Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing the Uniting American Families Act, UAFA, which grants same-sex binational couples the same immigration benefits heterosexual couples have long enjoyed. This is the fourth Congress in which I have introduced this legislation, and I am proud to be joined by 17 Senators, many of whom also cosponsored this bill when it was introduced in the last Congress. I want to thank Senators Akaka, Blumenthal, Boxer, Cardin, Casey, Coons, Durbin, Franken, Gillibrand, Harkin, Kerry, Lautenberg, Merkley, Murray, Schumer, Whitehouse, and Wyden for joining me as original cosponsors today.

A core tenet of our immigration policy is preserving family unity. Yet gay and lesbian Americans are still forced to choose between their country and being with those they love. This destructive policy tears families apart and forces hardworking Americans to make the heart- wrenching choice to leave the country they love and start over in one of the countries that now recognize immigration benefits for same-sex couples. I hear from Vermont couples who face this difficult decision every year. No American should face such a choice.

Over the past decade, Americans have begun to reject the notion that U.S. citizens who are gay or lesbian should not have loving relationships. As a result of this cultural shift, 5 States, including Vermont, now allow same-sex couples to get married. At the end of the 111th Congress, bipartisan votes in both the Senate and the House reversed the Military's ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy, a 17 year old policy that barred gay and lesbian service men and women from openly serving in the military. I hope that my colleagues who supported this important civil rights reform will join me in calling for fairness and equality in our immigration laws.

Some opponents of the Uniting American Families Act have argued that it would increase the potential for visa fraud. I share the belief that all immigration applications should be screened for fraud, but I am confident that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will have no more difficulty identifying fraud in same-sex relationships than they do in heterosexual marriages. The penalties for fraud under this bill would be the same as the penalties for marriage fraud. These are very strict penalties: a sentence of up to 5 years in prison, $250,000 in fines for the U.S. citizen partner, and deportation for the foreign partner. In addition, in order to qualify as a bi-national couple under UAFA, petitioners must prove that they are at least 18 years of age and in a committed, lifelong, financially interdependent relationship with another adult. The American ideals that respect human relationships and family bonds should not be impeded by fears of fraud, which the immigration agency is very capable of controlling.

Since I last introduced the Uniting American Families Act in 2009, more than six additional countries have begun to offer immigration benefits to same-sex couples, bringing the total to at least 25 nations. Some of these nations are our closest allies, including our good friends to the North. America should join Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greenland, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

Unfortunately, among developed countries with a culture of respect for human rights and fairness, the United States is falling behind by denying Americans an equitable immigration policy. I hope all Senators will agree that the United States should not have a policy that forces Americans to choose between their jobs and country, and their loved ones. I urge all Senators to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, in the 111th Congress, after hearing the concerns of Vermont's dairy farmers, I introduced the H-2A Improvement Act in order to give the dairy industry access to legal foreign workers under our agricultural visa program. I am proud to introduce this legislation once again, and I am especially pleased to have Senator Enzi join me as a cosponsor of this bill. I thank the senior Senator from Wyoming for his support, and I look forward to working with him to advance this legislation. I also thank Senators Sanders, Schumer, Kohl, and Gillibrand for their support.

Our bill adds an explicit provision to the H-2A law to allow dairy workers, sheepherders, and goatherders to obtain visas through the H-2A visa program to assist American farmers. Under current law, the dairy industry is completely excluded from obtaining lawful H-2A workers. Under current Department of Labor regulations and guidance, the employers of foreign sheepherders and goatherders in the Western States can use the H-2A program. The authority for these employers to do so is not codified, however, and is therefore subject to the whims of a Federal agency. This legislation will provide the express authority and certainty for these important agricultural industries to use the visa program as Congress intended.

Although milk prices have improved over the past year, dairy farmers still struggle to meet their labor needs. I have heard from Vermont farmers, Vermont's Secretary of Agriculture, and the broader dairy industry about the challenges the current situation presents. I recognize that the H-2A program is imperfect, and I recognize that the best solution is the comprehensive approach in the AgJOBS bill. But basic access to the H-2A program is a better option than what dairy farmers now have, which is no access at all. It is simply illogical to subject such an important agricultural sector to unequal treatment. The denial of access to lawful, willing agricultural workers places a substantial burden on employers.

The H-2A Improvement Act contains provisions designed to accommodate the specific needs of dairy farming, sheepherding, and goatherding. It will allow workers in these industries to enter the United States for an initial employment period of 3 years. The bill grants U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services the authority to approve a worker for an additional 3-year period as needed. After the first 3 year period is completed, the worker is eligible to petition for lawful permanent residency.

The provisions contained in this bill are very similar to provisions that have been a part of the long pending AgJOBS bill, legislation that I continue to strongly support. But the dairy farmers who continue to operate under this unfair system need help now. Just as much as any other segment of agriculture, they too deserve access to the H-2A program to meet their legitimate labor needs.

For years, I have urged the Department of Labor to use its regulatory authority to give dairy farmers access to H-2A workers. I was disappointed that, despite those requests and the recommendations of the broader dairy community, the final H-2A rule released by the Department in February 2010 failed to extend access to the dairy industry.

As a Senator from a State that prides itself on its dairy products and a long tradition of family farming, it is unacceptable that dairy farmers are put in a position of choosing between their livelihoods and taking risks with a potential employee's immigration status. I strongly believe that the vast majority of dairy farmers want to hire a lawful workforce, and our policy should support these goals.

By expanding the H-2A program to include dairy workers, sheepherders and goatherders, the H-2A Improvement Act would protect both American and foreign workers. It would prevent American workers from having to compete with an unauthorized work force, which enables unscrupulous employers to pay lower wages and make employees work under unsafe labor conditions. It would protect foreign workers by requiring that employers comply with existing H-2A regulations, wage and hour laws, and occupational safety laws. It would grant foreign dairy workers the dignity and stability of lawful status, and the opportunity to step out of the shadows and be productive members of the communities in which they work. Despite the imperfections of the current H-2A system, these are the objectives this legislation strives to achieve.

