Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Steve Kofford of my Finance Committee staff be granted privileges of the floor for the duration of the 112th Congress.

Mr. President, a portion of the abandoned mine land trust fund program falls within the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee. I am also committed to working with my colleagues from Wyoming to correct this situation. I hope we can do so as soon as possible.

Transit Title

Mr. President, at the first public meeting of the conference committee charged with producing transportation reauthorization legislation, I laid out a series of basic principles that I think should guide our efforts to finance transportation policy. I had voted against the Senate bill in large part because it failed to follow these basic principles.

Boiled down, these principles are simple. The user-pays model that is the reason for the creation of the Highway Trust Fund should be preserved. Revenues and spending should line up on a year-to-year basis. We should avoid spending down the trust fund. And we should not raise taxes, but rather should examine the spending side of the ledger.

The conference agreement is an even further departure from these principles than the Senate bill was. The conference agreement by and large uses sources of revenue that are problematic in and of themselves to facilitate yet another general fund transfer that requires our Nation to make payments for 10 years on 2 years of programs.

Despite all of the committee markups, and staff meetings, and press conferences, and frantic press accounts, at the end of the day we simply got the fourth in a series of general fund transfers that stretches back to 2008.

I think the supposed consensus the conference committee product represents can best be summed up by the Margaret Thatcher quote I cited at the Finance Committee markup of a revenue title held on February 7.

``To me consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead . . .''

Well I object. The taxpayers of this country deserve better than this legislation, and I will be voting against it.

Madam President, I rise today as a signer of the discharge petition for S.J. Res. 37, the Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval for the Environmental Protection Agency's Utility MACT rule. I support this measure with all my heart.

I urge my colleagues and my fellow citizens who are listening to this debate today to recognize that the EPA's Utility MACT rule is not just about curtailing mercury emissions from powerplants. At the heart of the Utility MACT rule is an effort to shut down our Nation's coal-mines and coal-fired powerplants. When President Obama was a United States Senator, he was the deciding vote on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to kill the Clear Skies bill which would have reduced mercury emissions in the United States by 70 percent.

Let's be clear about why the liberals on that committee voted against this mercury reduction measure. They did so because they wanted to hold that issue aside and use it to help pass a nationwide climate bill, the biggest anticoal legislation ever considered by Congress. In other words, killing coal mining jobs and shutting down coal-fired powerplants took priority over real and significant reductions in mercury emissions and any health benefits that would have come with those reductions.

The EPA's Utility MACT rule was carefully written to ensure that most of its mercury reductions will come from the forced shutdown of coal mines and coal-fired powerplants. It is evident that the rule is not written to allow noncompliant powerplants to remain open.

The fact is that today's vote does not stop the EPA from regulating mercury from coal-fired powerplants. But it would strip out the obvious anticoal agenda that is the heart and soul of the current Utility MACT rule. The costs of this rule outweigh the benefits by 1,600 to 1. If ever there were an EPA rule that needed to be sent back to the drawing board, this one is it.

Americans know what is at stake with today's resolution. If the EPA's rule is allowed to go forward, it jeopardizes our Nation's most affordable, abundant, and dependable domestic source of electricity. We hear a lot from the President and his allies about the scourge of inequality and the need for a more progressive economic system.

It is hard to take them seriously when you look at their support for this EPA regulation. Regulations such as these are incredibly regressive. This regulation will increase the cost of energy. That might not mean a great deal to the folks who are financing President Obama's reelection, but to low-and middle-income citizens, increased energy costs hit family budgets hard.

And it will undermine jobs. Anyone who claims to care about job creation, while at the same time supporting this regulation, has to answer a few questions. Americans are tired of lipservice when it comes to job creation. They are tired of having a job creation agenda taking a back seat to the agenda of lifestyle liberals.

They want Congress and the President to be serious about creating jobs and keeping our Nation competitive in a global economy. This regulation not only threatens jobs at coal mines and powerplants.

Much more is at stake. We are talking about a threat to the millions of jobs that are created when we as a nation enjoy the abundant affordable energy that allows us, America, to compete against our aggressive international rivals.

Let me remind my colleagues on the other side of this issue about the success of my own State of Utah. For 2 years running, Forbes magazine has listed Utah as the best State for business and jobs. Utah is a grand success story, and national policymakers should look to it for answers. Why is Utah creating jobs, while many areas of the United States are losing them? Well, there are a number of factors, but a very big one is that we are a very competitive State. After comparing the cost of doing business in other States, more and more companies are moving to Utah. A key factor in that decision is Utah's very low cost of energy. The State ranks fourth in the Nation for low cost industrial energy rates. I am aware of a number of instances where this has been a deciding factor when a major business decides to relocate to Utah. In almost every case, the States these companies are moving away from have high industrial energy rates. And, yes, about 70 percent of Utah's power comes from clean, efficient, coal-fired powerplants.

It is obvious that many of my colleagues on the other side of this issue just cannot grasp this truth; but the fact of the matter is that competiveness is critical to economic growth and job creation. It should come as no surprise that President Obama's hundreds of anti- energy efforts have failed to grow jobs in this country.

I urge my colleagues to look to my State of Utah as a model for success. We need to get off the road toward the nanny State. How bad does the European model have to get before we wake up and recognize that we want nothing to do with that type of big government failure. America is great because we have relied on the fundamentals of a free people living in a free market. And underlying our vibrant and free economy is consistently affordable energy. Affordable energy is the lifeblood of a healthy economy and always has been. I urge my colleagues to protect these fundamentals and send this Utility MACT rule back to the EPA for a major rewrite.

Madam President, I thank my colleague.

Last week, I discussed some unfinished business that remains for Congress and the President to address. Specifically, Congress must take up a number of tax-related matters in very short order.

When I discussed this tax agenda last week, I referred to this chart. Things have not changed since then. As this chart shows, the tax extenders, which are overdue by almost one-half year, are not alone on Congress's to-do list.

We need to resolve the death tax. Death tax relief expires at the end of 2012. We need to prevent the 2013 tax hikes. As I noted earlier, we have the so-called tax extenders that are right there, and we have to address the alternative minimum tax--or AMT--the second one on that list. The issue of the AMT is what I would like to address today.

Thirty-one million American families will be caught by the AMT or are already caught. Yet Congress has done nothing to address the AMT. The alternative minimum tax is a stealth tax on 27 million families. Approximately, 3.9 million families paid the AMT last year, and they may not be surprised if it hits them again this year. But for the other 27 million American families set to be ensnared by the AMT, this represents a significant and stealthy tax increase.

The AMT burden is, in fact, far broader than just the 31 million American families who are in its sights. Nearly double that number--60 million American families--must fill out the AMT worksheet to determine whether they owe an alternative minimum tax. While not as bad as paying the tax itself, the task of compliance is just another time-consuming, government-imposed challenge for Americans families they don't need to have.

To get some idea of the magnitude of the AMT's reach, consider this chart. It breaks down, State by State, the number of American families hit by the AMT.

When I speak of those now being caught by this tax, I am referring to those families who make estimated tax payments and who are scheduled to make their second payment tomorrow.

Last year, 3.9 million families were hit by the AMT. I think this was 3.9 million too many, but it is considerably better than the more than 31.1 million who will be hit in 2012.

The reason we are threatened by such a large increase this year is that over the last 11 years, Congress has passed legislation to temporarily increase the amount of income exempt from the AMT. Unlike many other provisions of the Tax Code, the AMT exemption amount is not automatically adjusted for inflation. These temporary exemption increases have prevented millions of middle-class American families from falling prey to the AMT, until now.

While I have always fought for these temporary exemptions, I believe the AMT ought to be permanently repealed. One reason to pursue permanent repeal is the uncertainty that the AMT creates for taxpayers when Congress must revisit and adjust it every year.

Unfortunately, a permanent fix does not appear to be forthcoming. Congress has yet to undertake any meaningful action on the AMT. President Obama has proposed permanently patching or maybe even repealing AMT. Yet what he gives with one hand, he takes away with another.

He has proposed to pay for an AMT fix with this so-called Buffett tax. The thing is, the Buffett tax is nothing more than a new alternative minimum tax. The solution to the alternative minimum tax problem surely can't be an alternative minimum tax.

Moreover, the revenue generated by the Buffett tax--in spite of the suggestion by the President that this tax on the rich could pay for all things good--would not come close to providing the revenue necessary to address the AMT in a meaningful way.

Despite assurance from the President and his allies that AMT relief is an important issue, nothing has actually been put forward as a serious legislative solution for this year. There has been no Senate committee markup or floor action for tax extenders, the AMT patch, death tax reform or even preventing 2013 tax hikes.

This year is about half over, and all we have is talk about the need to address the AMT, but a theoretical discussion is not a substitute for real action, as anyone making a quarterly payment today will attest to.

Everyone seems to agree something needs to be done--and done quickly--but the discussion does not go any further from there. We are out of time. The second quarterly AMT payment is due. Today, taxpayers across the country are under a legal requirement to pay their estimated tax. They will use the form depicted on this chart right here--``2012 Estimated Tax.'' Though I hope otherwise, I expect I will be here again when the third payment comes due saying basically the same thing.

A question remains about whether people who should be making an estimated tax payment tomorrow actually will. Most of these 31 million taxpayers subject to the AMT do not even know they are subject to the alternative minimum tax, so they will not be making that estimated tax payment tomorrow, even though they should. If one fails to pay sufficient estimated tax or have a sufficient amount of wages withheld on a timely basis throughout the year, then one can be subject to interest and penalties. This is an awful spot for Congress to put the American families in.

