for keeping rates low for students, we have to cut vital funding for programs that keep people healthy. Their bill would slash funding for prevention and public health funds, programs dedicated to stop devastating diseases before they occur. Chronic diseases, such as cancer, heart disease, and diabetes, take more than 1 million lives every year and account for 75 percent of our Nation's health spending. That is why the Prevention and Public Health Fund has invested $226 million to reduce chronic illnesses.

The President's budget also calls for using this program to protect women's health by providing breast and cervical cancer screenings to low-income women, but it won't happen if Republicans get their way.

The Republican bill would also cripple programs that keep kids from smoking and help smokers to quit. We have all seen the ads--real people telling real stories about how tobacco has affected their lives. This chart tells the story: ``Don't be shy about telling people not to smoke around your kids.'' We see a picture here of a mother and a child. Republicans don't care about educating people on the dangers of smoking? Who are they protecting here? Certainly not our children and certainly not our students.

It is unconscionable. Republicans profess they want to keep loan rates low but only if we sacrifice programs that protect children from smoking addiction and help women avoid breast cancer and other deadly diseases.

The Democrats have a better solution. The bill Majority Leader Reid has introduced pays for keeping student loan rates low by eliminating a tax convenience that millionaires and billionaires use to avoid payroll taxes. Rather than choose to close this loophole, the Republicans choose to take this opportunity to talk our bill to death. They would rather see interest rates double for students than force the wealthy to pay their fair share of the country's obligation.

Student loans open the door to opportunities. Interest rates have to be kept low to protect graduates from a mountain of debt.

I call on my professional experience again, if I might. I finished college. My father passed away while he was in the Army. He was only 43 years old. He left my mother a 37-year-old widow to care for herself and my sister. As luck had it, I got an education at Columbia University, at the business school there. I started a company I mentioned before called ADP. It provides services across the world for those companies that need help in doing their payroll, accounting, and other recordkeeping that companies must do. It only happened because we were able to get our education through the GI bill. There was zero cost to those of us who served in World War II and even some money to pay for books and for other necessities.

So I call on my Republican colleagues to stop the obstructionism, stop the politicking, and stop throwing obstacles in the way of young people who want to get an education and make a contribution to this society as well as to themselves and elevate America's ability to deal with the competition we see in the world. It is time to do that.

I am not suggesting that our Republican colleagues don't want progress. They do. But when we try to move a bill that says: Keep interest rates low on college loans, keep the rate low so that when people get out of college they are not so burdened by debt that they can't get started in life, I say keep them low so that America competes as it should--right at the top of the ladder with educated people, people who want to succeed but don't have the tools necessarily until they finish their college education. Why put obstacles in the way? It is incomprehensible because there are a lot of good people on the other side. But why do they persist in obstructing the opportunity to even discuss it? They want to filibuster it to death. Filibuster, for those who don't know the term, means talk, talk, talk, talk, talk--do anything but make progress.

So I hope we will say to those who have been successful: Do your fair share. Let your contribution to the well-being of our country educate those who can learn and not make it so expensive, so out of reach that few will be able to take advantage of it.

I ask to please move this bill along. Let's let the American people at least know what we think about this legislation to keep interest rates low.

With that, I yield the floor.

I plan to, but I will defer, if the Senator is in a rush.

Mr. President, on this floor we talk a lot about the critical importance of family. I frequently speak about my family, my 10 grandchildren and 4 children, who are the foundation and inspiration for everything I do. But for some Americans, the family is instead a source of fear.

Domestic violence wreaks havoc in our homes and our communities across the country. The statistics are shocking. Every year 12 million women and men in our country are victims of rape, physical violence, and stalking. The numbers are shocking. They represent a national tragedy. But these are not just numbers, they are lives. In 2010, 38 of New Jersey's domestic violence incidents ended in death. I have visited women's shelters in New Jersey, and I have seen fear in the faces of women holding their children. It takes a lot of courage for a woman to stand up and leave her abuser. As a society, we have to be able to tell these women they will have a safe place to go, they will have resources to help them, and they will see justice for their abuser.

Today we are debating legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, which for almost 18 years has provided women with support programs they need to escape abusive situations. Make no mistake, VAWA is working for women. Since its passage, occurrences of domestic violence have decreased by more than 50 percent. But despite this incredible progress, these horrible acts continue.