The H-2A Improvement Act is a straight-forward, targeted fix that makes sure all law abiding farmers in America have the same access to foreign agricultural labors. I recognize that many agricultural employers have legitimate frustrations with the current regulatory process. I intend to maintain my strong support of AgJOBS legislation, which would provide the most immediate and substantial benefit to our Nation's farmers and foreign agricultural workers. But I am unwilling to forego an opportunity to enact meaningful, bipartisan legislation to promote basic fairness for dairy, goat, and sheep farmers under our immigration laws. I hope Senators will support this common sense legislation.

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

Mr. President, today, the Senate will pass the Food Safety Accountability Act, an important bill to hold criminals who poison our food supply accountable for their crimes. I would like to thank Senators Klobuchar, Franken, Durbin, Feinstein, Kohl, and Blumenthal for their support. Senators Hatch, Sessions, Coburn, and Grassley had concerns about the breadth of the bill, and we were able to work together to address those concerns. The bill received unanimous, bipartisan support when it was reported out of the Judiciary Committee, and I am pleased that it has now received similar support from the Senate. I urge the House to quickly take up the Senate bill and join us in taking this important step toward protecting our food supply.

The Food Safety Accountability Act increases the sentences that prosecutors can seek for people who violate our food safety laws in those cases where there is conscious or reckless disregard of a risk of death or serious bodily injury. Last summer, a salmonella outbreak caused hundreds of people to fall ill and triggered a national egg recall. The cause of the outbreak is still under investigation, but salmonella poisoning is all too common and sometimes results from inexcusable knowing conduct like that carefully targeted by the Food Safety Accountability Act.

In the last Congress, a mother from Vermont, Gabrielle Meunier, testified before the Senate Agriculture Committee about her 7-year-old son, Christopher, who became severely ill and was hospitalized for 6 days after he developed salmonella poisoning from peanut crackers 2 years ago. Thankfully, Christopher recovered, but Mrs. Meunier's story highlighted improvements that are needed in our food safety system. No parent should have to go through what Mrs. Meunier experienced. The American people should be confident that the food they buy for their families is safe.

Current statutes do not provide sufficient criminal sanctions for those who knowingly violate our food safety laws. Knowingly distributing adulterated food is already illegal, but it is merely a misdemeanor right now, and the Sentencing Commission has found that it generally does not result in jail time. The fines and recalls that usually result from criminal violations under current law fall short in protecting the public from harmful products. Too often, those who are willing to endanger our children in pursuit of profits view such fines or recalls as merely the cost of doing business.

The company responsible for the eggs at the root of the last summer's salmonella crisis has a long history of environmental, immigration, labor, and food safety violations. It is clear that fines are not enough to protect the public and effectively deter this unacceptable conduct. We need to make sure that those who knowingly poison the food supply will go to jail. This bill will help to do that. This bill significantly increases the chances that those who commit food safety crimes will face jail time, rather than a slap on the wrist, for their criminal conduct.

Food safety received considerable attention last year, and I was pleased that Congress finally passed comprehensive food safety reforms. But our work is not done. On behalf of the hundreds of individuals sickened by recent salmonella outbreaks, I urge the House to quickly pass the Food Safety Accountability Act and join the Senate in continuing to improve our food safety system.

Mr. President, it was with great sadness that I first received word of the passing of a remarkable man and friend, Sidney Harman. Sidney Harman led a life of passion and commitment, the kind of existence that most of us aspire to. His interests were vast and varied and his sense of possibility unparalleled. With business acumen equal to his mastery of the sciences and his love of the arts, Sidney embraced challenges and faced life head on.

I had the pleasure of knowing Sidney throughout his career as a businessman, entrepreneur, public servant, and philanthropist. He left his distinctive mark on every project he involved himself with and brought his progressive ideas to bear at a critical time in our nation's history. His ability to innovate never waned, creative solutions were a forte of his and he applied them with confidence. His most recent endeavor, to purchase Newsweek and merge it with the online publication the Daily Beast less than a year ago, was initially met with trepidation by print news professionals but has since led to growth for both publications, a typical outcome for a venture championed by Sidney.

Sidney's commitment to the betterment of young lives and society as a whole was evident in his philanthropic pursuits and his involvement with institutions of higher education. In recent years he taught classes in medicine, law, economics, and various other disciplines at the college level. Over the course of his life he supported educational organizations with generous donations. He understood that education is the foundation of a prosperous society and that the enlightenment of young minds is crucial to the success of a nation such as ours.

Along with his wife Jane, Sidney made a home and life here in Washington, DC, and devoted himself to the city and its legacy. A generous supporter of the National Symphony Orchestra, the Folger Shakespeare Library and the Shakespeare Theatre Company, Sidney had a significant impact on the vibrant cultural and artistic scene in the Nation's Capital.

My greatest sympathies are with Jane, his children Barbara, Daniel, and Justine, and all of Sidney's extended family. Sidney touched the lives of many and there is no doubt he will be long-remembered for his innovative mind, his good humor, his energetic outlook, and his years of service.

Mr. President, we continue to work to bring down the number of judicial vacancies that have remained at historically alarming levels

for the last 3 years. One in every nine Federal judgeships remains vacant as judicial vacancies stand at 96.

I thank the majority leader for scheduling votes on two more judicial emergency vacancies. Vincent Briccetti has been nominated to fill a judgeship in the Southern District of New York and John Kronstadt to fill a judgeship in the Central District of California. I believe they both could be confirmed unanimously. They were reported by the Judiciary Committee unanimously more than one month ago.

With cooperation from both sides of the aisle, the Senate could consider many more of the 17 judicial nominees currently ready for final action, and could do so before the Senate takes its Easter recess at the end of this week. Doing so would fulfill our responsibility to help address the vacancies crisis that puts at serious risk the ability of Americans to get a fair and timely hearing for their cases in Federal court.