It is also worth recalling that the IRS cannot just flip a switch and have its systems in place for an AMT patch. This is not done overnight. It takes months. The Congress's failure to act on a timely basis could actually delay the processing of 2013 refund checks perhaps by even a few months.

The failure of Congress to promptly enact an alternative minimum tax fix would have a cascading effect on our system of tax administration. Software providers and tax preparers would struggle to keep up.

One of the issues holding back an AMT fix is that many on the other side insist that, unlike new spending proposals or extensions of existing spending programs, AMT reform should happen only if it is revenue neutral. That means any revenues not collected through reform or repeal of the AMT must be offset by new taxes from somewhere else.

Notice that I said ``not collected'' rather than ``lost.'' This distinction is important for the simple reason that the revenues we do not collect as a result of AMT relief are not truly lost. The AMT collects revenues it was never supposed to collect in the first place. If we offset revenues not collected as a result of AMT repeal or reform, total Federal revenues over the long term are projected to push through the 30-year historical average and then keep going.

Originally conceived as a mechanism to ensure that high-income taxpayers were not able to eliminate their tax liability completely, the AMT has failed. The AMT was originally created back in 1969, with just 155 taxpayers in mind--155--a mechanism to ensure that high-income taxpayers were not able to eliminate their tax liability completely. The AMT has failed completely. On the one hand, as IRS Commissioner Everson told the Finance Committee in 2004, the same percentage of taxpayers continues to pay no Federal income tax.

On the other hand, the AMT is projected to bring in future revenues it was never designed to collect. At least 31 million middle-class families are now in the AMT's crosshairs, and that was never meant to be. That is quite a change from 155 rich people who never paid any taxes. It should serve as a cautionary tale for those who believe today's tax increase proposals will remain limited to the so-called wealthy.

During the 2008 campaign, President Obama advocated for a permanent AMT patch. His budgets have maintained that position. While permanent repeal without offsetting the AMT is the best option, we absolutely must do something to protect taxpayers immediately, even if it involves a temporary solution, such as an increase in the exemption amount. Of course, if we do that, we are going to be in the same fix next year, and I will again be making the same points.

This coming Friday--June 15, 2012--taxpayers making quarterly payments are going to once again discover that the AMT is neither the subject of an

academic seminar nor a future problem we can put off dealing with. The AMT is a real problem right now. If this Congress was truly serious about tax fairness, it does need to stand and take action.

I would like to take a few moments to address another matter of importance.

A conference committee is currently meeting with the goal of producing a transportation bill. As I said at the public meeting that was held last month, ensuring that local communities have a strong voice in the transportation decisionmaking process is a priority of mine. There are many ways this can be achieved, but one particularly effective method is through the implementation of environmental streamlining.

Negotiations are still ongoing, so I do not want to go into too much detail. Yet environmental streamlining is something that will benefit my own home State of Utah and every other State that is currently forced to comply with redundant and oppressive redtape when engaging in transportation projects with the Federal Government.

The highway trust fund, which funds many transportation programs, currently has more money coming out of it than is going into it. While there are many who want to deal with bloated and unfocused spending by raising taxes, I disagree. If revenues do not meet outlays, then we should not be punishing the American taxpayer; rather, we should be reevaluating spending priorities.

In addition to examining what Congress spends money on, we need to ensure that money being spent is spent efficiently. Currently, governments at the Federal, State and local level spend considerable resources complying with Federal regulations designed to protect the environment. Given that many of these regulations have accumulated over time, I am confident that we can scrape many of these barnacles off the ship of state without harming the environment.

Both the Senate and the House recognize the truth of what I am saying, and both bills currently in conference reflect this sentiment. Both contain provisions designed to streamline or simplify the environmental reviews with which transportation projects must comply. In particular, I am appreciative of the efforts shown by Chairman Mica of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for his role in highlighting the importance of environmental streamlining within the conference committee.

Madam President, I inquire how much time I have remaining.

I do not want to infringe on my colleagues. Let me just say this: I am appreciative of the efforts shown by Chairman Mica of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for his role in highlighting the importance of environmental streamlining within the conference committee. I hope the rest of my fellow Senate conferees are carefully reviewing his suggested language. I know all of us want to do all we can to expedite project delivery times while minimizing redundant costs. Chairman Mica is clearly eager to engage on this topic.

President Obama has talked in the past about the importance of funding shovel-ready jobs. All we are asking is when there is a shovel- ready job to move forward without undue or unnecessary environmental reviews.

I close with an appeal rooted in my role as ranking member of the Finance Committee. The highway trust fund is currently on a path to insolvency, and the Senate bill does not change that. By working with our colleagues in the House we can make sure taxpayer money is not wasted on redundant and unnecessary compliance and regulation. Despite current policy being green in the environmental sense, it does not mean we have to sacrifice being green in a budgetary sense.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, today the House of Representatives will vote on the Health Care Cost Reduction Act of 2012. I want to say a few words about that bill, which repeals two of the more counterproductive of the many components of the President's health care law.

Specifically, it repeals the restrictions on the use of FSAs and HSAs in the purchase of over-the-counter medications, as well as the medical device tax.

I want to thank my colleagues in the House for advancing this legislation. Repeal of the onerous OTC restrictions and the device tax are priorities of

mine as well. I have introduced legislation that specifically repeals the medical device tax, and my bill--the Family and Retirement Health Investment Act--includes the repeal of the limitations on the purchase of over-the-counter medication.

Others in the Senate, including my friend and colleague Senator Hutchison, have also been working to repeal the OTC restrictions. My friends from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, Senators Brown and Toomey, have been strong advocates for repeal of the medical device tax. I appreciate working with them and all Members who are committed to the repeal of the President's health care law.

I appreciate the hard work of Chairman Camp and Speaker Boehner in moving the Health Care Cost Reduction Act through committee and onto the floor. I also want to thank, in particular, my friend Congressman Erik Paulsen of Minnesota for his hard work. We have partnered on both the OTC repeal and the medical device repeal, and he has been tireless in fighting not only for his constituents but for all Americans who are burdened by these misguided policies.

Despite some weak protestations to the contrary from the White House, neither of these provisions serve any health policy purpose. They exist for one reason: to bankroll the $2.6 trillion in new spending that is the real soul of ObamaCare. There is no good that can come of ObamaCare. The bad and ugly are plenty, however.

The restriction on the purchase of over-the-counter medications--what some have called a medicine cabinet tax--inconveniences patients and busy families, increases burdens on primary care providers, reduces patient choice, and may actually increase health care utilization and spending. So much for bending the cost curve down.

The medical device tax, in addition to harming patients, is a job killer at a time when our country needs all the good jobs it can get. Together, they are also clear violations of the President's pledge not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year.

With respect to the restrictions on the purchase of over-the-counter medications, ObamaCare now requires the holders of health savings accounts and flexible spending arrangements to obtain a physician's prescription before using those accounts to purchase over-the-counter medicine. In some respects, this policy, more than any other, represents the incredible arrogance and wrongheadedness of the President's signature domestic achievement.

When President Obama and his allies touted the virtues of this law, they mentioned increased access and lower costs. Yet to pay for the law's coverage expansions, they included this medicine cabinet tax, which will do nothing but burden medical providers, undermine access to health care, and increase costs for patients and businesses.

It is worth noting that in yesterday's Statement of Administration Policy announcing President Obama's opposition to the House bill, they did not even describe this provision in detail, much less defend it. It seems clear to me the administration is embarrassed by this tax on patients, and they should be.

A study from the Consumer Health Products Association determined that 10 percent of office visits are for minor ailments, and 40 million medical appointments are avoided annually through the self-care enabled by over-the-counter drugs.

According to a study by Booz & Company, the availability of these over-the-counter medications saves $102 billion annually in clinical and drug costs. Yet ObamaCare deliberately restricts their availability.

With respect to the medical device tax, we all know how bad this tax policy is. I am sure the President knows how bad this policy is as well, but he and his allies continue to defend it. Beginning next year, ObamaCare imposes a tax on the sales of medical device makers--not the profits, the sales.

With this excise tax, even unprofitable firms will be responsible for a 2.30-percent tax on sales of their devices. It is difficult to overstate the damage to patients and our economy this tax will wreak.

According to one analysis, this ObamaCare tax will kill between 14,000 and 47,000 jobs. We wonder why we are having trouble with unemployment. According to another analysis by Benjamin Zycher, it will reduce research and development by $2 billion a year. The resulting collapse in innovation will undermine care for not only the elderly but all patients. Zycher has determined that the effect of this tax will be 1 million life-years lost annually--one million life-years lost annually.

Between 1980 and 2000, new diagnostic and treatment tools, such as improved scanners, catheters and tools for minimally invasive surgery, helped increase life expectancy by more than 3 years. Medical devices helped to slash the death rate from heart disease by a stunning 50 percent and cut the death rate from stroke by 30 percent.

From 1980 to 2000 the medical device industry was responsible for a 4-percent increase in U.S. life expectancy, a 16-percent decrease in mortality rates, and an astounding 25-percent decline in elderly disability rates, according to a study by MEDTAP International.

Why on Earth would anyone vote for a targeted tax on an industry that provides such enormous value and security to patients?

For those who vote against repealing this tax today and stand against its repeal in the Senate, it is worth recalling last week's jobs report. In the month of May, our economy created only 69,000 new jobs. That is, frankly, pathetic. It is barely keeping up with population growth, much less digging us out of our jobs deficit.