In fact, our progress should inspire us to work harder. Domestic violence programs in our communities are on the front line, and they are starved for resources. More than one-third of New Jersey's domestic violence programs report not having enough funding to provide needed services, and approximately one-quarter report not having enough beds available for women and children trying to escape violent situations. Since 2006, more than 40 programs in New Jersey alone have received almost $30 million in funding through the Violence Against Women Act.

Let me be clear. It would be tragic to turn our backs on victims and the people who dedicate their lives to supporting them. While we cannot stop all malicious acts, we can do more to keep women and their families safe.

In 1996, I wrote the domestic violence gun ban, which forbids anyone convicted of domestic violence from getting a gun. Since the law's inception, we have kept guns from falling into violent hands on over 200,000 occasions. For instance, our gun laws allow domestic abusers to sidestep the ban on getting a gun. The loophole allows a convicted abuser to walk into a gun show and walk out with a gun, no questions asked. That is because background checks are not required for private sellers at gun shows.

Since 1999, I have introduced legislation to close the gun show loophole and keep guns from falling into the wrong hands, and it passed in the Senate with the vote of the Vice President to break the tie. Thirteen years later, this gap in our law remains in place, and people can go to the gun show, walk up to an unlicensed dealer, put the money down, and walk out with a gun. It is an outrage. If we want to protect victims from domestic abuse, we ought to commit ourselves to closing the gun show loophole for the safety of women, their families, and other victims of abuse. Saving the lives of women should be above politics.

The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act passed the Senate unanimously in 2000 and 2005, and it is incomprehensible that we would turn our back on those who are so abused. I ask those who would vote against passing this bill to think about their own families, think about their spouses, think about their daughters, think about their children.

Every Republican in the committee voted against reauthorizing the VAWA in committee. Every one of them voted against the bill that primarily protects women. They walked away.

Today they have taken a different approach. They presented an amendment, and it is a sham. It actually removes the word ``women'' from a key part of the bill. It also fails to protect some of our most vulnerable victims. Apparently, some of our colleagues would vote against protecting women if it means they also have to protect immigrants and people in the gay and lesbian community.

I call on our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us and our families. We know they care. Show it. Show it in this vote we are about to take. Send a clear message that this country does not tolerate brutality against anyone, and show it with a little bit of courage. Stand and say: No, I want to protect my family, I want to protect those who are abused routinely in our society. That is the plea. I just hope each one of them will look at a picture of their kids and their families and say: I owe you that protection.

We worked hard here with the premise that we are protecting people, so let's show it.

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

Madam President, I rise today in a moment when America is in crisis, and I don't think we are paying appropriate attention to the problems that befall our society. There are still too many people out of work, too many people who can't afford health care presently, and too many people who can't educate their children because they don't have the means. They are struggling. Millions of homes are still on the edge of foreclosure. And here we see a situation that is unacceptable under any stretch of the imagination.

I rise today to talk to the American people who are struggling every week to provide the necessities for family life. At the same time, I ask my Republican colleagues why they would insist on continuing tax subsidies--gifts, really--to multibillion-dollar oil companies at the expense of ordinary, hard-working, middle-income families. Right now, these families are forced to come up with $4 per gallon--$60 to $80 dollars, typically--to fill the tank every time they have to go to the gas station. That is a huge burden. The big five oil companies have made almost $1 trillion in profits in the last decade. Look at how much money these companies made in the last year alone. It was a record $137 billion between the big five oil companies.

Look at them: ExxonMobil--these poor guys need a subsidy. They only made $41 billion--$41 billion--in a single year. Look down the list. The last of the five must believe that trying to catch up is pretty tough. They only made $12 billion. That is Conoco, the last. In 1 year, they made $12 billion.

Given how well these companies are doing, why are we giving them billions of dollars in tax breaks? The legislation we are voting on today presents a better idea. It says we should end these tax breaks and instead invest in clean energy solutions that can break our dangerous dependence on oil.

Investing in renewable energy has helped launch industries that create jobs and clean up our air and provide homemade -- homemade -- American power. Clean energy is also our best chance to break through spiraling gas

prices and our reliance on foreign oil. One would think our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would want to put a stop to the punishing effects of higher and higher gas prices on middle-income working people. Why wouldn't they want to end America's dependence on fossil fuels and eliminate needless tax breaks for oil companies? Two words: Big Oil.

