Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, this Saturday marks the 50-year anniversary of Seattle's World's Fair. The fair was a presentation of what the world would be like in the 21st century. The Space Needle was built and it gave us an iconic symbol that still lasts and defines our skyline today.

More than 9 million people visited that World's Fair in 1962. Elvis Presley stopped by during the filming of a

movie, because the movie was called ``It All Happened at the World's Fair.'' All the visitors to the fair saw a very futuristic rendition of what boundless energy and innovative spirit in America would be all about.

President Kennedy opened the fair, highlighting the innovations of science and technology. He said, ``These accomplishments are a bridge which will carry us confidently toward the 21st century.'' Indeed, the World's Fair was a bridge toward the 21st century, especially for our Washington State economy.

The fair foreshadowed the Puget Sound and the entire State as a region that would look to innovation and entrepreneurship. It gave the public a glimpse of what life would be like in the 21st century. And in the years following the fair, Washington State was home to many of the innovations and technologies that revolutionized the way we live and work.

In 1962, Seattle was home to the first satellite transmissions of telephone calls and television broadcasts. That same year, the Seattle Times declared, ``Boeing Is In Space Age to Stay.'' The rest of the changes that we have continued to see have led to many things, including Boeing's 787 Dreamliner--a true 21st century plane.

Also, it helped in setting a tone. Bill Gates took his company from his parents' house to a global headquarters in Redmond, WA. The Microsoft Company was founded in 1975. After the opening of its first store in Seattle in 1983, Costco became the first company ever to go from zero to $3 billion in sales in just under 6 years. Amazon revolutionized the way people shop online and it is a company that has continued to make innovations.

Today many other companies in Washington State--producing everything from composites for airplanes to lean manufacturing to mobile apps software to clean energy technology--are continuing to innovate because of Washington State's reputation for making sure we have a talented workforce.

So 50 years ago, the World's Fair, and what was announced there, made sure the United States was poised for bigger things to come. Some of the predictions we saw about life in the 21st century may not have come true yet, things such as flying cars--although I recently saw an article about flying cars, so maybe they weren't too far off--but other things were just as they predicted, such as that one day we would be able to have a telephone in our pocket.

Fifty years later, we can look back and see a glimpse of the 21st century in the exhibitions and booths that were at the fair, but we also see how fast the future can come and what we need to do to keep moving forward, not just in Washington State but around the country, in an innovation economy.

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

Mr. President, I do rise to celebrate the remarkable achievements of my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski.

Last January we celebrated an obvious achievement of her becoming the longest serving female Senator. And last Saturday that milestone entered another chapter, with her 12,858 days of serving the people of Maryland in Congress, which means she is now the longest serving female Member of Congress.

I know Barbara Mikulski started her career fighting for Fells Point, a particular location in the Baltimore area that she thought deserved and needed to be protected, and that galvanized her to 35 years of service, where she has been a trailblazer on so many issues.

Many people have talked about those today--about being the first woman elected to statewide office in Maryland, the first Democratic woman to serve in both Houses of Congress; the first Democratic woman to sit in a Senate leadership position, and the first Democratic woman to be elected to the Senate in her own right.

Throughout her career, she has faithfully provided a very strong voice for the people of Maryland. But it is here in the Senate we have all gotten to see Barbara Mikulski, the dean of the women Senators, and to see her incredible work as a trailblazer on so many important issues.

She has been a tireless champion on issues from pay equity to increasing access to college education, for women's health, for women's health care law, and time and time again she has proven she knows how to fight on the right side of the issues.

For the women of the Senate, she is an incredibly important ally. When it comes to each of us who comes to the U.S. Senate, to find our way and to make our own mark, Barbara Mikulski is the Senator who is always there with you to make sure you can achieve what you want to for the State you represent.

I know for me I am very excited--my colleague from Alabama was mentioning Senator Mikulski's love of NASA and space exploration--in that I can say Senator Mikulski is certainly interested also in sci-fi, and I would call her a ``techie'' Senator because she certainly has shown a great deal of interest in technology and science.

As the Chair of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee, she was a key partner in the funding of key science and technology issues, and for us in the State of Washington, when we needed a new Doppler radar technology system, she was there to help ensure that those people who lived in coastal regions were going to have the appropriate protections they needed for understanding inclement weather.

She also has helped in prioritizing efforts such as the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland--something we in the Northwest relate to because we strive to have the same cleanup of Puget Sound.

We have worked together on important legislation, such as passing the Lilly Ledbetter legislation.