I think there is little doubt the mere threat of this tax on medical devices is contributing to these paltry numbers. In other words, this tax is undercutting a key industry, creating deep uncertainty, and hindering job creation.

Since President Obama signed this tax into law, the dollar amount of venture capital invested has declined more than 70 percent. The $200 million raised last year is the lowest level of medical device startup activity since 1996.

This industry is one of the engines of our economy. According to the Lewin Group--a highly respected group--the medical technology industry contributes nearly $382 billion in economic output to the U.S. economy every year. In 2006, it shipped over $123 billion in goods, paid $21.5 billion in salaries to 400,000 American workers, and was responsible for a total of 2 million American jobs.

It pays its employees on average $84,156--that is 1.85 times the national average--and more than 80 percent of medical device companies are small businesses employing 50 people or less. Yet this is the industry President Obama decided to target? This is the industry every Senate Democrat voted to tax when Obamacare passed the Senate?

There are over 120 medical device companies in my home State of Utah alone. Let me tell you, they know what is going to happen if this tax goes into effect, and it is not going to be pretty. I think the President must know this. He and his advisers must know what a disaster the medicine cabinet tax and the medical device tax are as both fiscal and health policy. But yesterday they doubled down on it. Their Statement of Administration Policy threatened a veto of the House bill. It is clear to everyone that the USS Obamacare is a sinking ship, but the President seems committed to going down with it.

Obamacare needs to go. All of it. The law created a web of unconstitutional, misguided, unrealistic, and costly regulations, taxes, fees, and penalties. That web must be pulled down in its entirety, whether by the Supreme Court, or by a Republican Congress and President Romney.

There are few policies more emblematic of that law's failures than the medical device tax and restrictions on the purchase of over-the- counter medications, and I commend my friends in the House for repealing them today.

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

Madam President, the bad news keeps coming. Europe is in dire straits, with the debt-riddled economies of Greece and now Spain threatening the future of the continent's economic union. There is real concern that this debt-fueled contagion in Europe will undermine our economy as well, and our economy cannot take too many more hits.

The unemployment rate went back up to 8.2 percent last month. Only 69,000 net new payroll jobs were created. That is barely keeping up with population growth and is hardly the type of robust job growth that will be the foundation of a lasting and meaningful economic recovery. Now, we should have seen this coming. The minutes of the Federal Reserve's most recent monetary policymaking meeting make numerous mention of uncertainties surrounding fiscal policy and that those uncertainties are a risk to the economic outlook.

Fed policymakers noted that ``they generally saw the U.S. fiscal situation also as a risk to the economic outlook; if agreement is not reached on a plan for the federal budget, a sharp fiscal tightening could occur at the start of 2013.'' They concluded that ``uncertainty about the trajectory of future fiscal policy could lead businesses to defer hiring and investing'' and ``uncertainty about the fiscal environment could hold back both household spending on durable goods and business capital expenditures.''

Yesterday the Congressional Budget Office reminded us yet again what the consequences will be to our economy if we fail to get our debt under control. According to one of their analyses, absent serious reform of entitlement spending programs, ``Federal debt would grow rapidly from its already high level, exceeding 90 percent of GDP in 2022. After that . . . [d]ebt as a share of GDP would exceed its historical peak of 109 percent by 2026, and it would approach 200 percent in 2037.'' And that is an optimistic view. The impact of this multiplying debt will be a gross national product that is reduced by 4.5 percent in 2027 and 13.5 percent in 2037.

In other words, unless President Obama and his allies in the Senate get to work, Americans face a future of fewer jobs, flat or shrinking incomes, and loss of opportunity. And the sad truth is, as this chart shows, the President's allies have not gotten to work.

We have had a hearing on tax extenders but none on the AMT patch--the alternative minimum tax patch--and none on tax reform. We did have a hearing on the 2013 tax cuts. But we have had no markups on any of those, and we have had no floor consideration of any of those. Yet these are all extremely important matters.

It was no surprise, therefore, when former President Clinton stated yesterday that we are still in a recession. Economists might say that is not technically accurate, but it is certainly how most Americans feel. What did come as a surprise, however, was President Clinton's remarks on taxmageddon, the fiscal cliff the Nation faces at the end of this year. At least yesterday, it sounded as though his view was that we should do a complete 180 and race away from this cliff, extending in full the tax relief enacted by President Bush and extended by President Obama in 2010. Several weeks ago, 41 Senate Republicans made a similar request of the Senate's majority leader, Senator Reid. This fiscal cliff is unquestionably contributing to our fiscal crisis and slowing the economy by creating enormous uncertainty for taxpayers and businesses.

Absent action to extend this tax relief, Americans will be hit with a $310 billion tax increase next year alone; 26 million middle-income families will owe $92 billion in alternative minimum tax when filing their returns 1 year from now; a family of four earning $50,000 will get hit with a $2,183 tax hike; a small business owner will face a top marginal tax rate hike of 17 percent. That is catastrophic. The number of farmers who will face the death tax will rise by 2,220 percent. The number of small business owners who will face the death tax will rise by 900 percent. There should be no higher priority for the President and the Congress than addressing these tax increases.

Yesterday, President Clinton seemed to agree, arguing that we should act now, not after the elections, to avoid the fiscal cliff. At a minimum, he concluded that a temporary extension of current tax relief is in order. To quote former President Clinton:

They will probably have to put everything off until early

next year. That's probably the best thing to do right now.

I understand that the minority leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the House have now called for a 1-year extension, during which time we should do tax reform. That makes sense. And I am committed, as the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, to do tax reform and hopefully bring both sides together, for once in a long time, to do what is in the best interest of this country.

President Clinton further argued:

What I think we need to do is to find some way to avoid the

fiscal cliff, to avoid doing anything that would contract the

economy now, and then deal with what's necessary in the long-

term debt-reduction plan as soon as they can, which

presumably will be after the election.

Now, channeling Gilda Radner, and presumably following a dressing down by President Obama's campaign team, President Clinton tells us, ``Never mind.''

But President Clinton knew what he was saying. One thing I can say, knowing him as well as I do, President Clinton is a very smart man. He was making an elementary point, one that the President, President Obama, seemed to agree with when he was not running for election on a platform that single-mindedly obsesses over raising taxes on families with incomes over $250,000.

President Clinton, not wanting to further undermine our economy, recommended a short-term extension of all the tax relief. That is precisely what President Obama agreed to at the end of 2010. Given our tepid economic growth and job creation and the threat from Europe, common sense would dictate a similar course today--certainly, if the alternative is a $310 billion tax increase.

But today President Obama is running for reelection, and tax relief for the so-called rich would undermine his message of wealth redistribution. Failure to extend this tax relief, though, is not an option.

Just this morning another Obama supporter, a former Director for the National Economic Council, Larry Summers, said:

The real risk to this economy is on the side of slowdown .

. . and that means we've got to make sure that we don't take

gasoline out of the tank at the end of this year. That's

gotta be the top priority.

The former Director of President Obama's Office of Management and Budget concluded that what he estimates to be a $500 billion tax increase would be so large that ``the economy could be thrown back into a recession.''

According to the magazine, The Economist, the Congressional Budget Office has found that the combined effects of the sequester and the expiring tax relief would add up to 3.6 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2013. In a $15 trillion economy, that would be a hit to GDP of $540 billion, which would surely tip us toward recession and even more job losses.

The question the people of Utah and citizens around the country are asking themselves is, What is the holdup? If extending this tax relief is essential to providing families and businesses with the certainty and security necessary for economic growth, why are Senate Democrats refusing to take it up? Why is the President not pushing for immediate action to avoid this fiscal cliff?

Let me suggest an answer. The President wants to drag this out until after this election. Even if that means months of additional pain for America's families and a real hit to our economy, it will serve his long-term goal, a goal that he dares not announce until after the election. President Obama does not want the precedent of extending this tax relief for everyone because, ultimately, his liberal base does not want it extended for anyone.

The President and his advisers know our debt is unsustainable. Their base will not allow for any serious changes to spending policy, and tax increases on the wealthy alone are not adequate to get our fiscal house in order. The only solution, one that Hyde Park and Pennsylvania Avenue are loathe to discuss openly, are tax increases on everybody.

This is Matt Bai, writing last year in the New York Times:

If Democrats are serious about reversing the policy of the

Bush years, then they will probably have to be willing to

make a case for eliminating all the tax cuts, not just those

for the wealthiest Americans. And they may have to come up

with some kind of more comprehensive plan for modernizing the

entire tax code, in order to persuade voters that even if

some taxes go up, they might still come out ahead.

Ezra Klein, the liberal blogger at the Washington Post, put it this way:

We cannot fund anything close to the government's

commitments if we don't raise taxes, or if we let only the

Bush tax cuts for income over $250,000 expire.

Though he is now persona non grata in President Obama's camp, just a few weeks ago President Clinton was echoing this recommendation of tax increases for all.

This is President Clinton:

This is just me now, I'm not speaking for the White House--

I think you could tax me at 100 percent and you wouldn't

balance the budget. We are all going to have to contribute to

this, and if middle class people's wages were going up again,

and we had some growth to the economy, I don't think they

would object to going back to tax rates [from] when I was

president.

With due respect to our former President, I do think he was speaking for the White House, and I do think most Americans would object to a tax hike. That is why President Obama has decided to lay low rather than lead. The American people are not going to accept this. We live in a republic, and it is fundamentally illegitimate, on an issue of this magnitude, for a person running for President of the United States to put these decisions off until a lameduck session of Congress when he can no longer be held to account by the American people.