Big Oil is doing all it can to protect their tax breaks. Even a retired chairman and CEO of Exxon said it is not necessary; they do not need it. But they are taking it. Big Oil is doing all it can to protect their tax breaks, and the Republicans are lining up to help Big Oil.

It is time to tell the truth. Making oil companies pay their fair share in taxes is not going to raise the price of gas, contrary to what they publish. It just means Big Oil executives might have to trim their sail a little bit and share in the problems we have. A long time ago when I was a soldier, we had an excess profits tax for companies that made, in a way, unconscionable amounts of money based on the situation our country was facing. So it is just a matter of sharing some of the responsibility our country has in order to keep everybody feeling as though they are participating in the American dream, not a nightmare.

While millions of Americans are struggling every week to pay their bills, everybody should take a look at how much oil companies are paying their executives. Here is a fellow who personally runs ExxonMobil, the CEO, and he was paid $29 million last year. That is what I said, $29 million. Conoco Phillips' CEO received $18 million, and Chevron's exec made $16 million in income in 1 single year.

By the way, that is from money earned for an essential product. When we look at gasoline, it almost compares to having medicines available because when we look at the cost of gasoline, we might ask: What would it take to educate all the children who can learn? Way less than we see demonstrated on these charts and their balance sheets. Working men and women in this country on average make just over $27,000 a year--$27,000 a year.

I don't begrudge high profits. I really don't. I ran a big company, a company I helped start, which has 45,000 employees. It is a huge company. It is a company that calculates the employment records every month. The company is called ADT. So I don't mind big profits.

The question is, Who are you taking them from and how critical is the product they are being forced to buy? Right now, people are paying an average of $3.91 per gallon of gas.

What about the people who live in other places? We picked at random a county in Mississippi. The county is called Issaquena County. Last year, the entire income for all the people in that county who were working was just over $16 million. All the people in a single county made $16 million. This poor guy at Chevron made $16 million by himself, and the others would leave all of those in that county way behind. A single oil company CEO made more in 1 year than all the people in that county put together. These hard-working people are already contributing to the income of oil executives whenever they fill up their gas tanks. Is it fair to ask them to chip in with their tax dollars to pay even more toward these record-setting salaries?

Over the last 10 years, CEO pay at Exxon and Chevron has more than tripled. Over the same period, gas prices have nearly tripled. The picture is clear: Working people are struggling to fill up their tanks while oil executives are struggling to carry their big fat paychecks to the bank. It is almost beyond belief that Senators are lining up to protect tax breaks for oil companies--some Senators, I say--beyond belief.

I say to them: Mind your responsibilities. You were elected not just by oil company executives or even oil company employees. Let's focus on the hard-working Americans who are paying more and more at the gas pump, the clean energy workers who might lose their jobs, and our men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line to protect oil supplies.

The American people know these subsidies are unnecessary, that they are ineffective, and they are immoral considering the conditions that exist in our society. Continuing to subsidize oil companies only increases our dependence on dirty fuels. It keeps us on a dead-end road to sky-high energy bills, more oilspills, and dangerous pollution levels.

So I call on my colleagues to kick Big Oil off of the welfare rolls and invest in clean energy jobs. Let's end the industry's tax breaks and break our country's addiction to oil and other dirty fuels. Let's invest in clean energy and smart transportation, not windfalls for oil industry executives and lobbyists. Let's make certain our children and our grandchildren inherit a country that is fiscally sound, morally responsible, and free from its dependence on oil.

Let's not worry about the oil companies. They can take care of themselves. Let's stop this drain on our society, this drain on working-class citizens. Let's pay attention to the millions and millions of people in America who say: Just give us a chance, give us a chance to make a decent living; give us a chance to educate our children; give us a chance to keep our jobs; give us a chance to maintain our homes; get us off the possible foreclosure line. That is what we are looking for.

That is the purpose of this legislation--to say to the American people: Look in this Chamber, Mr. and Mrs. America. Look in this Chamber and see the people who are supporting Big Oil profit fattening. Look at those who are supporting these profits.

Again, I don't mind companies making profits, but when the profits come in almost blood money, when you think of the effect gasoline has on family life, it is unfair, it is indecent, and it is improper.