All 17 of the judicial nominations pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar were reported by a majority of the Judiciary Committee after members had an opportunity to review thoroughly extensive materials provided in response to our questionnaire, to question the nominees at a hearing, and to send written follow-up questions to the nominees. All of them are ready for final Senate action. With Federal judicial vacancies continuing to hover around 100, we should act responsibly by voting promptly on these nominations.

Two of the nominees currently awaiting a Senate vote have twice been considered by the Judiciary Committee and twice reported with strong bipartisan support, first last year and again in February. They are Susan Carney of Connecticut to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and Michael Simon to fill an emergency vacancy on the district court in Oregon. Two of the nominations have been reported favorably by the committee three times-- that of Goodwin Liu to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Ninth Circuit and that of Jack McConnell, reported with bipartisan support to fill a vacancy on the District of Rhode Island. Another currently pending nomination has been reported favorably four times, that of Judge Edward Chen to a judicial emergency vacancy on the Northern District of California. All of these nominations have long been ready for a Senate vote. So are nominations now pending to fill a judicial vacancy on the DC Circuit, judicial emergency vacancies in Tennessee, Florida and another in New York, two vacancies in Virginia, two vacancies in New Jersey, another vacancy in New York, and a vacancy on the district court for the Northern Mariana Islands.

It is actually a sign of progress that we are today proceeding to confirm two judicial nominees reported last month. I hope that we can work to restore regular order in considering judicial nominations and that, at a minimum, the Senate will be allowed to proceed before the recess to confirm those judicial nominations reported with bipartisan support. All 17 of the pending nominees have a strong commitment to the rule of law and a demonstrated faithfulness to the Constitution. All should have an up or down vote after being considered by the Judiciary Committee, and without weeks of needless delay.

If we join together we can make real progress by considering all of the judicial nominations now on the Senate's Executive Calendar. If the Senate were to take favorable action on the 17 judicial nominations currently pending and awaiting final Senate consideration, we could reduce vacancies to below 90. In fact, we would be able to reduce them below 80 for the first time since July 2009.

Federal judicial vacancies around the country still number too many, and they have persisted for too long. Whereas the Democratic majority in the Senate reduced vacancies from 110 to 60 in President Bush's first 2 years, judicial vacancies still number 96 more than 26 months into President Obama's term. By now, judicial vacancies should have been cut in half, but we have barely kept up with attrition.

Regrettably, the Senate has not reduced vacancies dramatically as we did during the Bush administration. In fact, the Senate has reversed course during the Obama administration, with the slow pace of confirmations keeping judicial vacancies at crisis levels. Over the 8 years of the Bush administration, from 2001 to 2009, we reduced judicial vacancies from 110 to a low of 34. That has now been reversed, with vacancies staying above 90 since August 2009. The vacancy rate-- which was reduced from 10 percent at the end of President Clinton's term, to 6 percent by this date in President Bush's third year, and ultimately to less than 4 percent in 2008--has now swelled to nearly 11 percent.

The two nominations we consider today demonstrate that there is no reason the Senate cannot consider and confirm the President's nominations to the Federal bench in a timely manner. Both nominees show President Obama's commitment to working with home State Senators to identify superbly qualified nominees in districts with vacancies. I thank Senators Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer and Gillibrand for working with President Obama on these nominations and congratulate them along with the nominees and their families.

Judge John Kronstadt has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the Central District of California. He currently serves on the Los Angeles County Superior Court and previously spent 24 years in private practice. Judge Kronstadt earned his B.A. from Cornell University and his J.D. from Yale Law School. The Judiciary Committee reported his nomination unanimously on March 10.

Vincent Briccetti has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the Southern District of New York. An attorney for the past 30 years, Mr. Briccetti has spent time in private practice and as a Federal prosecutor. He was unanimously rated by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary as well qualified to serve on the district court. Mr. Briccetti earned his B.A. from Columbia University and his J.D. from Fordham University School of Law. The Judiciary Committee also reported his nomination unanimously on March 10.

I have thanked the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, for his cooperation this year. I see him taking credit for what he calls ``our rapid pace.'' I am glad to see him echo my call to turn the page and end the days of tit for tat on judicial nominations. That is what I did from the first days of the Bush administration in spite of how President Clinton's nominees had been treated.

We have a long way to go to do as well as we did during President Bush's first term, when we confirmed 205 of his judicial nominations, bringing the vacancy rate down from 10 percent to just over 4 percent. We confirmed 100 of those judicial nominations during the 17 months I was chairman during President Bush's first 2 years in office. So far, well into President Obama's third year in office, the Senate has only been allowed to consider 77 of President Obama's Federal circuit and district court nominees. We remain well short of the benchmarks we set during the Bush administration.

The Senate must do better. We must work together to ensure that the Federal judiciary has the judges it needs to provide justice to Americans in courts throughout the country. Judicial vacancies on courts throughout the country hinder the Federal judiciary's ability to fulfill its constitutional role. They create a backlog of cases that prevents people from having their day in court. This is unacceptable.That is why Chief Justice Roberts, Attorney General Holder, White House Counsel Bob Bauer and many others--including the President of the United States--have spoken out and urged the Senate to act. I hope that we will follow their advice and make progress to ensure that the Federal courts are able to function for all Americans.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will stop businesses from deducting costs that result from their misconduct as a cost of doing business under our tax laws. Under current law, a corporation or individual business owner may deduct the cost of a punitive damage award paid to a victim as an ``ordinary'' business expense. This is wrong. It undermines one of the primary deterrent functions of our civil justice system, and American taxpayers should not subsidize this misconduct.

Punitive damage awards serve in part to correct dangerous or unfair practices. These awards are reserved for the most extreme and harmful misconduct. Our legal history contains prominent examples of corporate misconduct that resulted in the deaths of Americans, and by virtue of our civil justice system was not only punished, but led to broad changes to improve the safety and security of American consumers. The justice system has and will continue to encourage the positive changes that cannot be brought about by regulation alone. But our current tax laws work against the well-established role of the justice system as a backstop to health and safety regulation.