It is not only an economic imperative that we extend this tax relief, it is demanded by our constitutional commitment to representative democracy. To borrow from Justice Scalia:

The American people love democracy and the American people

are not fools.

If the President and his campaign team think they can punt this issue into the fall, they are sorely mistaken. The American people will voice their displeasure with this failure to lead in November. President Clinton got it right the first time yesterday. The fiscal cliff must be addressed now. We cannot wait until later in the year. Our economy is struggling. American families are treading water. We have tried it their way for almost 4 years.

We have tried a $850 billion stimulus. We have tried ObamaCare, which was

also supposed to be a jobs program. We have tried Dodd-Frank. It is time to try something else.

There is no greater jobs program that Congress and the President could pursue than a permanent extension of the tax relief signed by Presidents Bush and Obama. It would provide enormous confidence to America's businesses and families at a time when confidence is sorely needed. This issue is not going away. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass tax relief for all Americans sometime this summer.

We all realize we are in election mode. Maybe I realize that more than most. The fact is, we cannot punt this anymore. We cannot kick it down the road. We are going to have to find a means and a way whereby we extend this tax relief and then spend the next year working on tax reform and hopefully a bipartisan tax reform bill that everybody here can support.

So far this year just about everything the majority leader has brought up for and on behalf of Democrats is to protect the sitting 23 Democrats who are up for reelection this year. I don't blame the leader for wanting to protect his fellow Democrats. That is, after all, maybe part of the job of the leader. On the other hand, there are things that are even more important, such as the future welfare of our country, such as jobs that are not being created. They are not being created because we have no creators in the White House. It takes a President to lead on these issues.

I suggest to President Obama he would have a much better chance of reelection if he would lead on some of these issues and if he would go along with putting off these tax increases and committing Democrats and Republicans to coming up with a bipartisan reform of this awful, despicable, unworkable Tax Code. It might be one of the few ways we can bring people together. It might be one of the few ways we can turn this country around in the short term.

I think the minority leader and the Speaker of the House have something here. We ought to do this and make it the main focal point of our existence as Members of the Senate and Members of the House of Representatives. If we do this, we might even find that we can get along again. We might even find that we can work together. And we might even find the President can lead for a change, which would be a pleasant change from what I have seen over the last number of years.

I happen to like the President. I do not agree with him. Yes, I would like to replace him. But I like him personally. I believe if the President would lead here and would make this a focal point he would have a better chance in this election. Not that I want him to be successful, but at least he would have a better chance.

Deep down the American people believe nothing is being done by the White House, by this body, and throughout the country. I yearn for the day when Democrats and Republicans can get along with each other again, when we really put the country first rather than reelection first, when we really look at each other and say: You know, I like him or her. I think I can work with them. It would be wonderful if we would do that.

This is a pretty fair suggestion: Keep the tax cuts alive until we reform the tax system--this bloated, unworkable, stupid Tax Code. I actually believe it could be a way of making us all work together and making us all do so in the best interests of our country. Wouldn't that be wonderful?

I hope my colleagues on both sides will go along with doing something that makes sense--like this. I believe in these suggestions we have the makings of something that would not only help our country but help all of us to get along with each other and work in the best interests of our country.

But I will make a final point; that is, it takes Presidential leadership to make major changes like this, and we do not have that right now.

Mr. President, in remarks a few minutes ago, I stated the following:

If extending this tax relief is essential to providing

families and businesses with the certainty and security

necessary for economic growth, why are Senate Democrats

refusing to take it up? And why is the President not pushing

for immediate action to avoid this fiscal cliff?

Let me suggest an answer.

The President wants to drag this out until after the

elections. Even if that means months of additional pain for

America's families and a real hit to our economy, it will

serve his long-term goal--a goal that he dare not announce

until after the election.

President Obama does not want the precedent of extending

this tax relief for everyone, because ultimately his liberal

base does not want it extended for anyone.

The President and his advisers know that our debt is

unsustainable. Their base will not allow for any serious

changes to spending policy, and tax increases on the wealthy

alone are not adequate to get our fiscal house in order.

As support for my theory that the President could be dragging out this tax hike fight, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the blog, ``Talking Points Memo,'' dated November 22, 2011. That blog's authors certainly are allies of President Obama and rarely does ``Talking Points Memo'' contain anything sympathetic to Republican policy positions. When it is critical of President Obama, the blog's criticisms tend to spring from the far left of the political spectrum. I ask my colleagues to ask themselves the question above: ``Why is the President not pushing for immediate action to avoid this fiscal cliff?'' and then read the article.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I withhold. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to comment on the results of last night's recall election in the State of Wisconsin. After nearly 2 years of heated political debate, the people of Wisconsin made it clear last night that they are not suffering from buyers' remorse. Two years ago, they elected leaders committed to solving their State's budget crisis. Last night, they stood by those leaders for making the hard choices that turned Wisconsin's deficit into a surplus.

Yesterday's election was very important. It was important because of the example it provides to the Nation and the world of how a democracy should work, with citizens who disagree vehemently about policy nonetheless coming together to accept the results of an open and fair election.

It was important because of the message it sends with respect to public employee unions. Last night's results serve as yet another reminder that the

American people want serious answers to our Nation's fiscal problems, and they are tired of having labor unions dictate the terms of our economic recovery.

Scott Walker never hid his agenda. He ran for office on a platform of reducing State spending, and Governor Walker immediately began addressing the State's problems after taking office. So what egregious acts did Governor Walker commit during his first months in office to trigger this recall? First of all, his budget repair bill actually required Wisconsin State employees to contribute more to their pensions. Prior to passage of the Walker budget, many State employees did not contribute to their retirement benefits.

You heard that right. Facing a massive State deficit, Governor Walker determined that Wisconsin taxpayers should no longer foot the entire bill for the generous pensions of public employees. In other words, he asked State public employees to do what private sector employees have done for a generation, contribute to their own retirement plan.

Next, he required that State employees pay a larger share of their health care premiums. The new law requires State employees to pay 12.6 percent of their health care premiums. By contrast, Federal employees pay at least 25 percent of their health care premiums.

To put these reforms in terms that his liberal detractors might appreciate, the Governor was just asking for a little shared sacrifice. Instead of pitching in, however, the State's public employees pitched a fit. Then, most significantly, Governor Walker reformed a collective bargaining system for State employees. Above all else, it was this decision that triggered the meltdown in Wisconsin last year and ultimately led to the recall.

Facing the possibility that a State might successfully limit union influence and excesses, national labor groups turned Wisconsin into the frontlines of labor agitation. I know some have tried to give me a reputation of being anti-union. That is ridiculous because I was raised in a union movement. I held a card for basically 10 years as I worked as a skilled tradesman in the construction industry.

But, in fact, I am not opposed to unionization if that is what employees truly want. I simply believe workers should be free to choose whether to unionize and do so in an environment that is free of coercion or intimidation.

Once unions are formed, I do not believe they should enjoy disproportionate bargaining power in their negotiations with management. That said, unions of public sector employees present a unique set of issues for taxpayers and voters. Public sector unions have inherent advantages in negotiations that private sector unions do not. Most notably, public sector unions use their substantial influence in State politics to elect the very officials with whom they will be negotiating their union contracts.

As the academic Dan DiSalvo and many others have recognized, when the Ford Motor Company negotiates with the American Auto Workers, it is an arm's length negotiation, with both parties having an interest in the ongoing success of the firm. Yet public employee unions effectively negotiate with themselves. There is no distance between them and the public officials they helped to elect and expect payback from.

Franklin Roosevelt understood that because public employee unions could elect their own boss, ``the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.''

George Meany, the first head of the AFL CIO, knew this relationship made it ``impossible to bargain collectively with the government.''

These critical points are lost on today's Democratic Party, which increasingly depends on the foot soldiers and largesse provided by these unions. As a result, we have an untenable situation, where public sector unions are, in effect, negotiating against the taxpayers. After all, their salaries and benefits come at the expense of the taxpayers.

The fiscal impact of these rigged negotiations is most evidence in States with the biggest budget problems. California faces a budget deficit of nearly $16 billion this year alone. It has $65 billion in unfunded liabilities in its teachers' pension system and $136 billion in unfunded liabilities for its largest city and county employee pension system.

The Illinois public employee pension system now has $83 billion in unfunded liabilities. So far, comprehensive efforts to reform these systems and bring down costs have been stymied for one simple reason: Politicians in those States do not have the courage of people such as Gov. Scott Walker.

Our folks here who support the unions ought to be happy this is happening because they themselves may not be able to accomplish this. The courageous Governors, such as Governor Walker, can, and in the end they are better off as Democrats because they have some reasonable approach toward some of these enormous problems that are affecting our States.

Instead of reforming their systems, these States have more often opted to raise taxes to attempt to eliminate the shortfalls. Yet most of the States with the highest unfunded liabilities already have higher-than-average tax rates.

Despite their many faults, private sector unions have a stake in the U.S. economy and the profitability of American businesses. Indeed, they have a built-in incentive to ensure continued economic growth. True enough, they do not always act in accordance with that interest, which is probably the biggest reason why today less than 7 percent of private sector workers belong to a union. But, nevertheless, they need some level of continued growth in order to further their existence.

Public sector unions are an entirely different animal with a completely different set of interests. Unlike private sector businesses, State governments are not required to turn a profit. State officials are accountable to voters, but, unlike stockholders, most voters do not have the same expectations to see returns on their investments.