With that, I yield the floor.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

Madam President, we have listened with interest and total accord as the life of Barbara Mikulski in the Senate has been reviewed by so many people. We have heard the friendship and good will we all share toward her.

Her record is quite well known. She is determined to get things done. She never lets minutia stand in the way or block an accomplishment. And I have noticed one thing: When Barbara Mikulski starts to talk during a debate, the noise around the room quiets down. And if it doesn't, beware; Barbara will call your attention to it and say it in a way that demands attention.

Barbara and I arrived in the Senate in fairly close proximity. I came here in 1983 and Barbara arrived in 1986, as I recall. We were both on the Appropriations Committee. I had some slight seniority over her, and one of the things that were being dealt with was seniority. Barbara asked for my help in the choice of subcommittee, and I tried to step out of the way and help Barbara obtain the chairmanship of a subcommittee in Appropriations, which she managed so well and so effectively. She once called me her Galahad, and I was proud of the moniker because it was intended to be a compliment and a sign of friendship.

Strikingly, Barbara Mikulski and I have backgrounds that are not dissimilar. I came from Polish heritage. My grandparents on my paternal side were born in Poland, as Barbara's family was. They were immigrants. My parents were brought as children from Europe and went through the traditional immigrant absorption.

My folks found it very hard to make a living as they grew up here in America. My grandparents were essentially poor people with a kind of blue-collar background. They had to resort to storekeeping to keep food on the table, a roof overhead, and clothes on their backs.

The one thing that threaded through those years for me--and I heard it coming from Barbara Mikulski so many times when she spoke--was there was always dignity in the house, there was always a positive outlook.

As I heard, my parents, like hers, were not able to do much with presents and valuables. But they did something else, and you see it so fundamentally clear in Barbara Mikulski's demeanor and her behavior: that what she learned at home, the same thing that I learned at home, was the meaning of values not valuables but values. And values included a character obligation for hard work and honesty and decency. They were the yardsticks by which we were measured as children and as adults.

I worked very closely with Barbara. I left the Senate, as is known, for 2 years and my seniority slipped as a consequence. Barbara's seniority continued to grow, and she is chairman of the appropriations subcommittee. Barbara always brought a degree of strength and energy to the things that she said and to the things she did. Although Barbara during a presentation wanted to make sure that she was heard, and heard correctly, she would also pop up with humor. She had a facility with words and a facility with expression that would have you engrossed in what she was saying and caught off guard when a joke or a humorous statement would pop up.

When we note that Barbara Mikulski, from this modest background, was always on the side of working people, it was never a mask; it was the truth and it was where she wanted to be. I must say that she, for me, was always a steadfast beacon that would remind us: Don't get carried away too much with your personal importance. Get carried away with the things you have to do in your responsibility as a Senator.

When Barbara Mikulski came these years ago, as was noted, she was the first among the women to come to the Senate and ultimately, as we now know, became the longest serving and carried herself through all of the difficulties we have had. But always, always you could depend on Barbara Mikulski. When Barbara stood up, people stopped talking about things that were extraneous and they would listen carefully, because Barbara Mikulski always made so much sense and she didn't let you get by without a challenge if she believed you were wrong.

We have heard about her record, we have heard about her accomplishments, and everybody had wonderful things to say about her. I listened carefully to the statements that were being made and thought about our days together and how wonderful it was to be able to hear Barbara Mikulski make sense out of what often escaped that challenge. She would offer the challenge and she would offer solutions.

I, like our other colleagues, stand here in awe and respect and note that Barbara Mikulski, the storekeeper's daughter, is so much like that which I saw in my own life and we have seen in America in the past century; and Barbara Mikulski who, in all due modesty, without any impression of a smug satisfaction, is always ready to take up the battle for the people she served, not only in the State of Maryland but across the country. She is an inspiration for women coming to government, and she serves so well as a demonstration of what could be.

I am delighted to be here, to stand here as a friend and an admirer of Barbara Mikulski, and wish her many more years of service. I know that with Barbara around, you can always count on sense and good judgment to result.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to speak against three Republican amendments that pose a grave threat to our health, our children, and our environment.