One year ago, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded, killing 11 Americans and leading to the worst oil spill in American history. Just over a year ago, an explosion in the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia claimed the lives of 29 miners. In both of these cases, I expect that all Americans, and particularly the family members of the victims, would be shocked to learn that any punitive damages that may result from these events will amount to a tax break for the corporations responsible.

I was disgusted to learn that Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon, recently announced that it was giving ``safety bonuses'' to its executives. Maybe that company believes that the American people have forgotten about this tragedy. I have met with the families of the 11 men killed, and I will never forget them. The tax treatment that the responsible companies will receive if we do not act will just add insult to injury.

Let us also not forget Exxon's misconduct in 1989. I have chaired several hearings on Exxon's misconduct, which led to an ecological and human disaster that affects Alaskans even today. A jury awarded $5 billion in punitive damages against Exxon for its actions, which devastated an entire region, the livelihoods of its people, and destroyed a way of life. For more than a decade Exxon fought this measure of accountability all the way to the United States Supreme Court. A divided Supreme Court invented a novel rule and held that in maritime cases, punitive damage awards could not exceed twice the amount of compensatory damages. I support Senator Whitehouse's wise legislation to overturn that Supreme Court decision, but some in Congress do not want corporate accountability. If we cannot muster the votes to make corporations that engage in such extreme misconduct accountable, we need to at least stop subsidizing it through our tax laws.

Like so many Americans, I am weary of the preferential treatment that large corporations obtain at virtually every turn. It is disheartening to hear reports about enormously profitable corporations paying lower income tax rates than middle class American workers by exploiting loopholes or sheltering profits in foreign countries. It is unconscionable that big oil companies continue to be subsidized by taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars each year, especially when Americans are facing increasingly high gasoline prices. I share the frustration of so many Americans who are making great sacrifices, yet who are not seeing their sacrifices shared by the most powerful in our society. As we approach the national tax filing deadline, I expect most Americans would agree that this punitive damages tax deduction is not only bad tax policy, but offensive to our basic notions of justice and fair play.

In his fiscal year 2012 budget recommendations, President Obama and his administration requested an end to this deduction in the tax code. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that doing so will result in increased revenues of $315 million over 10 years. As we collectively work to reduce the Federal deficit, it is important to recognize that increasing revenues will play an important part in this effort; particularly when those revenues are lost to a policy that is without any defensible justification.

I hope all Senators will join me to protect American taxpayers. This legislation should be part of our bipartisan fight to reduce the national debt. When corporate wrongdoers can write off a significant portion of the financial impact of punitive damages, the incentives in our justice system that promote responsible business practices lose their force. These difficult financial times require us to close irresponsible tax loopholes. We can start with this one, which treats corporate misconduct as a cost of doing business.

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

Mr. President, today, the Nation commemorates Equal Pay Day, an annual occasion that celebrates the gains that women have made in the workplace over the last century, but which also reminds us all that pay discrimination still exists in the United States. In today's economy, a troubling constant remains: women continue to earn less than men. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, on average, women working full-time still make only 78 cents for every dollar working men receive. For minority women, this statistic becomes even more sobering.

The U.S. Department of Labor also reports an increasing number of families where women are the head of the household, and correspondingly, the primary source of income. Despite the signs of economic recovery, many women and families continue to struggle to make ends meet. This issue is not one that just impacts one individual; it creates additional economic hardship for entire families. Vermont is a leader in the Nation on fair pay practices, and 8 years ago, the State acted to pass an equal pay act, which prohibits compensating women and

men differently for equal work that requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions. Now in Vermont, employers cannot require wage nondisclosure agreements, and employees are protected from retaliation for disclosing their own wage. Still, there is room for improvement. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that Vermont women working full-time earn wages amounting to 81.9 percent of what men earn. We must work harder to ensure that women are paid equal wages for equal work, across the country.

The 1963 Equal Pay Act was enacted to protect employees against discrimination with respect to compensation because of an individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin. While we have made progress, our work is not done. Hardworking women--and the American people--earned a long fought victory in early 2009, when President Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court's devastating decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire, a decision that rolled back years of progress to eliminate workplace discrimination. But the efforts to achieve parity for women in the workplace continues.

Two bills introduced today will help the United States reach that goal. These bills include provisions similar to those enacted in Vermont. The Paycheck Fairness Act, which was introduced by Senator Mikulski and which I am proud to cosponsor, creates stronger incentives for employers to follow the law; strengthens penalties for equal pay violations; and prohibits retaliation against workers for disclosing their own wage information. This bill passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support over a year ago, and deserves action in the Senate. The Fair Pay Act, which was introduced by Senator Harkin and which I am also proud to cosponsor, requires employers to pay equally for jobs of comparable skill, efforts and working conditions, and to disclose pay scales and rates for all job categories at a given company. To effectively close the wage gap we must address the systemic problems that are resulting in pay disparities. I believe both these bills are essential steps to closing the wage gap.

Equal pay for equal work is neither a Democratic nor Republican issue; it is an American value. It is neither a private sector nor a public sector issue; it is a fundamental issue of fairness. Sadly, wage discrimination affects women of every generation and every socioeconomic background. It is not limited to one career path or level of education. The Senate should pass the Paycheck Fairness Act and the Fair Pay Act, and work toward other solutions to ensure our daughters and granddaughters, and all future generations of Americans, are not subject to the same discrimination that has plagued women for decades.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will stop businesses from deducting costs that result from their misconduct as a cost of doing business under our tax laws. Under current law, a corporation or individual business owner may deduct the cost of a punitive damage award paid to a victim as an ``ordinary'' business expense. This is wrong. It undermines one of the primary deterrent functions of our civil justice system, and American taxpayers should not subsidize this misconduct.