That being the case, public sector unions lack the same incentive to see their negotiating counterparts succeed. There are no forces limiting their incentive to simply maximize benefits for their membership, regardless of what it might cost their employers. In order to succeed, even the most ambitious and shrewd private sector union needs to account for its employer's ability to grow and expand.

Public sector unions are not subject to these sorts of limitations. That is probably why they have been so successful. Today, about 37 percent of government employees belong to a union, which is five times the unionization rate in the private sector. So it is easy to see why Big Labor pulled out all the stops to recall Governor Walker. Public sector unions are the future of the labor movement. Because of the long, steady decline of private sector unions, Big Labor knows it must maintain the strength of public sector unions in order to remain relevant. Yet at the same time, the States that employ them face incredibly difficult budgetary decisions in the coming years and I believe without the ability to be able to get them under control because of the controls of the major parties.

Let's be clear about what it would mean if public employee unions prevailed in these fights. It means that instead of reducing spending, States will have to raise taxes. It means that instead of eliminating government waste, States will have to maintain the status quo, and, ultimately, it means States will have to make a choice between paying their bills on the one hand and growing their economies on the other.

Going forward, it is absolutely vital that more States follow Wisconsin's example. States should not have to choose between educating their kids and paying the full freight of public employee pensions. During such difficult economic times, they should not have to raise taxes in order to keep their employees from having to pay a reasonable share of their own benefits. In short, States should have the ability to balance budgetary priorities without being thwarted at every turn by public employee unions that are only concerned with their own interests.

Last night and this morning, the pundits were in full gear, dissecting the results in Wisconsin and prognosticating about the election's long-term impact. To me, this exercise in democracy demonstrates two things. First, the failure of the unions and the national Democratic Party was not a failure of messaging or money. It was a failure of ideas.

Richard Weaver once wrote that ideas have consequences. That is absolutely true. The ideas that Governor Walker proposed were reasonable ones that addressed a critical fiscal situation without undermining essential services in his State. Second, it is clear the Democratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt, a party of blue-collar, private sector workers, has morphed into a party dominated by white-collar, public workers.

The American people, beginning with Wisconsin, are rejecting this Democratic Party and the priorities of its most influential stakeholders. The silent majority that gets up every day and goes to work in the private sector is losing its appetite for allowing public employee unions to dictate the Nation's fiscal policy.

There is one video going around of an opponent of Governor Walker's near tears and saying that democracy was denied tonight. Au contraire. Democracy is alive and well in Wisconsin and around the Nation, and the American people are going to have their say. Last night's results should serve as a reminder of the need to face our perilous fiscal situation honestly and squarely.

It should also remind us that the American people will not punish leaders who stand and do the right thing, even in the face of powerful and vengeful opposition.

My hope is that the experience in Wisconsin will be replicated around the country.

To borrow from one of Wisconsin's patron saints, Vince Lombardi, ``Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing.''

The unions have now had three bites at the apple since Governor Walker was first elected. Each time they have come up short. By prevailing, Governor Walker and Republicans in Wisconsin should stiffen the spines of conservatives who might have been previously unwilling to take on these public sector unions--public employee unions, if you will. By losing, those unions have shown themselves to be increasingly desperate and out of touch with the sentiments and concerns of everyday citizens and taxpayers.

Mr. President, I commend Governor Walker and his efforts to secure a prosperous future for the citizens of Wisconsin. His courage in the face of significant opposition is a model of statesmanship, and I look forward to working with him for many years to come.

Look, we all know the public sector unions have been out of control for a long time. Throughout the country, benefits paid to public employees have outpaced those in the private sector, and that includes Federal Government employees where the average pay is $80,000 a year compared to $50,000 for the private sector. We all know that is justified in the eyes of some because it is ``so expensive'' to live in Washington, DC, or nearby. Why is it that expensive? Because we have built the Federal Government at all costs, and we allow it to spend and spend rather than find more ways of living within our means.

There is a part of me that wishes we could move a number of these agencies out of Washington and put them out with the real people throughout our country who have to live within their means, and who don't have huge Washington, DC, salaries, which are huge to the average person, but not always to the people who work in this very expensive town. There they can mingle with the everyday people in this country who are paying the freight.

By the way, we all know that according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the bottom 51 percent of all households don't pay any income tax or freight. There is a method in that madness, it seems to me. But it is the wrong method. Sooner or later we are all going to have to help pull the wagon and not just sit in the wagon and take advantage of everybody else. It ought to be done on a reasonable and decent basis.

But, once again, we all know the public sector unions are out of control. The States where they have the biggest problems are the States where the public sector unions have dominated their elected politicians over and over and over again, so the elected politicians are afraid to take them on, afraid to do the things that would straighten out their States, as Governor Walker has said.

Instead of finding a lot of fault with Governor Walker, if I were a Democrat, I would be saying: Thank God, somebody stood up. The fact is he has stood up, and he should be given credit for that not condemnation.

Frankly, I am very proud of the people of Wisconsin for standing up the way they did. I think other States are going to have to do that, too, or there are going to be problems like we have never seen before. We can name the States that have the problems. In almost every case they are blue States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment. I will be voting to table it, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. It would impose another layer of regulations on an industry that already has a workable regulatory framework. It is totally unnecessary, and it will only increase costs for those who use dietary supplements.

I wish to make a few points clear.

First, HHS already has authority to impose an immediate ban on any dietary supplement that poses imminent hazard to public health.

Second, four previous FDA Commissioners and a former Deputy Commissioner agree that DSHEA already provides sufficient oversight of this industry. This amendment would strap the FDA with a huge burden at a time when the agency is already struggling to perform its current core responsibilities.

Third, it unnecessarily expands registration requirements without adding any additional consumer protections.

All this amendment does is penalize good companies, while doing nothing to go after the bad.

In the end, as a result of this amendment, consumers will suffer by paying higher prices for their supplements.

This amendment is bad for the FDA and bad for consumers. The Senate should reject it.

We already have a regulatory framework under DSHEA that works. A new intrusive regulatory regime is totally unnecessary. I urge my colleagues to vote with me to table this amendment.

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate the World Trade Center Utah on the naming of one of Utah's finest buildings in their honor. On May 23, 2012, my Utah staff had the pleasure of attending a ceremony whereby the building formerly known as Eagle Gate Tower became the World Trade Center at City Creek. Naming one of Salt Lake's premier business addresses after the World Trade Center Utah is a fitting tribute to the important role the organization plays in guiding Utah's world-leading companies into new markets. This achievement is all the more remarkable when you consider that the organization was only founded in 2006.

We hear time and time again about the fact that 95 percent of our potential consumers live outside the United States. But we all know that reaching those customers can be difficult. Since 2006, the World Trade Center Utah has assisted over 1,000 companies to do just that, through educational classes and seminars, international business development events, and networking opportunities. The World Trade Center Utah rightly prides itself on being the ``first stop'' for Utah businesses seeking to expand their trade opportunities. By assessing their capabilities, providing educational opportunities and connections to the right people and organizations, the World Trade Center Utah provides the businesses of the Beehive State a much needed roadmap to engaging in international trade.

Their hard work has paid off. Thanks in no small part to the World Trade Center Utah and the leadership of its CEO, Lew Cramer, Utah merchandise exports increased 37 percent in 2011 compared to 2010, growing from $13.8 billion to $18.9 billion. In a time of great economic difficulty for our Nation, this was no easy feat and was no doubt welcome news to the nearly 93,000 Utahns whose jobs depend on exports, as well as the companies in Utah which collectively exported to over 190 foreign markets.

I congratulate the World Trade Center Utah, as well as its founding CEO, Lew Cramer, and his dedicated staff for this achievement.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss my amendment that would repeal the costly and counterproductive medical device tax in President Obama's health care law. In the mad scramble to find money to pay for his $2.6 trillion health spending law, the President and his Democratic allies created a number of new taxes that serve no purpose other than to fuel this new spending. Economically, these taxes are a disaster. They will undercut job creation, and they will increase costs for patients.

The new 2.3-percent tax on medical device manufacturers, which kicks in at the beginning of next year, is particularly onerous. For that reason, last year I introduced legislation to repeal it. That bill, the Medical Device Access and Innovation Protection Act, S. 17, has been cosponsored by 25 of my colleagues.

They understand that all of ObamaCare needs to go. The President's health care law is now over 2 years old. It is not aging well. Even before ObamaCare became law, the American people made themselves absolutely clear they wanted nothing to do with this Washington takeover of the Nation's health care system. The President and his advisers refused to face reality, telling reluctant Democrats all

was well in spite of the tea party townhalls.

According to the President and his congressional Democratic leadership, as soon as the legislation became law, Americans would come to embrace the wonderful benefits bestowed on them by the Department of Health and Human Services. It has not quite turned out that way.

Poll after poll shows that substantial majorities of Americans continue to oppose the law and favor its full repeal. A majority of Democrats think the law is unconstitutional. In a matter of weeks, the Supreme Court might issue a coup de grace to President Obama's misguided adventure in big government.

Whatever the Supreme Court does, I want to be clear about something. All of ObamaCare needs to go. It needs to be pulled out root and branch. The entire thing needs to be repealed. That said, some part of the law stand out for their wrongheadedness. The individual mandate and Medicaid expansions are flat out unconstitutional.

The IPAB, the CLASS Act, the Medicare cuts, and the employer mandate all deserve honorable mention for being bad public policy. Among the most counterproductive parts of the law are its over $500 billion in new taxes and penalties.

