Floor Statements

Madam President, I would like to pay tribute to an inspired community leader, a passionate political activist and a tireless public servant to the great State of Washington, Ms. Mariella Posey.

Mariella was born June 23, 1936, in Hammond, IN. She was a graduate of Northwestern University, where she took night classes during her 20- year tenure working at World Book in downtown Chicago.

In 1984, Mariella's passion for politics took flight when she began volunteering with Paul Simon's campaign for the U.S. Senate. After a successful election, Mariella packed her bags and moved to Washington, D.C. where she served in the newly minted Illinois Senator's office until December 1996.

Then, in November 1997, Mariella joined my staff as our office manager, where she served the people of the Evergreen State for 12 excellent years until 2009. In the office, she was best known for her meticulous oversight of the budget while relying on her trusty typewriter and adding machine.

However, what she may be most remembered for was her steadfast commitment to the city of Alexandria, serving on the NorthEast Citizens' Association since 1986 and on the board since 1991. Mariella also served as NECA's co-secretary, co-treasurer, co-chair of the Land Use Committee, vice president and as their president. She took on issues large and small--including the location of a new stadium for the Washington Nationals and the Potomac River coal plant.

While she lived a private life, Mariella was not shy about her love for her cats and dogs and could always be found in front of the television at three o'clock watching her favorite show, As the World Turns.

Mariella passed away on Jan. 28, 2013 at the age of 76. She is survived by her long-time friend and roommate, Sylvia Sibrover. She will be missed dearly by not only myself, but by my staff--both former and current.

I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in paying homage to Mariella Posey. She lived a long and full life and I will always be grateful for her service in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, here in Washington, DC, the budget debate is often discussed in terms of abstract numbers and political winners and losers. But the truth is that budgets are about far more than that. They are about our values and our priorities, and they are about the people across the country whose lives are impacted by the decisions we make.

Today the Senate Budget Committee discussed one approach to tackling our budget challenges, an approach that, while getting our debt and deficits under control, will also create jobs and build a foundation for prosperity from the middle out.

Tomorrow we will continue this discussion and vote on a plan. Then we will move this debate here to the Senate floor, and then, hopefully, work toward a balanced and bipartisan agreement with the House of Representatives, while the American people have a chance to weigh in.

I believe our budget must meet not just one but many pressing challenges of our time. We have come a long way since early 2009 when President Obama entered office facing massive deficits and an economy that was shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs per month.

We have made progress toward getting our debt and deficits under control, and we have added back jobs, but the recovery is not as strong or as fast as it needs to be. Millions of workers continue struggling to get back to work, and we still have some very serious challenges when it comes to our medium and long-term deficit and debt challenges.

In the coming weeks and months, we will be asked to make tough choices as we work to tackle these challenges responsibly. This process is not going to be easy. There is a serious difference of opinion about what our government should be doing to keep our economy and our national finances moving in the right direction.

One approach is to follow a path back to the economic policies of the last administration. This is the path to more tax cuts for the rich but less opportunity for the middle class to get ahead. It is a path not to prosperity, which can only truly be built from the middle out, but to the deterioration of our national infrastructure and the decline of our schools and the dismantling of the Medicare promise we have made to our seniors. This approach, in fact, was on the ballot last November. Voters around the country rejected it. Instead, they want an approach that puts the middle class first, that returns our Nation to the fiscal and economic policies that have worked for this country before, by focusing on jobs and the economy, cutting spending responsibly, and calling on the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.

The Senate budget--which we put out today--reflects the progrowth, pro-middle class agenda that the American people went to the polls and supported in November.

Our budget is really built on three principles: No. 1, we need to protect our fragile economic recovery, create jobs, and invest in long- term growth. No. 2, we need to tackle our deficit and debt fairly and responsibly. And, No. 3, we need to keep the promises we made to our Nation's seniors and families and our communities.

We believe with an unemployment rate that remains stubbornly high and a middle class that has seen their wages stagnate for far too long, we simply cannot afford any threats to our fragile recovery.

That is why this budget uses equal amounts of responsible spending cuts and new revenue from the wealthiest Americans to fully replace the cuts from sequestration--cuts that, by the way, threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs this year, and cuts that endanger economic growth for years to come, and cuts that are being felt in States such as mine, where military families are losing services, local housing officials are being forced to cut housing vouchers for the homeless, and furloughs are being handed out to those

who are cleaning up nuclear waste that threatens our environment.