But it is Barbara Mikulski--when it comes to protecting women's access to health care or standing up to any attack on Medicare--who is the most articulate, the most determined, the most persevering advocate to make sure women's issues and their cause are understood in the U.S. Senate.

I was proud to stand with her when she went up against the House plan to defund critical women's health care access and there was a near shutdown of

government. As people tried to pressure Planned Parenthood, she was there to make sure we continued important programs such as breast cancer screening.

So today I join my colleagues from the Senate to thank her for those years of service in the U.S. Congress, both in the House and the Senate. While she may represent Maryland, we all want to claim that we are better off as a country having Barbara Mikulski in the U.S. Senate.

And to my colleagues--or to the young people who are here with us on the Senate floor--to understand this moment and achievement, you have to understand that in the whole history of our country, there have only been 39 women Senators, and a good number of those women Senators only served a few days or a few years. So the fact that somebody has achieved not just a seat in the U.S. Senate but a leadership position in the U.S. Senate is an incredible achievement.

We are glad she has represented a time when women have ascended to leadership in the U.S. Senate, where she is considered one of the wise Members when it comes to strategy on so many policy issues.

We are better off as a body because Barbara Mikulski has served with us, and we are looking forward to many more years of wisdom and, hopefully, many more women Senators joining the ranks of Barbara Mikulski in their tenure.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Cantwell- Johnson-Graham-Shelby amendment that is going to be voted on shortly in this series of votes we are going to be having, and to urge my colleagues to support this important amendment that would reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank for 4 years, until 2015. The current authorization is set to expire in May of this year, so it is very urgent we pass this

authorization. It would increase capacity for the bank because there is demand.

The Ex-Im Bank, people may know--or maybe not know--supplies credit stability to foreign purchases of U.S. product, where the purchaser has limited access to private sector capital due to political risk or instability or limited access to capital. It is something we have had since 1934. So this program has been a way for U.S. manufacturers, small businesses, a variety of U.S. companies, to make sure they get sales of their products in international markets. It has been an incredibly important tool. Somebody called it one of the most important toolboxes in U.S. economic capacity to help our economy.

In 2011, the bank supported over $41 billion in U.S. exports from over 3,600 U.S. companies, and it has supported nearly 290,000 export- related jobs in America. So that is a very big impact. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the reauthorization of this program will help reduce the deficit by over $900 million over the next 5 years. That is right, a program that is run by the government that actually helps our deficit be reduced, and that is because of the amount of money that is made from these transactions and returned to the Treasury.

I wish to thank my colleagues: Senators Johnson, Graham, Shelby, Warner, Schumer, Brown, Hagan, Coons, Akaka, Murray, Landrieu, Kerry, Kirk, Durbin, Shaheen, McCaskill, Lieberman, and Casey for all sponsoring this important amendment.

The reason we are out here is to make sure our colleagues know this is the 25th time this legislation has been up for extension since the original Executive order establishing it. I am looking at the record: 1983, passed by voice vote on the reauthorization; passed by unanimous consent in 1992--passed by unanimous consent many of the times.

Here is a program that over the last several decades has been passed by unanimous consent. Yet all of a sudden this legislation is being stalled or held up. What I want to make sure my colleagues know is what an important tool it is for job creation and why it is so important that we not take the capital that is left over in the Ex-Im program and delay it because what is going to happen if we do not get this reauthorization done right away is that they are going to stop the activity that is actually helping job creation in the United States.

As we can see in 2011, the total number of jobs it helped support was nearly 300,000 jobs. That is a pretty good impact by basically saying, as a program of a financing of last resort, the United States is going to make sure U.S. companies can get their products sold in various marketplaces. That is why the chamber of commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, many companies and organizations are supporting this legislation.

As an added bonus, as I said, it is generating revenue to the U.S. economy. In fact, it has generated a lot of money, $3.7 billion for U.S. taxpayers since 2005. I know some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think the program could have more transparency. I will vote for more transparency for the Ex-Im Bank. But if one of my colleagues can figure out with more transparency how to get more than $3.7 billion to the U.S. Treasury out of a government program, I would love to hear about it because this is a program that has worked successfully.

Let's talk about some of the places these jobs were created; I mean, actually supported and helped sustain. In Pennsylvania, in 2011, $1.4 billion in export products were helped to be purchased by the Ex-Im Bank and supported over 9,000 jobs in the State. So there is help and support for those small businesses, those manufacturers in Pennsylvania that want to access international markets, but there are purchasers, just like with the SBA program or other finance programs that needed help and support in getting the financing done.