The medical device tax sits at the top of the list of foolish new ObamaCare taxes, and my colleagues who have supported S. 17 and this amendment understand the critical importance of eliminating it. I thank in particular my colleagues, Senator Brown from Massachusetts, and Senator Toomey from Pennsylvania, who have spoken on this issue and understand completely the devastation this tax will create for patients and for employers who provide good jobs for communities in their States.

Thanks to ObamaCare, medical devices will get hit with a $28 billion tax. So we are clear about what these medical devices are, they include surgical tools, bed pans, wheelchairs, stethoscopes, and countless other products that patients and doctors rely on every day. Surgical masks, gloves, blood pressure monitors, scissors, needles, cribs, trays, lights, stents, pacemakers, scales, scalpels, inhalers, and ankle, knee, and hip braces, and a lot more.

The cost of all of those products is going up thanks to this tax. Somebody is going to have to pay for it, and that someone is the already overburdened American taxpayer and middle-class breadwinner.

The President and his supporters seem to think we can simply tax corporations and individuals with impunity and face no adverse economic consequences. Yet economists understand when we tax these companies, employees will pay for it in lower wages, the unemployed will pay for it with a job that was never created, and patients will pay for it with higher health care costs.

Whatever our economic circumstances, this tax is bad news. But it is particularly foolish given the precarious state of our economic recovery. The President once liked to tout all of the jobs created or saved by his over $800 billion stimulus bill. Yet by supporting the medical device tax, the President and his allies have shown a real disregard for good high-paying American jobs.

Medical device companies employ nearly half a million people. They pay a salary that is nearly 40 percent higher than the national average. These manufacturers are small businesses we must be cultivating if our economy is going to recover and we are going to be successful in bringing down unemployment.

Roughly 80 percent of medical device companies have fewer than 50 employees; 98 percent have fewer than 500 employees. ObamaCare's $28 billion tax hike on these manufacturers will do nothing to improve health care, but it will do plenty to undercut the viability of these companies that provide good wages and good opportunities for American families.

According to one recent analysis, the medical device industry provided jobs to 409,000 employees in 2009. Yet this tax could result in job losses in excess of 43,000. It will hit certain States harder than others: California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and my State of Utah. The presence of medical device manufacturers is significant in all of these States.

This new tax will roughly double the device industry's total tax bill and raise the average effective corporate income tax to one of the highest effective tax rates faced by any industry in the world. The President and his allies frequently attack industries that choose to move their operations overseas. But they do not seem to grasp that their policies are driving these industries to do just that. With the onset of this new tax, U.S. device manufacturers are increasingly likely to close plants in the United States and replace them with plants in foreign countries.

According to another report by the Lewin Group, the medical technology industry contributes nearly $382 billion in economic output to the U.S. economy every year. President Obama, in the middle of a weak economy, facing high rates of joblessness, has decided to attack that industry. It is bewildering to me. An industry that pays workers on average $84,156 has become a victim of the President's desire to pay for his new health spending law or, better put, those workers and the families they support become the victims of the President's health spending law.

In my own State of Utah, the device tax is an issue of great importance. There are over 120 medical device companies in Utah. As the Utah Technology Council wrote in a letter to me, these companies ``are a vibrant part of the Utah economy providing high-paying, high-tech jobs for citizens of our great state.''

They certainly are all of that, and they are under assault as a result of this tax, targeted for nothing other than their success and the fact that they were a so-called stakeholder that could pay a so- called fair share to subsidize the President's health spending bonanza.

I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Just yesterday, the Governor of Utah, the Honorable Gary Herbert, sent a letter to Congress addressing the negative impact this tax will have on our State. He wrote:

As a Governor of a state with a significant concentration

of medical technology manufacturers, I believe this tax could

harm U.S. global competitiveness, stunt medical innovation

and result in the loss of tens of thousands of good paying

jobs.

Now, there is little doubt the President's medical device tax, one that unfortunately received the vote of every Democrat in the Senate, will do just that--kill jobs and undercut our economy.

I ask unanimous consent that Governor Herbert's letter be printed in the Record.

The President's health care law is a travesty. The American people know it. They think it is fundamentally illegitimate, unconstitutional to its core, and enacted over the deep and loud objections of citizens and taxpayers.

All 2,700 pages of that law must be stricken from the U.S. Code one way or another. Eliminating its medical device tax is absolutely essential. It is critical for our States, for our economy, and for America's families and workers. I ask my colleagues join the repeal effort, and I thank my colleagues who have already joined as cosponsors.

I would like to briefly touch on one other issue that is of great importance to me and to the people of Utah and others all over the country. Over 150 million Americans regularly consume dietary supplements as a means of improving and maintaining their health.

The passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, or DSHEA, in 1994 brought clarity, predictability, and a better understanding of what the FDA expected from industry and vice-versa. DSHEA provides an appropriate structure that balances the risks and benefits to consumers, with continued access and affordability.

Unfortunately, my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, has filed an amendment to the current bill that would undo that well-balanced approach. As the author of DSHEA, along with my dear friend and colleague, Senator Harkin in the Senate, I strongly oppose his amendment. It would require facilities engaged in the manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding of dietary supplements to register with the FDA, provide a description with a list of all ingredients, as well as a copy of the labeling for each dietary supplement product. Additionally, the facilities must also register with respect to new, reformulated, and discontinued dietary supplement products.

While I appreciate my colleague's commitment, his amendment is based on the misguided presumption that the current regulatory framework for dietary supplements is flawed and that the FDA lacks authority to regulate these products. This is simply not the case. Previously FDA Commissioners, including Drs. Jane Henney, Mark McClellan, Les Crawford, and Andy von Eschenbach, as well as the former Deputy Commissioner, Dr. Josh Sharfstein, have all agreed DSHEA provides an appropriate and sufficient level of oversight of this industry.

Under DSHEA, Congress set out a legal definition of what could be marketed as a dietary supplement and safety standards that products have to meet. It allowed the FDA to develop good manufacturing practice standards and clarified what types of claims could be made. It provided the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the authority to impose an immediate ban on any dietary supplement that poses an imminent risk to public health.

DSHEA already provides the Secretary with enforcement tools of seizure, injunction, or criminal prosecution for ingredients that pose an unreasonable risk of illness or injury, are poisonous or deleterious, contain unapproved drugs or food additives, or fail to meet good manufacturing practice standards.

Furthermore, under the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act, a manufacturer, packer, or distributor whose name appears on the label is required to report a serious adverse event related to the use of a supplement within 15 business days to HHS; submit any related medical information received within 1 year of the initial report within 15 business days; maintain records related to each report for 6 years; and permit inspection of such records.

To me, that sounds like a whole lot of regulation. The FDA already has a tremendous amount of regulatory oversight and enforcement tools when it comes to dietary supplements. Yet instead of urging FDA to use its current enforcement authority to find and punish those companies that are not following the law, Senator Durbin's amendment serves to punish all responsible companies with its overreaching mandates.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention another obvious point. Senator Durbin's amendment would have the devastating effect of piling on more work for an underfunded agency already struggling to keep above water with its current core responsibilities.

Now, let me just say this: Before we passed DSHEA, there basically was no regulation over this industry. We brought together, Senator Harkin and I, the whole dietary supplement industry to get behind DSHEA. They are behind it. It took over 10 years to get the good manufacturing practices completed by FDA--more than 10 years, as a matter of fact. But we provided for them in that agreement. We provided all the tools that are necessary to supervise and regulate dietary supplements. To now add other obligations

onto this industry is just plain not right, and I hope my colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives will recognize this is an overreach and not put up with it. We are not going to put up with it. I will be voting against Senator Durbin's amendment, and I urge all of our colleagues to do the same.

At this point, I pay tribute to my colleague, Senator Harkin from Iowa. Senator Harkin worked tirelessly on this bill along with me. We worked all the way through the Senate on a number of occasions on various things. We have improved the bill from time to time. We have gone along with the improvements. We have done everything we can to protect the American citizens with everything that should be done. Nothing further needs to be done.

This is an industry that deserves support, not condemnation. Senator Harkin has been there every step of the way. He is a champion for the dietary supplement industry, as am I, and a lot of others in this body. I think it is time to quit trying to overregulate everything to death and cause costs to go up by leaps and bounds. Dietary supplements are not inexpensive today, although they are a lot less expensive than they would be if we keep piling on these regulations.

Frankly, we believe we have all of the necessary language in the law today to protect the American public regarding dietary supplements. We have given the Food and Drug Administration all the authority they need, and every FDA Commissioner has met with me, as I recall, since DSHEA was passed in 1994, and has said they have enough tools to be able to supervise this industry properly and they don't need anything more.

To make a long story short, again, this is an overreach by a colleague, sincere though he may be, and as important as he believes it to be. I hope he will withdraw his amendment so we don't have to go through this again. If he won't, I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle--and this is a bipartisan effort--will rise and say we have had enough of this and let's vote these kinds of amendments down.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from Iowa. I know Senator Durbin is sincere, but, my gosh, there is enough regulation and regulatory authority in this bill, including the amendments we have added voluntarily, to resolve any problem that exists. Frankly, I hope everybody will vote against the Durbin amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be placed in the appropriate place in the Record and that I be permitted to finish my remarks.

Mr. President, we find ourselves in the midst of a Presidential election. In years past it might be expected that during a Presidential election, politics would take precedent over policy. That is not right then and it is certainly not right now. Our Nation faces serious problems--immediate problems--and we cannot wait to tackle them until after the election.