The budget we are offering invests in infrastructure and job training to get Americans back to work now. It prioritizes education, as well as research and development, so that our workforce of today and tomorrow has the skills to compete in the 21st century global economy.

Our budget puts jobs and the economy first and foremost. But it also builds on the work we have done over the last 2 years to tackle our deficit and debt responsibly.

Since 2010, Congress and the administration have worked together to reduce the deficit by $2.4 trillion--$1.8 trillion coming from spending cuts, $600 billion coming from allowing tax rates to rise on the wealthiest Americans, which we voted on in the year-end deal.

The Senate budget takes us the rest of the way to that $4 trillion goal and beyond. It builds on the $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction already done with an additional $1.85 trillion in new deficit reduction, for a total of $4.25 trillion in deficit reduction since the Simpson-Bowles report.

Our budget reduces the deficit to below 3 percent of GDP by 2015 and keeps it well below that level for the rest of the 10-year window in a responsible way. It pushes down our debt, as a percentage of the economy, moving in the right direction. Our budget tackles the deficit the way the American people have consistently said they want it done, with an equal mix of responsible spending cuts made across the Federal budget and new revenue raised by closing loopholes and cutting wasteful breaks that primarily benefit the rich.

This budget cuts spending responsibly by $975 billion, finding savings across the budget, including health and defense. It matches those responsible spending cuts with $975 billion in new revenue, which is raised by closing loopholes and cutting unfair spending in the Tax Code for those who need it the least, while locking in tax cuts for the middle class and low-income working families and protecting them from having to pay a penny more.

Since we have so far been unable to get a deal because Republicans reject using new revenue from the wealthiest to help us reduce the deficit, I want to emphasize that there is bipartisan support for deficit reduction through making the Tax Code more fair and efficient. During the recent fiscal cliff negotiations Speaker Boehner proposed that we reduce the deficit by $800 billion by closing what he called special interest loopholes and deductions. This budget takes him up on that.

In addition to investing in jobs and economic growth and tackling our deficit and debt responsibly, this budget also keeps the promises we have made to our seniors, our families, our veterans, and our communities. We strongly reject the call to dismantle Medicare by voucherizing it because this critical program that seniors and families support, paid into, and depend on should be protected. This budget takes a responsible, fair approach. It is the one endorsed by bipartisan groups and experts. It is the one supported by the vast majority of the American people.

The House of Representatives is also working on their budget resolution today. I know there are going to be serious differences between the visions and values and priorities within the budgets which will emerge from our Chamber and theirs. But the American people are going to have an opportunity now to examine these budgets side by side. They are going to be able to decide which approach is best for our economy, best for our jobs, and best for the middle class. They will let us know whether they want to go back down the path of the trickle- down policies that decimated the middle class and threw our economy into a tailspin or if they would prefer the approach we have seen work before: to tackle our deficit responsibly, to reinvest in the middle class, to build a strong foundation for growth, and to restore the promise of American opportunity.

The Senate budget is a balanced and responsible approach to taking us down that second path. I am hopeful the House of Representatives will join us at the bargaining table so we can end this gridlock and work together toward a responsible and bipartisan budget deal that the American people expect and deserve.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland. First of all, let me just say it is truly a pleasure to be on the floor with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I just remember when the Senator and I were here back in 1992, the Year of the Woman, and now here we are managing these critical financial bills.

Exactly. Families across the country should be grateful for the work the Senator is doing on the appropriations side of the committee, which focuses on making sure their kids can go to school, that they have the research and investment they need for their health care, and so many transportation infrastructure projects that allow them to go to work and raise their families in a responsible way.

I respect and admire the work the Senator is doing right now on a very difficult and challenging budget CR that no one wishes looked like it does, but we recognize the reality of the task the Senator has been given. She is managing it in the best way possible.

To answer the question, I would tell the Senator that we are in a very short timeframe. Our Budget Committee will proceed through the amendment process, and tomorrow night pass out our budget after many amendments. At that time, our staff will work over the few short days they have to have the paperwork ready to lay down our bill on the floor of the Senate, hopefully, Monday night. We are under a very constricted timeframe. It is the one piece of legislation that comes before this body like that with 50 hours of debate and multiple amendments. We need to finish that before we can leave for the April break.