Let's look at Massachusetts, another robust State: $566 million in exports in 2011. That was over 4,000 jobs supported through this Ex-Im program. In my State there are many jobs. We can see from looking at the list of the companies that got support through this, we have-- obviously, aviation has done very well with having this kind of financing, particularly competing in a big global market where other countries have this kind of financing tool.

But we also have a lot of small businesses. We have clean tech, we have agriculture, we have a lot of different companies. Texas, probably another State that has been a huge winner in having the Ex-Im program, 35,000 jobs supported by the Ex-Im Bank in Texas and almost $5 billion--$4.9 billion in business that was the done in the State of Texas through this program.

So my colleagues can see this is a very viable and important program to get reauthorized. I know some people think we ought to hold it up, and some are saying let's stop the program altogether--stop it and get rid of it, even though it has been around, it has been a tool, it has been authorized many times on unanimous consent. But now all of a sudden some people think this program has not served the American public and the American job economy very well.

I would differ with them. It has served us very well. Another example is Florida. It has, in 2011, helped support $1.1 billion of Florida products sold in international markets and helped support over 7,600 jobs in that State--again, a big boost to that economy.

Let's look at North Carolina. It has helped support over 3,300 jobs and over $456 million in exports. What I also like about this is that for the first time with this legislation, the textile industry is going to get a member of the Export-Import Bank. That is to further help export products from places such as North Carolina and South Carolina get access to the marketplace and to make sure they are being competitive on an international basis.

The last chart, Ohio, which is over $398 million and 2,888 jobs. So all these are important jobs for our economy. As I said earlier, this program is expiring in May. If we fail to reauthorize it now, what we are going to run into is the Export Bank cutting off those types of businesses, those types of jobs in the very near future because they are almost at their capacity for this year. So instead of saying: Washington or Florida products or Ohio products or Pennsylvania products ready for sale, basically what we are going to say is: U.S. products in a warehouse waiting for opportunity.

We are basically going to say the door is shut on selling these products because we have not gotten our job done in making sure the export program is reauthorized. I hope my colleagues will realize that around here very few things are getting done very efficiently. There are lots of things being held up, and the U.S. economy is paying the price for it. If we cannot push something such as the Ex-Im Bank through this process that again has been authorized and reauthorized so many times either by unanimous consent or voice vote and all of a sudden we are going to turn it into a political football, then the American economy is going to pay the price for that.

I urge my colleagues to help us get this Cantwell-Johnson-Graham- Shelby amendment passed out of the Senate today and on its way to the House so we can expedite the process of making sure we do not have a sign across America: ``U.S. products stuck in warehouse'' but instead we have a sign that says: ``U.S. exports on the gain. United States making great headway and selling great products and services around the globe.''

I know my colleagues earlier today were saying: There are some things people want to change. The amendments people want to offer in this legislation are from people who want to stop this program. This legislation has transparency. It has improvements that have been recommended on market-based rates, and it puts the United States in a competitive advantage to make sure we are competing in a world in which export market opportunity has grown something like 500 times in the last 25 years.

If we want to be in the jobs game, we have to get our products overseas. The Ex-Im Bank will continue to help us do that. I urge my colleagues to support the Cantwell-Johnson-Graham-Shelby amendment.

Mr. President, I wish to raise my concerns about the Roberts amendment.

This amendment is a disappointing attempt to play politics with what should be a bipartisan issue: extending the State and local sales tax deduction and other key tax policies. We need to move forward on a serious bipartisan proposal to extend the State sales tax deduction. It is a matter of tax fairness for Washington residents.

But we cannot afford to threaten Washington's coastal economy by opening the West Coast and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling.

Therefore, I will not support the Roberts Amendment and I look forward to serious legislation to extend the State sales tax deduction.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination of Thomas Rice to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. He is one of our State's rising legal stars and has left his mark defending the community in which he was born. For nearly 25 years he served in the U.S. Attorney's Office in eastern Washington, and in that time he successfully prosecuted a variety of criminal cases to protect our eastern Washington communities. He has wide support from his peers and numerous accolades.

I hope my colleagues will support his nomination, making Gonzaga University, his alma mater, Spokane, and the State of Washington proud of his nomination.

Mr. President, I rise to join this debate. I certainly respect the Senator from Missouri for his views and for his own interpretation of what he thinks his amendment does. But I could not disagree more on what the amendment says, what the amendment will do, and what the process has been for us to get to this point.