We are over $15.7 trillion in debt, and before the end of the year it will be over $16 trillion. We have a Tax Code that is unmanageable and a burden on conscientious taxpayers. If the Congress and the President fail to act, we have a tax increase coming next year that will dwarf any in our Nation's history. We cannot afford to wait another 7 months to get our fiscal house in order, and we need to act now.

President Obama at least claims to understand that we cannot wait to address this fiscal crisis. He remarked recently that the fact this is an election year is not an excuse for inaction. Unfortunately, other than talk, the President and his liberal allies have done nothing to address either our rising debt or the fiscal cliff we are quickly approaching, both of which are significantly hindering our economic recovery and job growth.

Last week President Obama's budget received zero votes in the Senate. For the second year in a row every Republican and every Democrat who voted on the President's budget voted against it. Remarkably, not one Democrat voted for the serious Republican budgets offered by my friend Chairman Paul Ryan, and my friends and colleagues Senators Toomey, Paul, and Lee.

While he talks a big game, President Obama has shown little interest in lighting a meaningful path toward balancing the budget, reforming the Tax Code, and reducing the tax burden on working families and small businesses.

Instead, President Obama seems to have a single-minded focus on his reelection. While he attempts to scare up votes in swing States, Americans across the country are suffering due to President Obama's failed economic policies. The people of Utah and the people across the country are naturally growing restless. They look to Europe and see the consequences of out-of-control spending and taxes. Yet even with the example of Europe, the President and his friends resist meaningful spending cuts at every turn, and his liberal allies have done everything they can to mislead the public about the responsible intentions of Republicans to reduce wasteful government spending.

Just as critical for our economy is the President's failure to do anything to address the tax relief that will expire at the end of this year. If the President allows current tax relief to expire, the result will be at least a $4 trillion tax increase on the American people. We can call this a fiscal cliff; we can call it ``taxmageddon,'' as others have done. Whatever you call it, it will be a disaster for the middle class. It will be a disaster for small businesses that will be the engine of our economic recovery. One thing we hear time and time again from businesses is that uncertainty holds them back from investing, expanding, and hiring. A robust recovery will require permanent progrowth tax policy.

Given the continued jobs recession and weak economic growth, we need those policies now. Economic growth slowed to 2.2 percent last quarter. For 39 consecutive months the unemployment rate has remained above 8 percent, but that only tells part of the story. There are 12.5 million Americans unemployed, and of those more than 5.1 million workers have been looking for work for 27 weeks or more. There are 7.9 million Americans who are working part time for economic reasons, and another 2.4 million have only a marginal attachment to the labor force. Close to 2 million college graduates are unemployed.

Growth slowed to a tepid 2.2-percent rate in the first quarter, and we already saw business cut back investment as business investment spending declined 2.1 percent in the quarter. Yet the President and his Democratic allies seem content even in this environment to sit on the sidelines as ``taxmageddon'' approaches and threatens even greater harm to our economy.

The coming tax increases will be, without any exaggeration, the largest tax increases in American history, and the possibility of these tax increases is creating enormous uncertainty. The so-called business tax extenders expired at the end of 2011. Will there be an R&D tax credit in 2012? Will there be an exception from subpart F for active financing income after 2011? Families and businesses do not know if the 2001 and 2003 tax relief will be extended beyond 2012. That creates tremendous uncertainty for anyone planning on buying a home, saving for college, investing in a new business, or hiring a new worker. Will passthrough organizations be taxed at 35 percent or 39.6 percent? Will dividends be taxed at 15 percent or will dividends be taxed at 39.6 percent, as President Obama has proposed? Will there be a death tax that hits family businesses and farms with a maximum rate of 55 percent, or of 35 percent, or something else? What will happen to the alternative minimum tax? Will it be patched? Will it be reformed? Will it be repealed? Will it be replaced with higher taxes somewhere else?

The President and the Senate Democratic leadership have shown no willingness to answer these questions and provide the certainty our economy craves. The adverse impact of these tax increases on economic growth is unquestioned. But don't take my word for it. It has been reported that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently discussed with Senate Democrats the significance of ``taxmageddon.''

In short, the coming tax increases will be so large that Chairman Bernanke apparently warned that monetary policy would not be capable of offsetting the resulting decline in economic growth.

Last month the Fed's policy-setting committee repeatedly warned in minutes of their meeting that fiscal uncertainty has negative effects on consumer and business sentiment, on household spending, durable goods, business capital expenditures, and on hiring.

The former Director of President Obama's Office of Management and Budget concluded that what he estimates to be a $500 billion tax increase

would be so large that ``the economy could be thrown back into a recession.''

According to Barclay's Capital, this fiscal cliff could reduce our GDP by 3 percent.

In addition to these looming tax hikes, budget cuts from the sequester that followed from the administration's failure to arrive at a budget are set to hit as well. According to the magazine ``The Economist,'' the Congressional Budget Office has found that the combined effects of the sequester and the expiring tax relief would add up to 3.6 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2013. Federal Reserve Governor Duke has reportedly indicated that the combined impact of the expiring fiscal policies at the end of the year could amount to around 4 percent of the Nation's economy.

No economy can sustain such a hit without being hurled into recession. Yet instead of addressing this fiscal cliff--tax increases that will harm all of America's families--the President seems content to pursue misguided micropolicies that target the so-called rich in the name of so-called fairness.

I wish to make two points about the President's obsession with redistribution of wealth. First, the American people do not care. The American people do not want government bureaucrats in Washington figuring out who gets what. They don't want politicians spreading the wealth around. They don't want self-anointed arbiters of how much income is fair. What they want is the opportunity that comes with economic growth. They don't want a handout. They don't want their industries vilified for engaging in free enterprise. They want a job. And nothing is more fair than giving every American the chance to make something of himself or herself. That requires Washington getting out of the way, not getting more involved.

Second, the American people seem to understand that the President's promise that he will only tax the rich is a sucker's bet. With his health care law, he already repeatedly broke his campaign promise not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year. The people of Utah, my home State, and the rest of the other States know that the Democrats' thirst for more spending will require much more than taxes on the wealthy. If President Obama and his Democratic allies get their way, all taxpayers are going to be looking at bigger tax bills.

President Clinton was honest on this point recently. He rejected President Obama's politically convenient claim that he would only tax the rich, and called for across-the-board tax increases: This is just me now; I'm not speaking for the White House. I think you could tax me at 100 percent and you wouldn't balance the budget. We are all going to have to contribute to this, and if middle-class people's wages were going up again, and we had some growth in the economy, I don't think they would object to going back to tax rates from when I was President.

There we have it. Tax increases on everybody. President Clinton can claim that he does not speak for the White House, but the American people are not fooled. They see where the President's policies are leading. Our debt and deficits are unsustainable, but the President has shown no inclination to address them through spending reductions.

There is only one other option available to President Obama and it is one that he and his party have shown to be their preferred policy for decades: higher taxes to pay for more spending. Utahns and Americans all over the country know that the failure to address ``taxmageddon'' is a very real threat. We cannot put this discussion off any longer. It is time for our President to lead.

To that end, last week I, along with 40 of my Republican colleagues, sent a letter to our colleague and friend from Nevada, the Democratic leader, asking for him to address this fiscal cliff in short order. Today we received a response. I have to say I am disappointed. While there is a great deal of political posturing about evil millionaires and big corporations as well as repeated attacks on the tea party and the citizens who support its goals of smaller constitutional government, there is no acknowledgment of the fiscal cliff we are fast approaching. This response seems to confirm what we already know: President Obama and his liberal allies would prefer to put off the discussion of this fiscal cliff. They do not want to address ``taxmageddon.'' I am fairly certain their preference would be to get to the other side of the election and then have tax hikes set in not only for their caricatured evil corporations and individuals but for the middle class as well.

But I am confident that the markets and the American people are not going to allow this to happen. We cannot afford to delay action that will prevent ``taxmageddon'' and steer us away from the coming fiscal cliff.

The likelihood of ``taxmageddon'' and the uncertainty it creates is an anchor around our economy. Americans young and old, unemployed and underemployed, want this anchor thrown off now. We cannot wait until next year or even a lameduck session. The economy is slowing, job growth is lagging, and businesses are cutting back investments. The uncertainty caused by ``taxmageddon'' is contributing to the lackluster economic recovery. American families and businesses are not going to invest in the future if the future holds a $310 billion tax increase next year alone. The best thing we can do to jumpstart our economy is to turn the wheel away from the fiscal cliff sooner rather than later.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Paul Williams, a detailee to the Senate Finance Committee from the Food and Drug Administration; Jesse Baker, a detailee to the Senate Finance Committee from the U.S. Secret Service; Angela Sheldon, a detailee to the Senate Judiciary Committee; and Maureen McLaughlin, a detailee to the Senate Finance Committee from the Federal Communications Commission, all be granted privileges of the floor for the remainder of the second session of the 112th Congress.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Western Economic Security Today Act, the WEST Act, which I recently introduced with my good friend and colleague from Wyoming, Senator Barrasso. This bill is an outgrowth of our work with the Senate Western Caucus and the Congressional Western Caucus. These groups, which include my good friend from Utah, Congressman Rob Bishop, and Congressman Steve Pearce from New Mexico, are truly leading the way. We have been doing the hard work of identifying solutions that will promote job creation, boost America's energy production, and put our Nation on a better fiscal footing by encouraging economic growth.