If the Senator from Maryland, the chairman of our Appropriations Committee, would yield for a minute, I want to back her up on that. I know there are probably 8,000 amendments that can be offered to this because nobody is happy with the fact that we are faced with a continuing resolution that does not reflect the needs of all of our communities. I know she did not come here to debate process or to be the mother of Senators and get them over here to offer amendments. I know where her passion is. It is fitting for her kids and families and communities in Maryland. That is what she wants to get back to.

If we can get past this and put the CR in place, swallow hard and then get our budget done and work toward a process of a bipartisan budget, we need to do that so we can then give the Senator the ability to put the Appropriations Committee bills together. They will come out here and we will be able to offer amendments and people will have their say about the spending of the future. We cannot get to that unless we get that work done.

I would back up the Senator and urge Senators to, please, finish this product, move on to our budget next week, and get that done. Then we can get to the point that America will respect the work of this body and not lurch from crisis to crisis as the Senator has outlined and get back to focusing on the policies those families she cares about and represents so well want her here for.

Madam President, committee allocations and budgetary aggregates were previously filed pursuant to section 106 of the Budget Control Act of 2011. On December 18, 2012, those levels were revised pursuant to the Budget Control Act. Today, I am further adjusting those levels, specifically the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2013 and the budgetary aggregates for fiscal year 2013.

Section 101 of the Budget Control Act allows for various adjustments to the statutory limits on discretionary spending, while section 106(d) allows the Chairman of the Budget Committee to make revisions to allocations, aggregates, and levels consistent with those adjustments. This adjustment accounts for changes resulting from the following bills:

One, the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA, P.L. 112-240).

Two, the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 (P.L. 112-77).

Three, the Senate substitute amendment to the Continuing Resolution (H.R. 933).

ATRA reduced the overall discretionary spending level by $4 billion and redefined the firewalls. The supporting tables reflect totals that correspond to the revised security/nonsecurity definition included in ATRA. As such, I am reducing the security budget authority allocation by $2 billion, the nonsecurity budget authority by $2 billion, and the total outlays by $2.315.

The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act and the Senate amendment to the Continuing Resolution are eligible for adjustments under the Budget Control Act.

The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act includes $5.379 billion in budget authority that is designated as disaster relief and $41.669 billion that is designated as an emergency. That funding is estimated to result in $3.257 billion in outlays in 2013. The adjustment filed on December 18, 2012 included revisions related to the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act. Removing the adjustment for the Senate bill and including the enacted bill nets to a reduction of $8.909 billion in budget authority designated as an emergency, a reduction of $6.309 billion in outlays designated as an emergency, and an increase of $592 million in outlays designated as disaster relief. Furthermore, the Disaster Relief Act includes $3.459 in budget authority and $344 million in outlays as nonemergency and non-disaster funding, which is not eligible for an adjustment.

The Senate amendment to the Continuing Resolution includes $98.683 billion in budget authority designated as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), $11.779 billion in budget authority for disaster relief, $483 million in budget authority for program integrity, and $41.669 billion for emergencies. This is estimated to result in $55.766 billion in outlays in 2013.

Consequently, I am revising the budgetary aggregates for 2013 by a total of -$9.883 billion in budget authority and -$8.603 billion in outlays. I am also revising the budget authority and outlay allocations to the appropriations committee by -$3.504 billion in security budget authority, -$6.381 billion in nonsecurity budget authority, and -$8.605 billion in total outlays, pursuant to the new security/nonsecurity definition included in ATRA.

I ask unanimous consent that the following tables detailing the changes to the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations and the budgetary aggregates be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning

business until 6 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, in the last 2 weeks we have learned more and more what the across-the-board cuts for sequestration really mean for our families and our communities that we all represent. We have heard of workers who are on pins and needles about getting a layoff notice. We have heard from businesses that are expecting fewer customers. We heard from school superintendents wondering how they are going to absorb deeper cuts on the budgets that are already extremely tight.

After 2 years of watching our economy lurch from crisis to crisis, I think we can all agree the American people have dealt with more than enough of this. That is why I am here today urging our colleagues to support the American Family Economic Protection Act which will replace the automatic cuts from sequestration in a responsible and a fair way.

Our legislation builds on the precedent that was set in the year-end deal, and it is in line with the balanced approach that the American people favor. It would replace the first year of the sequestration with equal amounts of responsible spending cuts and revenue from the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations. Half of the deficit reduction would come from responsible cuts evenly divided between domestic and defense spending.