We are down here, and I know my own office, myself, my focus is on our economy and getting our country moving again and focusing on jobs. So when I see a transportation bill that is now mired in this debate, I ask myself: How much more time are we going to waste debating and redebating an issue we have been debating?

I know some people think this is an important debate related to transportation. But it seems as if the other side of the aisle, in all the discussions we have been having for the last year about jobs, about appropriations bills, about the debt ceiling, about moving forward on reconciliation all come down to one thing: Let's get rid of reproductive health care for women.

In February of last year, they introduced a bill, H.R. 1. They said, let's defund Planned Parenthood. Then, later in April, came a big moment of are we going to move forward with the continuing resolution. It was all brought to a halt until we could have a vote on defunding Planned Parenthood. Then we had another vote on it.

In the latest discussions about the payroll deal, there were discussions about whether a rider was going to be in there that cut women's reproductive health care access and appropriations bills, just last December, same issue. Every step of the way it seems as if there is an assault on women's reproductive choice and having access to health care.

I know my colleague from Missouri thinks this issue might just be about something the administration has done in the health care bill, but his party is making everybody in America believe we cannot get our economy going and balance our budget and deal with our deficit unless we defund women's health care choices. Nothing could be more incorrect about that logic.

We are holding up the business of America just for these votes on basically curtailing rights to access that women already have. It is so frustrating to think we would be going backward on this. I applaud the chair of the Transportation Committee because she has worked hard on this legislation. It is 30,000 jobs in the State of Washington by the Department of Transportation estimate.

I know it is going to help save about 1.8 million jobs and create another million jobs on a national basis. So I certainly want to get to the job at hand. When I think about the 435,000 Washington women who would be affected by the Blunt amendment, by curtailing their access to health care, and while some people think it is about contraceptives, which it is about that, but it is also about breast cancer screening-- and we have one of the highest rates of breast cancer in the country, so we want to make sure we get these screenings done--about wellness exams, about diabetes screening, about flu shots, about vaccinations, about mammograms, about cholesterol, we are having this debate instead of talking about transportation infrastructure, about defunding these vital programs. The reason why I say this is so important to us and so important to us in Washington State is because we have been having this debate, we have been having this debate since almost 2001, 2002, on the Bartell drug decision.

So my colleague who says: These businesses would not dare do anything based on costs under my amendment, I think all he has to do is look at the Federal cases that were brought against major employers such as Walmart, such as Bartell, such as Daimler-Chrysler, and other organizations that were not providing full reproductive choice for women and discriminating against them in their health care benefits.

A Federal law, a Federal statute was used to say these practices were discriminatory. So the same debate we are having today has played out in State after State--in our State, the Bartell drug decision. In that decision, the courts found we cannot use these principles to discriminate. It is a violation of the civil rights clause.

While I know my colleague thinks this is a new debate, it is not a new debate. It is a debate that has been had in America among States, and courts have used Federal statutes to protect the rights of women. Now I see we are going to have this debate today. I ask my colleagues, how many more times this year are we going to interrupt the business of the Congress on things such as transportation, on infrastructure, to have a debate that has already been settled?

I know my colleague thinks the amendment is very narrowly written; it is not.

It is not. I don't think that is the interpretation of any legal mind, that it is narrowly written. It will affect and give employers the right--the courts have already said they don't have the right to discriminate. It will reopen the cases of those large employers that have already been found against and say to them: Yes, you can come up with a reason and curtail access to preventive health care for women that is so needed at this time.

I ask my colleagues to turn down this amendment, and let's get at the

business at hand, focusing on our economy and jobs, and stop making women's health care a scapegoat for what you think is wrong with America. It is actually what is right with America. Let's focus on jobs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1162, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, for decades the Quileute Tribe in the Pacific Northwest has waited for a chance to move out of the tsunami zone they are in and to safety.

Every day 80 students go to a school in a schoolhouse that is just 1 foot above sea level, and every day they look directly out the window at the roaring waves of the powerful ocean and wonder when they can move to safer, higher ground.

When the tragic tsunami hit Japan last March and when a recent earthquake in just the last few weeks hit off Vancouver Island, it sent another urgent message, a wake-up call to hurry to get this legislation passed through Congress. The Department of the Interior, which endorsed this legislation, said the tsunami ``clearly demonstrates the risk for the tribe and its citizens, and the need to move housing and infrastructure inland.''

Now, with the 1-year anniversary of this tragedy less than 1 month away, we have finally done our job. With the passage of this bill tonight, the Quileute Tribe can finally begin to move out of the flood zone. I thank Congressman Norm Dicks for his help in making this a reality.