The first seeks to delay and weaken new EPA standards that would reduce the pollution produced by industrial boilers. These boilers emit dozens of toxins, including lead, which reduces children's intelligence levels, and dioxins, which can cause birth defects. Boilers also release mercury, which is brain poison for children. And I ask my colleagues here to just think for a moment how lucky you are if all of your children are healthy and feeling good.

Under the Republican amendment, polluters will have at least 6 additional years to continue releasing life-threatening toxins into our air. We have already waited far too long to see the health benefits these standards would achieve. Back in 1990, both parties came together in Congress and told the EPA to set new pollution standards by the year 2000. If we delay these standards another 6 years, our country will suffer as many as 28,000 premature deaths. We will also see 17,000 heart attacks and more than 180,000 asthma attacks.

This amendment would also fundamentally weaken the Clean Air Act. It forces the EPA to set the least burdensome standards for industry. Imagine that. Instead of reducing toxins our children breathe, this amendment orders the EPA to reduce the burden on polluters. Under this amendment, children lose and polluters win, and that is inexcusable.

I also wish to express my strong opposition to Senator Hoeven's Keystone XL amendment, which is nothing more than a rubberstamp for a project that poses serious risks to our environment and public safety.

The Keystone XL Pipeline will be one of the largest pipelines outside of Russia and China. It will be 1,700 miles long, cut through six States, and carry nearly 1 million barrels of tar sands oil each day. Make no mistake, the Keystone Pipeline is not ready for approval.

The fact is, the people have a right to know the facts about projects like this. This is one of the reasons I wrote the Pipeline Safety Act, which President Obama signed into law in January. This law requires the Transportation Secretary to determine whether we need better rules for the movement of tar sands oil, which is thicker and more corrosive than conventional oil.

Keep in mind, the existing Keystone Pipeline has had 12 oilspills in its first year of operation. So before we take a shot in the dark, let's get the facts about Keystone XL.

Finally, I want to express my strong opposition to a Vitter amendment to vastly expand offshore drilling in this country. I will not stand by while Republicans put New Jersey's coast in the hands of oil companies. Tourism, fishing, and other coastal activities generate $50 billion a year in New Jersey and support a half million jobs. Just like with the Keystone Pipeline, the oil industry is telling us don't worry about the risks posed by offshore drilling. They say: Trust us; everything will be fine. But we know how empty the oil industry's promises are.

In 1989, before the Valdez spill in Alaska, Exxon told us their oil tankers were safe. Two years ago, BP insisted it could handle an oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico. That is fresh in our memories. We should not forget it.

We do not need any more empty assurances from the industry. We need to defeat these amendments and pass a clean transportation bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a long-time friend from New Jersey. It is a sad day for all of us from New Jersey who knew Congressman Donald Payne from north New Jersey, and I pay tribute to my colleague who died this morning after a battle with colon cancer.

Congressman Payne was the first African American from New Jersey to be elected to Congress. He was a trailblazer and a fine leader, one of the finest our State has ever known. For more than two decades, Congressman Payne served New Jersey with distinction, but the whole world benefited from his leadership. He was a proud son of Newark and became an expert on foreign relations and led efforts to restore democracy and human rights around the world, including places as far away from one another as northern Ireland and Sudan. President Clinton chose Congressman Payne to accompany him on his historic tour of Africa in 1998.

The Congressman also worked hard. He secured more than $100 million to treat victims of malaria, tuberculosis, HIV and AIDS, and stopped the spread of these diseases in Africa's poorest nations.

Three years ago, against the State Department's advice, Congressman Payne went to Somalia to see the turmoil there for himself, narrowly escaping with his life when insurgents launched a mortar attack near his airplane when he was leaving.

The Congressman also helped with passage of a resolution declaring the killings in Darfur as genocide and raising global awareness of these travesties.

At home Congressman Payne was a tireless advocate for his constituents. He brought significant economic development to counties in New Jersey, including Essex, Hudson, and Union. He was a former schoolteacher and was a leader on education. He worked hard to close the achievement gap, with making college more affordable and bringing more equity to school funding. Congressman Donald Payne was a man of conscience and conviction.

I knew him for many years, and I was always struck by his soft-spoken demeanor, and that kind of made him a rarity in politics. But Congressman Payne knew he didn't need to raise his voice; his ideas were powerful enough. The Congressman put it best when he said: ``There is a lot of dignity in being able to achieve things without having to create rapture.''