Punitive damage awards serve in part to correct dangerous or unfair practices. These awards are reserved for the most extreme and harmful misconduct. Our legal history contains prominent examples of corporate misconduct that resulted in the deaths of Americans, and by virtue of our civil justice system was not only punished, but led to broad changes to improve the safety and security of American consumers. The justice system has and will continue to encourage the positive changes that cannot be brought about by regulation alone. But our current tax laws work against the well-established role of the justice system as a backstop to health and safety regulation.

One year ago, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded, killing 11 Americans and leading to the worst oil spill in American history. Just over a year ago, an explosion in the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia claimed the lives of 29 miners. In both of these cases, I expect that all Americans, and particularly the family members of the victims, would be shocked to learn that any punitive damages that may result from these events will amount to a tax break for the corporations responsible.

I was disgusted to learn that Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon, recently announced that it was giving ``safety bonuses'' to its executives. Maybe that company believes that the American people have forgotten about this tragedy. I have met with the families of the 11 men killed, and I will never forget them. The tax treatment that the responsible companies will receive if we do not act will just add insult to injury.

Let us also not forget Exxon's misconduct in 1989. I have chaired several hearings on Exxon's misconduct, which led to an ecological and human disaster that affects Alaskans even today. A jury awarded $5 billion in punitive damages against Exxon for its actions, which devastated an entire region, the livelihoods of its people, and destroyed a way of life. For more than a decade Exxon fought this measure of accountability all the way to the United States Supreme Court. A divided Supreme Court invented a novel rule and held that in maritime cases, punitive damage awards could not exceed twice the amount of compensatory damages. I support Senator Whitehouse's wise legislation to overturn that Supreme Court decision, but some in Congress do not want corporate accountability. If we cannot muster the votes to make corporations that engage in such extreme misconduct accountable, we need to at least stop subsidizing it through our tax laws.

Like so many Americans, I am weary of the preferential treatment that large corporations obtain at virtually every turn. It is disheartening to hear reports about enormously profitable corporations paying lower income tax rates than middle class American workers by exploiting loopholes or sheltering profits in foreign countries. It is unconscionable that big oil companies continue to be subsidized by taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars each year, especially when Americans are facing increasingly high gasoline prices. I share the frustration of so many Americans who are making great sacrifices, yet who are not seeing their sacrifices shared by the most powerful in our society. As we approach the national tax filing deadline, I expect most Americans would agree that this punitive damages tax deduction is not only bad tax policy, but offensive to our basic notions of justice and fair play.

In his fiscal year 2012 budget recommendations, President Obama and his administration requested an end to this deduction in the tax code. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that doing so will result in increased revenues of $315 million over 10 years. As we collectively work to reduce the Federal deficit, it is important to recognize that increasing revenues will play an important part in this effort; particularly when those revenues are lost to a policy that is without any defensible justification.

I hope all Senators will join me to protect American taxpayers. This legislation should be part of our bipartisan fight to reduce the national debt. When corporate wrongdoers can write off a significant portion of the financial impact of punitive damages, the incentives in our justice system that promote responsible business practices lose their force. These difficult financial times require us to close irresponsible tax loopholes. We can start with this one, which treats corporate misconduct as a cost of doing business.

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

Mr. President, today, the Nation commemorates Equal Pay Day, an annual occasion that celebrates the gains that women have made in the workplace over the last century, but which also reminds us all that pay discrimination still exists in the United States. In today's economy, a troubling constant remains: women continue to earn less than men. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, on average, women working full-time still make only 78 cents for every dollar working men receive. For minority women, this statistic becomes even more sobering.

The U.S. Department of Labor also reports an increasing number of families where women are the head of the household, and correspondingly, the primary source of income. Despite the signs of economic recovery, many women and families continue to struggle to make ends meet. This issue is not one that just impacts one individual; it creates additional economic hardship for entire families. Vermont is a leader in the Nation on fair pay practices, and 8 years ago, the State acted to pass an equal pay act, which prohibits compensating women and

men differently for equal work that requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions. Now in Vermont, employers cannot require wage nondisclosure agreements, and employees are protected from retaliation for disclosing their own wage. Still, there is room for improvement. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that Vermont women working full-time earn wages amounting to 81.9 percent of what men earn. We must work harder to ensure that women are paid equal wages for equal work, across the country.

The 1963 Equal Pay Act was enacted to protect employees against discrimination with respect to compensation because of an individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin. While we have made progress, our work is not done. Hardworking women--and the American people--earned a long fought victory in early 2009, when President Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court's devastating decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire, a decision that rolled back years of progress to eliminate workplace discrimination. But the efforts to achieve parity for women in the workplace continues.

Two bills introduced today will help the United States reach that goal. These bills include provisions similar to those enacted in Vermont. The Paycheck Fairness Act, which was introduced by Senator Mikulski and which I am proud to cosponsor, creates stronger incentives for employers to follow the law; strengthens penalties for equal pay violations; and prohibits retaliation against workers for disclosing their own wage information. This bill passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support over a year ago, and deserves action in the Senate. The Fair Pay Act, which was introduced by Senator Harkin and which I am also proud to cosponsor, requires employers to pay equally for jobs of comparable skill, efforts and working conditions, and to disclose pay scales and rates for all job categories at a given company. To effectively close the wage gap we must address the systemic problems that are resulting in pay disparities. I believe both these bills are essential steps to closing the wage gap.

Equal pay for equal work is neither a Democratic nor Republican issue; it is an American value. It is neither a private sector nor a public sector issue; it is a fundamental issue of fairness. Sadly, wage discrimination affects women of every generation and every socioeconomic background. It is not limited to one career path or level of education. The Senate should pass the Paycheck Fairness Act and the Fair Pay Act, and work toward other solutions to ensure our daughters and granddaughters, and all future generations of Americans, are not subject to the same discrimination that has plagued women for decades.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the CBO cost estimate regarding S. 627 be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to describe to the American people and actually Members of both bodies of Congress what is going to happen to our troops and their families if the collapse of the budget negotiations forces the government to shut down. We look at charts and graphs and numbers, but let's talk about the reality.