We keep hearing from the Democratic leadership that Congress is dysfunctional. That may be. But it is not because of a lack of good ideas. It is because--in an effort to help the President in his reelection and shield vulnerable Democrats--the decision was made to promote politically motivated show votes rather than sound job-creating legislation.

Americans do not want higher taxes in the name of redistribution and government-dictated fairness. They do not want bureaucrats in Washington figuring out how to spread the wealth around, as then- candidate Obama put it in 2008.

What they want is economic opportunity and the security that comes with it. They want the freedom and opportunity to pursue new ventures, start new businesses, and save for their retirement and for their children's education.

If the Democratic leadership ever decides to listen to the American people and advance reasonable legislation to grow the economy and create jobs, they could start with this WEST Act.

The WEST Act is a sound and solid bill, one that puts together some of the best ideas identified by the Western Caucuses, and my hope is it will meet with bipartisan support in the Senate.

This bill could not come at a better time. The proposals in the WEST Act will go a long way toward generating the employment and economic growth that citizens and taxpayers are longing for.

The proposals in the WEST Act should not be controversial in the Senate. The President claimed his $\1/2\ trillion stimulus would create or save millions of American jobs. As it turned out, this was a hallow promise. But the WEST Act is the real deal. If the President and his party are serious about stimulating the economy, this legislation is a good way to do it and a good place to start.

The eight bills that Senator Barrasso and I have included in this WEST Act have all passed the House of Representatives. They are commonsense, progrowth policies, and I am confident these proposals, if put to the vote of the American people, would pass overwhelmingly. They certainly would in my home State of Utah. They should pass the Senate as well.

The bill has three main objectives.

First, we are going to put America back to work by producing more American energy. Our bill ends the Obama administration's de facto moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in a safe, responsible, and transparent manner. We set firm timelines for considering permits to drill, and we require the administration to move forward promptly to conduct offshore lease sales that have been delayed or cancelled in the gulf and Outer Continental Shelf.

The WEST Act sets a production goal of 3 million barrels of oil per day by 2027, reducing foreign imports by nearly one-third. At a time when every job counts, our bill would produce thousands of high-paying jobs.

Second, our bill will help bring down energy prices, making it easier for Americans to drive their cars and heat their homes. We could produce over 1 million barrels of oil a day with our bill's elimination of confusion and uncertainty surrounding the EPA's decisionmaking process for clean air permits.

The bill prohibits the EPA Administrator from promulgating any regulation that takes into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas in order to address climate change using the Clean Air Act.

And, third, our bill will protect agriculture by reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens. It amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA, to ensure that National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits are not needed for the application of pesticides that are currently registered and regulated under FIFRA.

This provision of the bill will also ensure that diseases such as the West Nile Virus can be managed through mosquito abatement. It is very important for communities in Utah to be able to address these issues without constantly seeking approval from Federal overlords.

The bill also stops the EPA from imposing more stringent dust standards for 1 year. Additionally, it would afford States and localities the flexibility to address any rural dust issues before the Federal Government would have the authority to do so.

For the life of me, I do not understand the administration's stance on energy production. The Department of Energy claims there are more than 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil in oil shale in Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado. This is more than the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. If we were able to develop this resource the way we are capable of doing, we could have a major impact on the jobless rate as well as the cost of energy in our country.

Last month, one of largest oil companies in the world announced a $200 million investment in a commercial demonstration project for oil shale. The project will be in my home State, using technology developed by a Utah company.

Another major company that has been successfully developing commercial oil shale for more than 80 years is opening offices in Salt Lake City and seeking permits for a very large facility in my home State of Utah.

The State of Utah, local governments, and the business community support the development of these resources. Yet the President and his administration are working to stop this at all costs. The most recent roadblock was the rewriting of the final 2008 three-State programmatic impact statement to cut back by more than 70 percent the Federal lands available for oil shale and oil sands development. Well, I believe strongly that Interior Secretary Salazar has no authority whatsoever to take that action.

I recently heard from an energy company in Utah that it is easier to do business in Somalia than it is in the United States. Unfortunately, that is not a surprising sentiment. But that is what we have come to expect from President Obama. He talks a big game about fairness when it comes to raising taxes, but his energy policies are both regressive and elitist.

In the interest of appealing to the environmental interests of his wealthy supporters, the administration leaves middle-class people behind. Obstructing domestic energy production prevents the creation of high-paying jobs that provide good wages for families,

and it fails to bring down the high cost of fuel that hits middle and lower income families the hardest.

In fact, President Obama's energy agenda tops the list of pernicious policies that hurt American families, hinder economic growth, and harm businesses by dramatically raising the costs of everyday life. The administration's position is clear. The President wants to drive up the cost of gasoline and drive Americans out of their cars.

In 2008, when the President still harbored grandiose plans of changing the course of world history, his Energy Secretary, Secretary Chu, said his goal was to ``boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.''

In the meantime, the President and his party suffered a humiliating defeat in the 2010 elections. Now, faced with the prospect of going the way of President Carter this fall, the administration is trying to walk back this position.

With voters facing $4-a-gallon gasoline, Secretary Chu now claims he is doing everything he can to reduce the price of energy, and the President's advisers are suggesting that this is just a gotcha quote. It is not. It represents the real view of the President and those in his bubble.

The price of gasoline was no big deal to the President prior to being elected to the Senate and the White House. His short commute from his Hyde Park house to the University of Chicago might not even have required a car. His wealthiest supporters, those being appealed to with his anti-energy agenda, do not spend a significant amount of their income on gasoline. When Warren Buffett flies in his private jet to meet with the President to discuss plans for raising taxes on small businesses, he is not worried about the cost of jet fuel.

But for families who are now spending nearly $100 to fill up their cars, the cost of gasoline is a big deal. Members of the President's party seem to get this. Even in the Senate, we see Democratic support for the President's decision to hold up the Keystone Pipeline collapsing, and for good reason.

The President's unilateral decision to kill that project might play well at Midtown Manhattan fundraisers where wealthy elites have the luxury of supporting a radical environmental agenda without worrying about the real-world consequences of that agenda for the middle class. But it was bad for jobs, bad for the economy, and bad for American families.

President Obama has said he wants to find an ``all-of-the above'' approach to energy production. He need look no further than the WEST Act.

Having said that, I would like to personally compliment my dear friend and colleague, Senator Barrasso from Wyoming. He is the leader of our Western Caucus. Frankly, we could not have a better leader. He understands these issues very well. We in the West understand that we have an obligation and we have the ability to be able to help this country from an energy standpoint in ways that it needs help. We have the ability to be able to help save this country, and we intend to do so. This WEST Act would be a very good step in that direction.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming. He has been such a great addition to the Senate. He has an intimate knowledge of western lands and their productivity and what they could do if we were given the opportunity. He is just an all around good human being. I feel very grateful for his leadership, and I express my support for his leadership of the Western Caucus. He is one of the finest people here, and I personally want to thank him for the kind remarks he has just made.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to give this speech in full.

Mr. President, this body has a long tradition of bipartisan support for the Violence Against Women Act. One of the bills before us will continue that tradition. The other will destroy it. The bill introduced by the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, stays true to the purpose and scope of the legislation that in the past received wide bipartisan support. The other bill introduced by the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, deliberately departs from that purpose and scope and introduces divisive and controversial new provisions that, I believe, are designed to shatter that bipartisan support.

The purpose of the Violence Against Women Act is to combat violence against women. The description of the Office on Violence Against Women, currently on the Department of Justice Web site, states the same thing a half dozen times: that this legislation is designed to end violence against women.

The steadily growing bipartisan consensus behind this legislation has made it more important and more effective.

Senator Leahy's bill, S. 1925, undermines the consensus that has been growing for two decades by introducing controversial and divisive proposals that fundamentally change the focus and scope of this legislation. If those proposals have merit, they should receive their own separate consideration with appropriate legislation introduced and hearings held. But it is inappropriate to use the Violence Against Women Act and the good will that it has attracted as cover for those new and divisive projects.

I support Senator Hutchison's bill both for what it contains and what it does not contain. First, it provides stronger penalties for crimes such as forcible rape, aggravated sexual assault, child pornography, and interstate domestic violence resulting in death. The Leahy bill is weaker than Senator Hutchison's when it comes to addressing these crimes, and in some instances it does not address them at all. Second, it targets more grant funding to address sexual assault and requires far more funding be used to reduce the backlog in testing rape kits. Third, it requires an audit of the Office for Victims of Crime to ensure that funds from the Crime Victims Fund are reaching those it exists to help. Forth, it addresses problems with inadequate oversight and administration by requiring that 10 percent of grantees be audited each year and by capping the percentage of appropriated funds that may be used for administrative costs.

Senator Hutchison's bill does not contain the controversial and divisive provisions that the majority insisted on including. It does not, for example, authorize unused U visas from previous years to be used in the future. This provision in the majority's bill led the Congressional Budget Office to conclude that it will add more than $100 million to the deficit. The Hutchison bill does not extend Indian tribal court criminal jurisdiction to non-Indians. A Congressional Research Service memo outlines a number of constitutional concerns regarding this provision in the majority bill.

Let me conclude by expressing both my disappointment and my thanks. I am truly disappointed that the majority has deliberately politicized the reauthorization of VAWA in a way that they knew would render impossible the kind of bipartisan consensus this legislation has had in the past. It seems that the majority was more interested in having a campaign issue for President Obama than in actually doing the hard work of creating a consensus bill that would protect women from violent crime.

However, I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Hutchison and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, for stepping up and offering this legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act in a way that can attract that consensus and continue the effort to end violence against women.