As I mentioned, Donald Payne was a teacher in the Newark public schools, and Newark was a poverty-stricken city. His mission was to inspire young people to use education in their lives to

achieve opportunity. The people of New Jersey sent him to Washington for the first time in 1988, and they continued sending him back by overwhelming margins for the next 22 years. He became an inspiration to many, including members of his family who followed him into careers in public service.

But most of all, Donald Payne was an inspiration to the people he served. He gave them hope. He gave them some ideas of what they could make of their lives. His voice sounded important and deliberate enough to convince people to try harder, and he did succeed many times.

In 1988, during his first campaign for the House, Congressman Payne told a reporter: ``I want to be a role model for the kids I talk to on the street corners.'' He used to see a lot of them. He worked hard within his congressional district. He said: ``I want to see there are no barriers to achievement.''

Donald Payne achieved this goal. An entire generation of New Jerseyans has come of age knowing and respecting Congressman Donald Payne. He has undoubtedly inspired many young New Jerseyans to enter public service, and I expect we will one day see some of them walking the Halls of Congress and following in Donald Payne's footsteps, but today these Halls feel emptier without his presence.

I am going to miss Don Payne. We will mourn his absence from our lives, but we will also take comfort in the knowledge that his legacy will endure for a long time to come, way beyond his life. We thank him at this time for all of the good he did and that he brought to our people and our State.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Melva E. Radcliffe on her 111th birthday this past Saturday, March 3. A lifelong native of New Jersey, Mrs. Radcliffe is the oldest recorded resident of my State. Her father, the late Wilmer A. Cadmus, served as mayor of my hometown of Paterson. Mrs. Radcliffe attended the Paterson Normal School, now William Paterson University, and taught art and music to elementary school students in Paterson until 1968. Her family tells us she has proudly voted in every election since 1921, and greatly enjoyed traveling after she retired. I wish Mrs. Radcliffe all the best, and congratulate her on this amazing milestone in her life.

Mr. President, we are engaged in the business of the Senate, and it is not always discernible that it is the business of the people. What we see taking place these days is a principle mantra of Republicans on the campaign trail seeking more freedom for the American people. The Republicans like to say they ``don't want government interfering in people's lives.'' Then I ask: Why the devil are we debating a Republican amendment that limits a woman's freedom to make her own health care choices? With women, the Republicans have a different idea about freedom. They want government to interfere in the most personal aspects of women's lives.

The amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri, the Blunt amendment, will allow a woman's employer to deny coverage for any medical service that they, the employer, have a moral problem with. Imagine that. Your boss is going to decide whether you are acting morally. The Republicans want to take us forward to the Dark Ages again when women were property that they could easily control and even trade if they wanted to. It is appalling that we are having this debate in the 21st century.

Yesterday we heard something astounding. It came from Rush Limbaugh, who is a prime voice of modern conservatism in this country. Yesterday he said--and I had it checked because I wanted to be sure that I am not misquoting anything--that a woman who wants affordable birth control is ``a prostitute.'' Talking

about your wife, your sister, your daughter, your child. This is hateful, ugly language, and we condemn it. Republicans like to talk about the Constitution and freedom, but once again, when it comes to women, they don't get rights, they get restrictions. This foul amendment before us tells women that you cannot be trusted to make your own health care decisions. Your employer may judge if your actions are moral. More than 20 million women in America--including more than 600,000 in my home State of New Jersey--could lose access to health care services they need under this scheme.

The Republican attack on women is not just happening here in Congress, it is happening on the Presidential campaign trail. I show you here what one of the two leading Republican Presidential candidates has to say about birth control:

I'm not a believer in birth control . . . I don't think it

works. I think it's harmful to women. I think it's harmful to

our society . . .

That is the kind of judgment they want to put in employers' hands? It is outrageous. Imagine that in a Presidential contest, dismissing the kinds of things that millions and millions of women rely upon to protect their health, to keep them from unwanted pregnancies, to keep them from disease, to keep them from all kinds of things that can make life difficult.

Women of America, former Senator Santorum and Republicans here almost require a tap on the head: Don't worry. We know what is best for you.