While I am sure many understand that most government services will halt, it is also important to understand that some government operations will not shut down. In particular, our men and women on Active Duty and in the National Guard and Reserves will continue to serve, but they will do so without pay. At a time when we ask them to fight two wars, to help stay the slaughter in Libya, and to keep peace around the world, another burden is going to be added to their shoulders: They are going to be asked to do it without a paycheck.

Some of those in our Armed Forces--many of them--do not have savings to fall back on in hard times. Many family members are overseas fighting for America while their families are living back here. They are living paycheck to paycheck to pay for their groceries, to pay the car payments or the bills for a sick child or rent or a mortgage, while the other member of the family, the one who earns the paycheck, is over facing the possibility of dying on the field of battle. And now we tell them: Oh, stay right out there and fight. By golly, we are proud of you for fighting. Sorry we can't pay you. Because Members of Congress and the White House can't come together and deal, we can't pay you.

You and your family may not be able to buy groceries, or your child may not get the medical care needed, but, boy, are we proud of you; if you get killed, we will give you a medal.

Come on. Like so many Americans, some of those who serve in the military live paycheck to paycheck. They depend on their pay each month to put food on the table and keep a roof over their families' heads. Certainly, mortgage lenders are not known for accepting excuses when the monthly payments come due. But excuses are all that some Members of Congress can offer for why they will not come to the table and make sure our men and women in uniform get the pay they have earned.

This is not bumper sticker sloganeering government. This is what happens. It is so easy for people to stand up and sanctimoniously state that we are doing this for the good of the country. You are doing it and you are harming the families of our men and women in harm's way.

It is especially disturbing that the hard times that now are in prospect for our troops have been completely avoidable. The possibility of a government shutdown is very real because a relative few are willing to play politics and brinkmanship at a time when the public wants basic, unadorned statesmen. They want Republicans and Democrats to act as though they also have a stake in the course of our government. The American people want Congress to do its job, and that is certainly not too much to ask. Those who are insisting on their way or no way should pause to reflect on what their intransigence means to our troops and their families and, in fact, to every American.

The decision to put politics ahead of the American people is reckless and imposes real hardship on real people. It is crueler still knowing that some of our troops, already facing fears of death or injury and sleepless nights in forward operating bases, must now add paying the electric bill and feeding their families to their list of daily worries.

I have been with some of those troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have enough on their minds. They have enough they face every single hour of every single day--especially every single night. They should not have the added worry of whether their families will be able to pay their bills.

Naturally, as cochair of the National Guard caucus, I worry especially for the Vermont National Guard troops who are currently forward deployed to locations throughout the world. Many of them come from our small towns and cities in Vermont and they face these very fears.

In shutting down the government, an ideologically motivated faction in Congress is willing to breach our most fundamental pact with these men and women. We have always said, ``protect our Nation overseas, and we will protect your loved ones at home.'' Who can justify violating that pact with the men and women in uniform?

Some in Congress are already seeking cover, claiming they have put forward plans to fund the Pentagon and our troops. But, of course, even these transparent political ploys would not pay many of our intelligence personnel, our brave and dedicated forward deployed consular staff and officers and others--many of whom work side by side with our troops. Not to mention the vast number of individuals working in communities across the Nation to support our overseas operations. Every one of these dedicated public servants and every one of our troops deserves to be paid for a day's work. Our troops, their families, and those supporting them have enough to worry about without needlessly being pushed to the brink of a costly government shutdown.

I hope that, as we sit here in our plush offices, with our staff and everything we ever want, being well paid as Members of Congress, we let the reality sink in. The distinguished Presiding

Officer has spoken about this many times. The reality is that men and women--the families throughout our country--are being severely hurt. Let's not forget that.

Mr. President, we are seeing some in the other body, reacting to the ire of a minority of vocal, anti-government extremists who make no secret of their desire to shut down the government even while complaining that the government is not doing enough for them, proposing reckless cuts in programs that are vital to job creation and to national security.

Many in the other party are masters at blaming others for a budget deficit and debt they created during the last administration--self- proclaimed fiscal conservatives who, in a few short years, racked up a trillion dollar deficit by borrowing the money for two wars, something that was never done before in the history of this country. Their idea was to cut taxes for millionaires, cut taxes for companies that ship jobs overseas, cut corporate taxes, and borrow the money to pay for the wars while causing the debt to skyrocket. They burned through the Clinton era surpluses and embarked on a massive borrowing binge--and they think they can lecture us on fiscal conservatism.

Any mention of the consequences of what is being proposed is carefully avoided, but the American people should know the facts.

There are many examples. The catastrophic earthquake and tsunami and the nuclear crisis in Japan, as well as the popular uprisings and violence in North Africa and the Middle East, demonstrate once again the essential role that our Embassies and consulates and our foreign assistance programs play in protecting the safety and security of American citizens and our allies.

Our Republican friends have been urging drastic cuts to our international operations and programs, even though they, in total, comprise a mere 1 percent of the Federal budget--1 percent--and have no appreciable impact on the deficit.

Yet when a natural or manmade disaster occurs overseas and Americans are affected or an American is arrested and locked in a foreign jail, those same critics of these programs immediately expect the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to leap into action.

In Egypt alone, at least 75,000 Americans were living, working and studying when that country erupted in civic unrest and airports and train stations were jammed with throngs of frantic people trying to leave the country. Thousands of Americans turned to the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. Our consular officers worked around the clock to help them, including a group of Vermont students, one of whom had lost his passport.

Just last week, another Vermont student was released after 2 weeks in a Syrian jail, thanks to the persistent diplomacy of U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford and other U.S. Embassy officials, as well as the Syrian Ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha, who helped convince his government that a mistake had been made. My office worked closely with them, as is customary when a constituent is in trouble in a foreign land.

As every Member of Congress knows, there are countless examples such as these, involving Americans from every State, which are not reported in the press.

As the international affairs budget faces deep cuts in fiscal year 2011 and in the future, it is important to be reminded of the invaluable assistance provided by the State Department and USAID to American citizens abroad, their families in the United States, and others impacted by foreign crises.