As the drawdown from Afghanistan is completed, our bill will make targeted reductions in an overall defense budget which will be phased in responsibly as the drawdown from Afghanistan is completed and are in line with the strong military strategy for the 21st century.

Our bill would eliminate the direct payments to farmers that have been paid out even during good times for crops that are not grown. Those are the kinds of cuts we can and should make, because responsibly tackling our debt and deficit is crucial to our country's long-term strength and prosperity.

But to do this in a way that puts American families and our economy first, we are all going to have to do our fair share, and middle-class families and seniors and the most vulnerable Americans shouldn't be asked to share the whole burden alone.

Our bill would replace half the sequestration with new revenues from the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations. It calls on the wealthiest Americans to pay at least the same marginal tax rate on their income as our middle-class families pay. It will help reduce the deficit by eliminating a tax break that encourages companies to ship jobs overseas and by getting rid of a special tax loophole for oil companies. At a time when there are so many American families struggling just to get their kids off to college or to pay their mortgage or to put food on the table, it only seems fair to ask those who can afford it the most to contribute to this national challenge as well.

My Republican colleagues will say the year-end deal closed the door on revenue. Most of them seem to think that closing loopholes for the richest Americans is too high a price to pay--even to replace the serious cuts to defense that are going into effect. Instead, they say all we need is more spending cuts.

But that is not how the American people see it. More than a month after the year-end deal, 76 percent of Americans--and, by the way, 56 percent of Republicans--favored a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases to reduce our deficit.

We also know the American people want an end to the cycle of looming deadlines and uncertainty and political posturing we are seeing here in Washington, DC. They have spent enough time wondering if infighting in Congress will affect their paycheck or the businesses they have worked hard to rebuild or the future they want for their children. I think we can all agree our constituents deserve a solution and some certainty.

So our legislation meets Republicans halfway. It reflects the balanced approach the majority of the American public wants. It protects families and communities we represent from slower economic growth and fewer jobs and a weakened national defense. And it allows us to move past this sequestration debate toward a fair, comprehensive budget deal that provides certainty for American families and businesses.

While the Democrats have taken a balanced and responsible approach in our sequestration replacement bill, Republicans have gone in a very different direction. They seem to be more focused today on trying to make sure President Obama gets the blame for these cuts than actually trying to stop them. We have all been hearing from our constituents. They want us to come together to solve this problem. They want to see compromise. They want to see a balanced replacement. But the Republican Inhofe-Toomey bill fails to meet these expectations. It does not solve the problem. It doesn't stop sequestration. It is not a compromise. I urge all of our colleagues to oppose it.

The Republican Inhofe-Toomey bill would keep in place the massive cuts to both domestic and defense spending. It wouldn't replace them; it would lock them in. Instead of making the tough decisions required to replace those cuts with responsible deficit reduction the way our bill does, the Republican bill simply hands the problem off to the President. Instead of taking a balanced approach--the approach that is favored by the vast majority of the American people--the Republican bill would protect the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations from paying even a penny more in taxes to help us solve this, while pushing the entire burden of deficit reduction onto the backs of our families and our communities and national defense programs. Their bill would protect defense spending from cuts, open up nondefense spending to more cuts, and specifically prohibit raising revenue to replace the cuts.

One of my Republican colleagues who is very concerned about the cuts to defense spending that would be locked in by this Republican bill called this approach ``a complete cop-out.'' That

same Republican said if something such as this were to pass, Republicans would be forcing President Obama to make impossible choices and then ``every decision he'll make, we'll criticize.''

Another Republican opposed this approach as well, saying, ``I believe the appropriations process belongs in the legislative branch.'' That is us.

The Republican bill will be devastating to our economy. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that sequestration would cause 750,000 workers to lose their jobs by the end of this year. They estimate the economy would shrink by six-tenths of a percent by the end of the year. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said on Tuesday that rearranging these cuts would not have any substantial impact on the near-term economic picture.

Republicans have spent months talking about how they would not raise taxes on the rich and that we need a cut-only approach. But now they can't even agree on a bill that names a single cut. They want the President to do it. Leader Reid and Leader McConnell agreed to have these votes we are having today over 2 weeks ago, and it took the Republicans until last night to decide what they were even going to bring to the table. After all that time, they decided to play political games and not make any of the tough choices.