I want to be clear: Rick Santorum does not have a physician's training. He is a politician. And when we look at polls across the country, we see what the people in our society are thinking about politicians these days. It is time for Senator Santorum and his fellow Republicans to mind their business. Let's get on with the needs of the country and put people back to work, give them health care, and let them have an education. No, we are going to spend time here keeping people from going to work. There are thousands of jobs that are at stake on the legislation that is in front of us.

I have five daughters and eight granddaughters and the one thing that I worry about for them, more than anything else, is their health. I want to know when I see those little kids--the youngest of my grandchildren--I like to see their happy faces; I like to see them feeling good. And if one of my daughters or my son says so-and-so has a cold and this one fell and broke something, that is my worry for the day. That is the way it is. So I want them to have doctors making decisions, not some employer who has a self-righteous moral view that he wants to impose on my daughters, my granddaughters, or my wife. No, I don't want Republican politicians making decisions about my family's health care or yours or even those who are on the other side.

On our side of the aisle, we believe that women are capable of making their own health care decisions, and that is why President Obama is trying hard to make contraception more affordable because he knows it is basic health care for women and almost all women of age have used birth control at some point in their lives, and yet many have to struggle to pay for it. We ought to applaud President Obama for trying to make it more affordable. He believes they are capable of making their own decision. He wants them to be healthy. His proposal respects the rights of religious organizations that don't wish to provide birth control to their employees. Under the President's plan, women who work for religious organizations don't have to go through their employer to get affordable contraception. These women will be able to get it directly from their insurance company, and I think it is a reasonable compromise. But some of our Republican colleagues refuse to recognize this.

Listen to what the other side is saying. You don't hear the Republicans talking about empowering women or giving them more opportunities. No, the GOP agenda is about denying benefits, restricting access, and taking away options.

We weren't sent here to intrude in the lives of fellow citizens or to drag women back to the Dark Ages. We were sent here to offer people options, not obstacles. So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, hold your head high and say to your family, your daughter, your wife, your sister, your mother: We want you to be healthy. That is our prime issue in life. I ask that my colleagues turn down this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 1, 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 March 1, 2012, at 10 a.m., to conduct a committee hearing entitled ``The Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to Congress.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 1, 2012, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Oversight of the Cruise Ship Industry: Are Current Regulations Sufficient to Protect Pasengers and the Environment?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 1, 2012, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``Syria: The Crisis and Its Implications.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on March 1, 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 Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 1, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, on Saturday, February 11, 2012, New Jersey lost one of its proudest daughters and our country lost one of its brightest stars when Whitney Houston died at the untimely age of 48.

Whitney Houston's New Jersey roots run deep. She was born in Newark in 1963. She moved to East Orange at age 4 and attended high school at Mount Saint Dominic Academy in Caldwell.

The daughter of noted gospel singer Cissy Houston, Whitney spent her young life singing in the choir of the New Hope Baptist Church in Newark. She never forgot her roots, and even after she became a star, she sometimes returned to New Hope Baptist Church to sing on Easter Sunday. Fittingly, it is at New Hope Baptist Church that Whitney's family and friends will mourn her loss and celebrate her life this Saturday, February 18.

Virtually from the moment of the release of her debut album, ``Whitney Houston,'' Whitney was an international superstar. The album spent a record 14 weeks at the top of the Billboard charts, and it was the first album by a female artist to yield three No. 1 hits. One of those hits, ``The Greatest Love of All,'' became an anthem and a symbol of hope. For all of us who work to make a better world for our children and grandchildren, the song's opening line, ``I believe the children are our future,'' is a constant reminder of our mission.

Much more than just a great singer and performer, Whitney was a great patriot and humanitarian. Her performance of the ``Star Spangled Banner'' for Super Bowl XXV in 1991--during the first gulf war--has been hailed as the yardstick for other singers performing our national anthem. Whitney donated her proceeds from that performance to the American Red Cross Gulf Crisis Fund. When her rendition was re-released in the wake of the September 11 attacks, Whitney donated those proceeds to firefighters and victims of the attacks.

For her many accomplishments, Whitney received numerous awards, including 6 Grammys, 2 Emmys, and 22 American Music Awards. But no achievement meant more to Whitney than the birth of her daughter Bobbi Kristina in 1993.

Though her loss will be felt far and wide, Whitney's powerful words-- ``I believe the children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way''--live on in New Jersey, across the country, and around the world.