It is also important to be reminded that Members of Congress and the American people cannot have it both ways. You cannot on the one hand support drastic budget cuts, and at the same time expect the agencies that are losing personnel and resources to be able to respond as needed to help Americans when disaster strikes.

Today the crushing demands on the State Department for American citizen services are unprecedented. In the past month alone, the Department has issued travel warnings and alerts related to political unrest or natural disasters in six countries. Americans rely on their State Department for current, accurate travel information.

Since the earthquake and tsunami, U.S. consular officers in Japan and Washington have worked ceaselessly to assist Americans in Japan, and the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo deployed teams to the Tohoku region to locate American citizens and help them find transportation away from the devastated areas. USAID sent search and rescue teams and emergency response experts to Japan.

They were doing the same thing a little over 1 year ago in Haiti, after the catastrophic earthquake there.

As much of the world's attention has shifted to Libya, the State Department continues to closely monitor the situation in Japan, including the impact of the damage to the nuclear powerplant, and to provide updated detailed travel warnings and information for Americans considering travel to Japan.

Throughout North Africa and the Middle East, to prevent chaos and suffering at borders and surrounding areas, the State Department and the USAID have provided food, water, and other humanitarian aid to refugees and internally displaced persons.

It is regrettable that despite these realities, so many in Congress support reckless cuts in operations for the State Department and USAID. It makes no sense to wait until these agencies can no longer function effectively before we recognize that we cannot ignore events beyond our borders, and that the services Americans expect from their government cost money. In fact, the cost of everything--fuel, transport, rent, communications, and security--is going up, while budgets are being cut.

An unfortunate trend is taking hold here. Demand cuts in spending and in the taxes to pay for it, while expecting that it will not affect the government services you take for granted.

The world is a dangerous place and unanticipated disasters of every kind are occurring with remarkable frequency. American citizens are spread far and wide around the globe, and they rely on the State Department and USAID to protect their livelihoods and their security every day. For that, the people who serve in these agencies deserve our thanks and our support.

Mr. Presdient, I urge rejection of all of the amendments offered today that would gut the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to enforce our Clean Air Act.

It has been proven time and time again that we can have both a clean environment and grow our economy. In fact without a clean environment, it is more difficult for us to grow the economy. Without the Clean Air Act we would be spending trillions of dollars more on health care costs and lost work days. Over its 40 years the Clean Air Act has been one of the world's most successful environmental and health protection laws reducing exposure to pollutants such as lead, ozone, sulfur dioxide, smog-forming gases, and mercury and other heavy metals and toxics.

Thanks to the Clean Air Act millions of lives have been saved by preventing premature deaths, heart attacks, cancer, asthma, and other life-threatening illnesses. But even after 40 years of action, pollution in many areas of the country still violates basic health standards, putting tens of millions of Americans' lives at risk.

In Vermont, while we don't have any coal-fired powerplants, we are still the victims of their pollution as it travels by wind across our borders into the Green Mountain State. Throughout the Nation, hundreds of thousands of Americans suffer every year from illnesses linked to emissions from powerplants, refineries and other large sources of air pollution and greenhouse gases.

Yet there are some powerful special interests and some Members of this body who would like to strip the EPA of its authorities to enforce the Clean Air Act because they reject the notion that greenhouse gases are air pollutants and harmful to public health, or they believe that we just cannot afford clean air. Methane, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons and other compounds are the ingredients of a pollutant cocktail forced on many millions of Americans.

The Supreme Court has determined that the Clean Air Act is ``unambiguous'' and that greenhouse gases, such as those I just mentioned, are ``without a doubt'' air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. As such, EPA is required to regulate these emissions since they endanger public health. The Supreme Court has given the EPA little choice, and the science is clear they must act.

The McConnell amendment would have politics, not science, decide which pollutants are hazardous and which pollutants should be regulated. If politics had been allowed to trump the compelling scientific evidence, we may have never phased lead out of gasoline, or reduced ozone-depleting chemicals, or tackled acid rain. Over the years powerful special interests have sought to block EPA's actions on all of these issues, arguing that the science was weak and the costs unjustified. Once again they are crying wolf and trotting out the same discredited arguments to fight greenhouse gas regulations today.

In enforcing the Clean Air Act, EPA is doing the job that Congress mandated decades ago. These amendments that attack the Clean Air Act would force the EPA to turn a blind eye toward polluters, the same polluters that are spending millions of dollars to lobby against the Clean Air Act.

I urge every Senator to talk to the parents and grandparents of children in their home States who suffer from asthma. Take the time to hear about the trips they have had to take to the emergency room and about the countless hospital stays because of the air they breathe, something so many of us take for granted. These attacks on the Clean Air Act would also lead to more heart attacks, more strokes, more cancer, and shorter lives.

I arrived in the Senate just 5 years after the Clean Air Act of 1970 was introduced and unanimously passed by the Senate. I have supported efforts to reduce life-threatening pollutants, such as lead and mercury. And I will support efforts to reduce hazardous greenhouse gases, just as a majority of Americans do.

The truth is that the McConnell amendment and the other EPA amendments we will vote on today would hurt public health, cost consumers more, stifle the invention of new pollution prevention technologies which grow the U.S. economy and jobs, and further slow our transition to renewable energy sources. Since passage of the Clean Air Act, the benefits have proved to be 42 times greater than the estimated costs of cleaning our air. Our GDP has tripled since the Clean Air Act was passed.

In Vermont we are fortunate to have two of the preeminent innovation companies in the world, IBM and GE. These corporations and others like them rely on regulatory certainty when deciding what investments to make in research, technology, and expansion into new markets. These attempts to strip EPA of its authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions would send the wrong market signals to our innovators.

Myths are myths and facts are facts, and the fact is that pollution standards are by law both achievable and affordable.