Tackling our debt and deficit responsibly is a serious issue, so I hope Republicans get serious. I hope they will listen to their constituents, come back to the table, and work with us on a responsible replacement to these automatic cuts that are scheduled to begin tomorrow.

I urge my colleagues to support our approach, the American Family Economic Protection Act, and to oppose the Toomey-Inhofe bill.

Vawa

Before I yield the floor, I wish to say that I am very pleased the House of Representatives just took up and passed the long delayed, very hard-won, and badly needed victory for millions of women in this country, the Violence Against Women Act that was just passed. That means that after over 16 months of struggle, tribal women in this country, the LGBT community, immigrants, and women on colleges campuses will now have the tools and resources this life-saving bill provides.

The passage of VAWA today is validation of what we all have been saying on this side, and I am proud of the Senate for its bipartisan work. I see Senator Crapo here today, and I thank him for his leadership on this critical issue.

I have heard from so many women throughout this months-long battle, and I especially want to mention one woman today: Deborah Parker, a member of the Tulalip Tribe from my home State who happened to be here the day many months ago when Congress wanted to dump the tribal provisions in order to move the bill. She stood up with all the courage she could muster and told the story she had never told before about the abuse she had suffered while she was a very young girl and watching the same person who abused her abuse other tribal members because she had nowhere to go for recourse.

Today, that changes, for Deborah Parker and for thousands and thousands of other tribal members and other women and men in this country. I am very proud of the bipartisan work and I am very excited that this President is going to sign this bill into law and pass something that is going to make a difference in the lives of many Americans.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

How much time remains on our side?

Madam President, I have come today to join the other Appropriations subcommittee chairs to really implore the Senate and this country to take a look at what will happen if sequestration occurs.

In just one day, unless Republicans drop their opposition to our compromise bill, sequestration will be a reality.

Now, we have heard from a wide range of economists and other experts about how harmful these cuts will be to our economy. They will hurt job creation, reduce our economic growth, and impact the most vulnerable among us.

According to HUD, the cuts required under sequestration would put 125,000 tenants at immediate risk of losing their housing vouchers, leaving low-income residents facing higher rents, eviction or homelessness.

At the same time, communities would be left with fewer ways to help the homeless.

In fact, the cuts would place formerly homeless people back on the streets, since HUD estimates that the cuts would threaten housing or access to emergency shelter for 100,000 people.

Sequestration will also disrupt some of the most fundamental work of our government, such as its management of the air transportation system.

Every year, U.S. airlines carry hundreds of millions of passengers, many of them travelling for business or tourism. And our aviation system carries freight valued at hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

This is possible because the FAA is a world leader in managing air traffic and protecting the safety of our skies.

These cuts will force them to furlough their entire workforce, including each and every air traffic controller and safety inspector.

With these furloughs, we can expect that every FAA facility and every air traffic control tower will be short-staffed every day of the week through the rest of this fiscal year.

In order to protect the safety of our skies, they will be forced to reduce the level of air traffic.

For these reasons and so many more, sequestration is the wrong answer to the fiscal challenges facing the country.

The cuts will hurt the most vulnerable in our society, and it will hurt our ability to compete in the global economy.

There is no question that we must address our deficit, but we must be smart about how we do it.

That is why Democrats have put forward a credible, responsible plan to replace sequestration.

Our legislation builds on the precedent set in the year-end deal, and it is in line with the balanced approach the American people favor.

It would replace half of the first year of sequestration with responsible spending cuts, and half of it with revenue from those who can afford it most.

Our bill calls on the wealthiest Americans to pay at least the same marginal tax rate on their income as middle-class families pay, and would eliminate needless tax breaks for oil and gas companies and companies shipping jobs overseas.

At the same time, it would make responsible cuts.

Our bill would eliminate direct payments to farmers that have been paid out even during good times, and for crops farmers were not even growing.

And as the drawdown from Afghanistan is completed, our bill will make adjustments to our military that are in line with a strong 21st century strategy.

This legislation meets Republicans halfway.

It would protect the families and communities we represent from slower economic growth, fewer jobs, and weakened national defense.

And it would allow us to move past sequestration, towards working on a fair, comprehensive budget deal that provides certainty for American families and businesses.

So I would like to ask my Republican colleagues to seriously consider our proposal.

The American people want a balanced deal. Let's deliver.