The Quileute Tribe has been struggling with the natural perils of this land since their reservation was created in 1889. The river that runs through the reservation has been moving constantly over the last century, causing more erosion and flooding problems. The one road that connects the lower village to the higher ground is often flooded, making it even more challenging to deal with this particular area in case of a tsunami.

The Quileute struggle to move out of the flood zone has gone on for many years, but tonight, with the passage of this legislation, the Quileute Tribe can now move to higher grounds and a safer means to provide for their members. This is an important victory to give the Quileute Tribe and those on the reservation peace of mind.

I thank Senator Barrasso and Senator Akaka for helping this legislation move out of the Indian Affairs Committee and Senator Bingaman and Senator Murkowski for helping it move out of the ENR Committee. To the tribal chairs--Bonita Cleveland and now Tony Foster-- thank you for coming to Washington, DC, and explaining how important this legislation is. I also thank the National Park Service and the National Park Service Director. Thank you for your help in getting this legislation passed. I also thank Senator Murray for her cosponsorship of this important legislation.

It is important in times such as these that Congress does act, that we break gridlock and move forward. For the Quileute Tribe--a tribe that gained much national notoriety in a recent movie series--what is really important is not that notoriety but the fact that today people have come together to help them move to safer grounds.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, February 14, 2012; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half; that following morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Jordan nomination postcloture; further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; and finally, that all time during adjournment, morning business, and recess count postcloture.

Mr. President, for the information of Members, tomorrow we expect to confirm the Jordan nomination and also resume consideration of the infrastructure bill. Senators will be notified when any votes are scheduled.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

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

Mr. President, we continue to make progress on the Defense authorization bill. Hopefully somewhere in the Halls of Congress, we are also making progress on the FAA authorization bill and, maybe before the end of the year, getting that to a final resolve.

I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are working very hard, but I had to come to the Senate floor at this moment to say that Christmas came early in the Northwest today when a major deal between the Boeing Company and aerospace workers, machinists, resolved what had been a conflict in the past on how to work together.

A new relationship of working together on incentives and efficiency and performance has resulted in the Boeing Company making a decision to build the next-generation 737 MAX plane in the Pacific Northwest. That is great news for aerospace workers in Puget Sound. It means there is going to be a skill set for building fuel-efficient planes for many years to come. But it is a great testament to both the company and the workers who--a year ago you probably heard more about the NLRB issue, and now what you are hearing about is an agreement on a multiyear contract that is going to get these workers jobs in building planes with the next-generation technology.

This is very big and important news not just for the Pacific Northwest but for the country because it means we can come together to resolve differences. I would hope the Senate might apply some of the same things because the dispute as to where these two organizations were about how to proceed to the future obviously had a lot of discussion, even here on the Senate floor, and yet now today we see them coming together in a huge milestone agreement that means more planes are going to be built, in an agreement where workers and the company are working together to improve performance and deliver these planes, which many people want because they are so fuel-efficient, on time.

So for the Northwest to have this kind of boost, this shot in the arm, at this point in time is really important. I expect that as this agreement and the agreement details are seen by many people, they will see this really is a way forward for the Northwest to continue to be at the top of the aerospace game. That is important because the United States needs to be at the top of the aerospace game. We are facing tough competition from many countries such as China and Europe and others that are trying to lure the manufacturing base away from the United States.

What we see in the Northwest is that not only do you have a company such as Boeing, but you have a chain of many suppliers that are also working to make aerospace manufacturing in the United States one of the key industries in which the United States is world premier.

So I say congratulations to both the company and to the machinists and to Machinists International for their hard work on inking this deal. I hope it will bring much benefit and economic growth not just to Puget Sound--certainly to there--but to the rest of the country as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the senior Senator from Maryland, for her leadership on this issue for protecting seniors and protecting women. It seems to me every time we have a battle that is about undercutting the benefits to women in America, Barbara Mikulski is on the Senate floor or in the halls and in various meeting rooms making sure that America knows what these proposals are.

I could not have been more proud of her when she led all the women Senators on the Democratic side of the aisle to push back on the Bush Administration's proposal to privatize Social Security. At that point in time, she most succinctly told Americans that women, more than any other in that age group, would suffer because they live longer, they depend on Social Security, and if Social Security was privatized, women would feel the brunt of it.

So I am proud to be out here this afternoon with her to talk about this proposal that has been--we cannot tell, because we do not know. We are not on the supercommittee. But it seems to be floating around in various forms, various organizations may be talking about it, the notion that we would change Social Security.