They encourage energy efficiency, which reduces energy demand, reduces fuel consumption, drives down our dependency on fossil fuels and foreign oil, reduces operating costs, and lowers energy prices. In fact the most prevalent compliance response to EPA's carbon regulations will be using current and newly developed technologies to increase a plant's energy efficiency.

The McConnell amendment would render meaningless the progress that we have already made to invent new products that consume less fuel, pollute less, and create American jobs--jobs that cannot be sent overseas. The McConnell amendment would penalize those pioneering facilities that have already taken steps to clean up industry, and reward those who have seen these new standards coming for years, but have chosen to do nothing to protect the public. Instead they now pressure Congress to let them off the hook and to pass the long term health costs along to the public.

The evidence in favor of embracing a cleaner future is clear. We have an opportunity to encourage our innovative companies to be global leaders in new clean energy technologies that will create jobs here in America. We must stop supporting the dirty, outdated and inefficient technologies of the past.

By eliminating EPA's ability to impose scientific, health-based limits on carbon pollution from the Nation's largest polluters, the McConnell amendment and the other amendments that attack the EPA would only end up taking a hefty toll in Americans'

health and costing consumers more by increasing oil consumption and forcing them to pay higher fuel costs.

We need to support efforts for clean air and to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Lives are at stake. In 2010, in just 1 year, the Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 cases of premature death. By 2020, that number is projected to rise to 230,000.

The air we breathe is the heritage of the American people, not the property of the big polluters.

The people of this great country deserve better, and they want clean air as well for their children and grandchildren. That is why I urge defeat of these amendments to gut enforcement of the Clean Air Act. Stand up for a future with clean energy and economic growth that depends on a clean environment. Take a stand for the American innovation that will create more American jobs and technology to protect the public's health and the environment. And help more Americans live longer lives.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I want to speak briefly on a subject that I have discussed before concerning Guatemala's struggling justice system.

In a country facing a growing threat from Mexican drug cartels and other criminal organizations that have infiltrated every facet of society, a police force that is notoriously corrupt and ineffective at investigating crime, a military hierarchy that continues to obstruct justice, and a conviction rate in the courts of 2 percent, the situation could hardly be grimmer.

Violent crime and smuggling have skyrocketed, impunity is the norm, and reports indicate that many people in Guatemala feel less safe today than even during the 30-year internal armed conflict. There are credible reports of police collusion with the drug cartels, and threats and assassinations of indigenous activists who have petitioned for land reform. And a decade and a half after the signing of the Peace Accords, the military hierarchy, current and former, uses threats and intimidation of victims, witnesses, judges and prosecutors to avoid accountability for past crimes against humanity.

I and others were encouraged last year when President Colom appointed respected human rights activist Helen Mack to assess the weaknesses of the police and to recommend reforms. Ms. Mack has widespread credibility and could be relied on to conduct a fair, thorough review.

But any recommendations for reform are only as good as the funding and political will to implement them, which is too often lacking in Guatemala. Presidential elections are scheduled for September. Unless the current government or its successor is prepared to carry the police reform process forward, not only will a critical opportunity have been missed but the security challenges facing Guatemala will worsen further.

Helen Mack accepted her assignment knowing it would be dangerous. Her sister Myrna, an anthropologist who had documented the horrific abuses of Mayan peasants by the Guatemalan army, was assassinated by the army in 1990. Helen also knew that trying to reform the police would ultimately be a wasted exercise if her recommendations end up collecting dust on a shelf. Yet she has persevered, and it is for the good of all Guatemalans.

Other victims of torture, disappearance, and murder during the internal armed conflict are still waiting for justice. When successive governments failed to hold the military accountable, some victims or their families turned to the courts, only to be stymied at every turn. The courts have issued contradictory rulings, reversed themselves and each other, and cases have dragged on for years. It makes a mockery of justice and of officials who are responsible for upholding the rule of law.

No democracy can survive without a functioning justice system, including a professional, trusted, well financed police force. The effectiveness of the police in preventing and controlling crime depends on the relationship between the police and the public. If the police force is to regain the confidence and trust of Guatemalans, particularly Guatemala's indigenous population which has traditionally been the target of discrimination and abuse, a concerted and unwavering effort must be made to ensure the professionalism, transparency and accountability of the police. It should be a priority.

Ms. Mack's courageous efforts, and the efforts of others who have risked their lives in support of justice and a better life for the millions of Guatemalans living in poverty, deserve the unequivocal support of the Guatemalan Government and the Government of the United States.

Mr. President, I want to take a moment to say a few words about a situation in Syria that is of particular concern to me and people of my State.

Going on 2 weeks ago, a young Middlebury College student, Pathik ``Tik'' Root, disappeared in Damascus, Syria, where he was studying Arabic.

As anyone who is following recent events in Syria knows, there have been large public demonstrations, some of which have resulted in arrests and casualties.

Thanks to the efforts of U.S. Embassy Damascus and the Syrian Ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha, it was determined that Tik had been arrested and is being held in a Syrian jail.

By all accounts, it appears that Tik was arrested simply because he was taking photographs at one of the demonstrations.

As an avid photographer myself, I would hope that the Syrian Government recognizes the innocent conduct of a young, curious American student who is fascinated, as we all are, by the extraordinary events taking place across North Africa and the Middle East.

I and my staff have had multiple conversations with Tik's father, with Ambassador Moustapha, with U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford, and other State Department officials about Tik's situation.

We are optimistic that he will be released, because he was doing nothing wrong and at most he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But so far, no one from the American consulate in Damascus has been allowed to see Tik, which is unacceptable. Our representatives in Damascus should be given immediate access to him--today--to ensure that he is in good health and being treated humanely.

I know I speak not only for myself but also for Senator Bernie Sanders and Congressman Peter Welch, in urging the Syrian authorities to release Tik and allow him to return home.

This is not a time to be confusing a young American college student with the popular forces that are calling for political change in Syria.

Tik is an innocent 21-year-old who poses no threat whatsoever to the Syrian Government, but his continued detention will only further complicate our already difficult relations with Syria.

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