We have heard people talk about job creation being impacted, reducing our economic growth, impacting the most vulnerable among us. In my subcommittee that oversees transportation and housing, we are going to see incredible impacts. HUD housing would have to put 125,000 tenants at immediate risk of losing their housing vouchers and putting them back on the streets at a time when we are just starting to really focus on our veterans and that growing number of veterans who are on our streets and making an impact across the spectrum. We will see a huge impact on housing.

On the transportation side, every sector we oversee will be impacted. We have heard a lot of talk about our U.S. airlines. They carry hundreds of millions of passengers every year. It is a huge impact on our economy. Our FAA is a world leader in managing air traffic and protecting the safety of our skies. These cuts will force the FAA to literally furlough every single employee and impact our air traffic control and safety systems.

It does not have to be this way. The Senate majority has put forward a very balanced approach to replace sequester, and in the longer term, as budget chair, we are working now to bring to the Senate a 10-year budget plan that will replace sequestration in a responsible way, work us to a manageable debt and deficit, and invest in our country again so we can grow. Let's get out of this crisis-management mode, pass a replacement to sequestration in the short term that we have offered,

and get back to the regular order in the Senate. That means our country can get back to managing their families and their businesses and communities in a responsible way. We can do that by voting to put in place our replacement. I urge our colleagues to do that tomorrow morning when we have a chance to vote on that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 58, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, with that, I know the Republican leaders are on their way and ready to discuss this. I hope tomorrow morning we take the responsible tack of replacing the sequester and getting our country back on track.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 27, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 27, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``The Power of Transparency: Giving Consumers the Information They Need to Make Smart Choices in the Health Insurance Market.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing entitled ``Animal Drug User Fee Agreements: Advancing Animal Health for the Public Health'' on February 27, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized

to meet during the session of the Senate, on February 27, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Buiding, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Hearing on the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on February 27, 2013, at 2 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Judicial Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 27, 2013, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 27, 2013, in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building beginning at 3 p.m.

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

Madam President, one of my colleagues recently said something that, after a week at home with my constituents, I am sure we are all feeling. Referring to the across-the-board cuts from sequestration that are just days from going into effect, he said: ``When it's in your State or your backyard, it's devastating.'' I think that is exactly right. They would be devastating for our families, our national defense, and our economy.

But these cuts can be avoided if Congress comes together on a balanced replacement. We should replace the sequestration in a balanced way, and then we should move forward on a fair, comprehensive budget deal that provides certainty for our families and businesses.

I know my constituents in Washington State want to see a deal because if we are unable to find a fair replacement for sequestration, everything, from our military bases to our schools, is going to be affected. Twenty-nine thousand local civilian defense employees could be furloughed. Thousands of Washington students could lose access to Head Start services and basic education resources. One thousand workers cleaning up dangerous nuclear material at the Hanford nuclear site could be furloughed for weeks. And Washington State's military bases could face hundreds of millions in cuts to crucial areas such as new aircraft acquisition, research and development, flying hours, and ship operations.

We are days away from allowing these kinds of impacts to begin in every one of our home States. We never should have reached this point, but there is no denying that we have. We are days away from sequestration because my Republican colleagues continue to insist that while it is fine to cut programs that families and communities depend on, the wealthiest Americans shouldn't have to make any further contributions to deficit reduction.

The last few years have been very difficult ones for bipartisanship, but I truly believe all of us know there is a smarter way to reduce our debt and deficit. We can do better than throwing up our hands and permitting these across-the-board cuts to go into effect. And we know the American people deserve better.

That is exactly why Democrats have put forward a credible, responsible plan to replace sequestration. Our legislation builds on the precedent set in the yearend deal, and it is in line with the balanced approach the American people favor. It would replace half of the first year of sequestration with responsible spending cuts and half of it with revenue from those who can afford it the most. Our bill calls on the wealthiest Americans to pay at least the same marginal tax rate on their income as our middle-income families pay, and it would eliminate needless tax breaks for oil and gas companies and companies shipping jobs overseas. At the same time, our replacement package would make responsible cuts. Our bill would eliminate direct payments to farmers which have been paid out even during good times and for crops farmers weren't even growing. As the drawdown from Afghanistan is completed, our bill will make adjustments to our military that are in line with a strong 21st-century strategy.