I know at home in my State of Washington, people seem to be confused when we are talking about our budgets. And we are obviously having to make tough budget decisions, as are people around dining room tables, around city halls, around our State capitols and here in Congress are having discussions about how to have a budget to live within our means.

But when you talk to them about the primary way--and one proposal that surfaced in the last budget negotiations in July was to automatically take $300 billion of cuts right off the top as the major proposal out of a concept called chained CPI. When you think about that, the first shot of budget cuts would be on the backs of seniors, it is almost as if someone thought seniors cooked up exotic financial instruments and foisted them on the U.S. economy and somehow they should pay the price. We know that is not the case.

So why are people targeting these seniors now? And we are not sure if they are. We have just heard various rumors that perhaps this notion of chained CPI, a change in Social Security benefits as my colleague just outlined, would be a proposal.

I am here to say, I am not for having the seniors in America share the brunt of sacrifice with a proposal such as this that would clearly be on the backs of seniors. It is not something they can afford. I know some of my colleagues may have endorsed a chained CPI, a change in the consumer price index to calculate inflation. But that is a cut that would increase over time. And literally, the longer you live, the more you are penalized. It is such a disproportionate impact to women who do live longer than men and count on those benefits for their living.

In my State, changes to the cost-of-living adjustment would hurt more than 1 million Washingtonians. Social Security has kept about 30 percent of Washington residents who are 65 and older out of poverty. That is what it has done for them. And what is more, 25 percent of seniors in my State live on Social Security alone. So there is a population that is depending on Social Security, and they are living on it alone, or it is making up--another 21 percent of them--it makes up 90 percent of their income.

I think this demonstrates that we cannot support these kinds of cuts, especially at the magnitude this proposal is talking about. The Social Security Office of the Actuary has reported that chained CPI would reduce the COLA by about .3 percent a year. So let's look at that example. A single woman, 65 years old in Washington State, would get a monthly benefit of about $1,100 a month or $13,300 annually.

By age 80, if chained CPI would pass, that would result in a $56 per month or $672 annual cut in that benefit. So that is less food, that is less medicine, that is less vital care for these seniors. If that individual actually lived to 90 years old, it would be an $87 a month cut and a $1,044 cut annually. If you think about the costs these seniors endure--and I for one have proposed changing the market basket of goods that the CPI is based on, because if you think about it, we have a market basket of goods for their CPI that are what the overall economy looks at.

But seniors have a much more expensive market basket of goods. They have to buy more medicine. They have other additional out-of-pocket health care expenses. And so their costs are going up at a higher rate. But this proposal, if you think about it, the average monthly cost of food for a single elderly individual is about $231 per month. That is what the average is, about $53 a week. That is based on data from the Elder Economic Security Standard Index. So an individual at 80 basically means they would have 1 week less groceries under chained

Yes.

Mr. President, I can say to the Senator from Maryland that in my time period there, I don't remember any hearing or briefing on chained CPI that was the focus of the hearing. I don't know if in the last 15 or 20 years somebody hasn't suggested or had a hearing on it.

Two years.

I can tell the Senator from Maryland that there are lots of ideas that people are suggesting. I don't know the details of the supercommittee or to say the Finance Committee is backing up the supercommittee on those ideas. I know we have to live within our budget, and we have to make some tough decisions.

There are many positives in the health care law that are about allowing seniors to stay in their homes and receive care as opposed to going into nursing homes, which is very positive and helps reduce significantly the cost of health care. There are things in there that will help us get more transparency on drug prices. Many of us would like to have direct negotiations on drug prices and drive the costs down even further for seniors. And obviously there are reforms that will help us get more efficient in the delivery system. Those are things you can accentuate by moving more quickly.

I know the Presiding Officer, coming from Minnesota, with the Mayo Clinic, certainly understands about outcome-based health care, preventive medicine, and those things seniors would like to see in reform that actually deliver better care and drive down costs. Those are the proposals that I think we should be discussing, that are positive for seniors, will help seniors, and will deliver the kind of care that is more efficient and cost-effective. But asking them to take it right on the chin with something like this proposal, as my colleague outlined as well, is something we are not willing to do.

I thank the Chair and the Senator from Maryland for her tireless leadership on behalf of women in America and making sure they can make do in this tough economy.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, and 492, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, and Navy; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, November 15, 2011, at 11 a.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar No. 354 and Calendar No. 355; that there be 1 hour for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.