Our legislation meets the Republicans halfway. It will protect families and communities we represent from slower economic growth, fewer jobs, and weakened national defense. It would allow us to move past sequestration toward working on a fair, comprehensive budget deal that provides certainty for American businesses and families.

My Republican colleagues will say that the yearend deal closed the door on using revenue to bring down the deficit. They will say that all we need is spending cuts. That is not how the American people see it. More than a month after the yearend deal, 76 percent of Americans and 56 percent of Republicans favored a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases to reduce our deficit. House Republicans have put forward a plan that does the exact opposite. They passed a bill--last Congress, I might add--that would replace only the automatic defense cuts. It would force struggling, hard-working families and seniors to bear the burden of deficit reduction. Their bill didn't even include a penny of new revenue, and it is unclear if it would even be able to pass the House this Congress if they brought it up for a vote.

What the House Republicans offered, in other words, was more of the same extreme and partisan approach that has led American families and our economy from one crisis to another crisis to another. It is what we saw actually when Republicans held up funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, stalling airport construction projects and putting tens of thousands of workers' jobs at risk. It is what we saw during the debt ceiling debate when tea party Republicans held our economy hostage, fighting for fiscal policies that economists across the spectrum said were hugely irresponsible. It is what we saw less than 2 months ago when Republicans waited until the very last minute to protect 98 percent of Americans from income tax hikes.

This strategy, which puts a wrongheaded ideology above American families and our economy, just doesn't work. And Republicans' latest strategy--to just let sequester happen--is even worse. In fact, as tea party Republicans in the House cheer on the sequester, here is what is being produced by companies in States all across the country. This is called a ``warn notice,'' but that is just Washington-talk for what it really is. It is a layoff notice or a furlough notice. If Republicans choose to block a balanced approach to replace the sequester, this is what is going to begin arriving in a matter of days at the doorsteps of workers in our country. This piece of paper, which looks like this, is going to spell serious economic setbacks for our families, for their ability to send their kids to college, and for the economy of their communities. This will be the consequence of Republicans' complete unwillingness today to compromise.

I think we can all agree our workers should not have to worry about political posturing, putting their jobs at risk. Businesses should not have to think about elected officials holding the economy hostage to advance extreme ideology. And families should not have to wonder one month what their paychecks will look like the next month, just because of a debate here in Washington, DC.

So I wish to ask my Republican colleagues to seriously--seriously-- consider our proposal. Replacing the sequester with evenly divided spending cuts and revenues--a balanced approach that Americans support--would put us on a path to end this pattern of governing by crisis for all our constituents. That will allow us to get to work

on a long-term budget agreement that is fair to the middle class, that gets our debt and deficit under control, and reflects the values and priorities of the American people.

The American people want a balanced deal. They want us to manage our finances. They want us to put together a budget and move forward. We want to do that. We want to get out of this ``crisis by crisis.'' The program we are offering to replace the sequester for this year will allow us to get back to that process and begin to manage our country in a better way.

So I hope our Republican colleagues join us in this and help us move to a place where we can assure the American public that we do care about their future and their finances and the fragile economy we are now facing.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules of the Committee on the Budget for the 113th Congress be printed in the Record.

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I move to lay that motion upon the table.

The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about the legislation we are about to discuss here, the Violence Against Women Act.

Before I do, I want to respond to a comment I heard by the Republican leader on the floor right now talking about the impact of sequestration, which is to go into effect March 1 unless Congress acts to replace it with something that is more balanced. Sequestration was never written into law to go into effect. Sequestration was put into law in order for us, Congress, to come together in a bipartisan way to find a balanced solution. That is still the case. I feel very strongly that if Members of Congress, Republicans and

Democrats, can come together with a balanced package that takes into account sequestration causing severe impact to our national defense, to our nondefense programs such as Head Start and education at a time when our economy is very fragile--the impact of the job cuts on that would be very severe. Democrats believe, just as we did throughout this process, if we put forward a balanced replacement that includes revenue, making sure that those wealthy Americans who have done very well and have not had to sacrifice are part of a replacement package that we can move through this Congress, this will ensure, as we put forward a balanced budget approach for the future and work for a long- term deficit stabilization process, we can get past this hurdle.

There is no reason we need to manage crisis by crisis if we can come together on a balanced approach that does include revenue. This is what Americans expect--everybody participates in making sure that our economy gets back on track, we don't just protect the wealthiest, but we ask them to do their part.

I look forward to working with anybody in this body to do this so we don't face the impacts of sequestration that would happen if we don't have that balanced plan.

Speaking about the Violence Against Women Act, which is the order of business today, I come to the floor this morning to continue the efforts that we did start here 9 months ago, efforts that were, in fact, overwhelmingly bipartisan--68 Senators--to finally renew our national commitment to ending domestic violence and reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. It is a bill that has successfully helped provide life-saving assistance to hundreds of thousands of women and families, and it is a bill that consistently extends protections to new communities of vulnerable Americans each and every time it has been authorized.

I wish to thank Senator Leahy and Senator Crapo for making the Violence Against Women Act a priority for reintroduction in the 113th Congress, because there is no reason this critical bill, which has such broad support, should be put on the back burner and delayed further while there are millions of Americans across our country who are excluded from the current law. In fact, for Native, immigrant women, and LGBT individuals, every moment our inclusive legislation to reauthorize VAWA is delayed is another moment they are left without the resources and protection they deserve.

For women on tribal lands, the challenges are particularly immense. Often in our very rural areas, on tribal lands, these women live hours and hours away from the nearest Federal prosecutors.

For nontribal members on these lands who perpetrate these violent crimes against the women who are living there, it equates to nothing short of a safe haven for them. It is a place where they are free from tribal jurisdiction and repeatedly commit horrific acts without being afraid of being brought to justice.

This is an injustice that Deborah Parker, the vice chairwoman of the Tulalip tribes in my home State, spoke to just outside this Chamber last year in an effort to get House Republicans to listen. Through her tears she told a deeply personal story about how not only was she abused as a young girl, but how she then watched family members and friends suffer similar fates. She spoke about how time and again the abusers went unprosecuted, only to repeat the crime over and over. She called herself ``a Native American statistic.'' Even more sadly, she was right.

In fact, the numbers are staggering. One in three Native women will be raped in her lifetime. One in three. Two in five of them are victims of domestic violence, and they are killed at 10 times the rate of the national average. These shocking statistics aren't isolated to one group of women, as 25 to 35 percent of women in the LGBT community experience domestic violence in relationships. Three in four abused immigrant women never entered the process to obtain legal status, even though they were eligible, because their abuser husbands never filed the paperwork.

It does not need to be this way. I was very proud to be here serving the Senate back in 1994 when we first passed the Violence Against Women Act. Since we took that historic step, VAWA has been a great success in coordinating victims' advocates, social service providers, and law enforcement officials to meet the immediate challenges of combating domestic violence. Along with bipartisan support, this has received praise from law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, victim service providers, faith leaders, health care professionals, advocates, and survivors.

VAWA has attained such broad support because it worked. It provides shelter and justice to battered women who need both, and it is the cornerstone of our efforts to combat domestic violence. We can't pick winners and losers on who gets these critical protections, and we cannot afford any further delay, not on this bill.

Just like the last Congress, we all know what it would take to move this bill forward--leadership from Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor. The fate of the Violence Against Women Act lies squarely on their shoulders. To date they have refused to listen to countless law enforcement and women's groups, as well as moderate voices in their own party who have called on them to pass the Senate's bipartisan and inclusive bill.

In this new Congress, on this newly introduced bipartisan bill, the House Republican leadership faces the same choice and a second chance. They can either appease those on the far right of their caucus, who would turn battered women away from care, or they can stand with Democrats, moderate Republicans, and the many millions of Americans who believe that who a person loves, where they live, or their immigration status, should not determine whether they are protected from violence in this country.

In fact, in a recent editorial the Seattle Times echoed this same sentiment:

House Republican leaders refused to bring the original

Senate bill forward for a vote. They must not squander a

second chance to save lives.

I couldn't agree more. Too many women have been left vulnerable while House Republican leaders have played politics. It is time for moderate Republican voices in the House to call upon them to pass this bipartisan Senate bill immediately, because women's lives across the country literally depend on it.

The Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, has led the charge on this bill. I wish to thank him publicly, as he is on the floor right now, for his work, for the first bill he has put forward for this body to consider. It is time to move on it, and I want him to know how much I truly appreciate all of his efforts in getting this done. This is for all women in this country, for Native American women, whom I have talked about, in particular, who have suffered at the hands of their abusers for so long, and for all of our women in this country, whoever they are, wherever they come from, to know that this Senate in a bipartisan way stands behind them.

I yield the floor.