Floor Statements

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 September 20, 2012, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Taking Consumers for a Ride: Business Practices in the Household Goods Moving Industry.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 20, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen 406 to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Water Resources Development Act: Growing the Economy and Protecting Public Safety.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet, with U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means, during the session of the Senate on September 20, 2012, at 10 a.m., in HVC-210 of the Capital Visitor Center, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Tax Reform and the Tax Treatment of Capital Gains.''

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 ``Roundtable Discussion: Pension Modernization for a 21st Century Workforce'' on September 20, 2012, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 20, 2012, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:15 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Advancing the Federal-Tribal Relationship through Self-Governance and Self-Determination.''

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

to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 20, 2012, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 20, 2012, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Offshore Profit Shifting and the U.S. Tax Code.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 20, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 20, 2012, at 2 p.m., to hold a East Asian and Pacific Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Maritime Territorial Disputes and Sovereignty Issues in Asia.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 20, 2012, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Computerized Trading: What Should the Rules of the Road Be?''

Madam President, I would remind all the Senators, we are here on the floor on a very important bill on the Veterans Jobs Corps, and I wish to thank my colleague from Florida, Senator Bill Nelson, for his tremendous leadership and passion on the issue of making sure our veterans get back to work, at a time when they have a 20-percent-plus unemployment rate, and for his work on this bill as we move to this point.

I have been listening to the debate on this bill, and what I have heard are some pretty weak arguments against the merits of this legislation. I have heard we have not held hearings on the employment or on the provisions of this legislation.

The Senators who spoke may not have known--they are not on our committee--but, indeed, we have had hearings on employment both last year and this year and on this bill. Veterans groups and the VA at multiple hearings, in fact, have had multiple opportunities to give their views. The COPS and SAFER Grant Programs in this bill have been around for years, and we know they work.

On the point I heard reiterated here, that the bill was not paid for, violated pay-go, as all bills that come before the Senate, this bill is fully paid for. It does not violate pay-go rules.

We are going to have a vote shortly on a point of order on this bill. A vote to support the point of order, plain and simple, says we spend enough now on our veterans.

That is what it says: We spend enough on our veterans. A vote to support this point of order says that despite the fact that we have paid for this bill, despite the fact that one in four of our young veterans is out of work, despite the fact that veteran suicides are outpacing combat deaths, and despite the fact that more and more veterans are coming home today, we are not going to invest in those challenges. It says we have done enough.

This point of order puts a price on what we as a country are willing to provide our veterans and says we are not going to do a penny more. It is a point of order that not only will kill our ability, I will tell my colleagues, to pass this bill, but it will also affect every effort we make to improve the lives of our veterans going forward.

In fact, just last week we held a markup in the Veterans' Affairs Committee. We passed a slew of bills in a bipartisan fashion. Those were very important bills to improve mental health access, to give students new tools so they can maximize their GI benefit, and, importantly, it would give veterans who have lost their ability to start a family access to fertility services. All those bills, under this, would be subject to a point of order, as would, of course, countless other bills introduced by Senators on both sides of the aisle. There is no end in sight, I would tell everyone, for how long this point of order could be raised.

We have to consider, as we vote, the lasting effect of this vote that we are about to take. We should all consider the fact that veterans are watching this vote very closely.

(Mr. FRANKEN assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, this is a bill that has been endorsed by the American Legion and by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. They know, as I do, neither party has a magic bullet for this problem of employment, and we should be taking good ideas from both sides of the aisle, which is exactly what we have done with this bill that is before us. This bill includes 12 different provisions to help create veterans jobs. Eight of them are ideas that have come from Republicans. In fact, to make this bill even more inclusive and more bipartisan, we took Senator Burr's entire alternative bill and added it to our bill.

At every turn we have sought compromise. But instead of meeting us halfway, we have been met with resistance. Instead of saying yes to nearly 1 million unemployed veterans, it seems that some on the other side of the aisle have spent the last week and a half seeking any way to say no.

It does not have to end this way for our unemployed veterans. We can join together and pass this bill.

Mr. President, as you have heard me say, our veterans don't ask for a lot. My own father never talked about his service. The veterans whom I meet across the country do not want to be seen as dependent on government. But we owe them more than a pat on the back, sending them out to the world when they come home. We owe them more than bumper stickers and platitudes. We owe them more than procedural roadblocks, which is what we will vote on shortly, that will impede our ability to provide them not only help now but into the future.

We owe them action. We owe them real investments that will help them get back to work, and that is what this legislation does. It does so because putting our servicemembers back to work is a cost of war. Putting our veterans back to work is a cost of war, just like their health care and benefits. It is part of what we owe the less than 1 percent of men and women who sacrificed for the 99 percent who did not.

It is no secret that this is not the easiest time of year to get a bill passed.

It is too easy to point to the calendar here and level accusations about politics against one another. But in my two decades working on veterans issues here in the Senate, I have seen veterans issues rise above politics time and again, even when it seemed our backs were against the wall. I have seen Democrats and Republicans come together, and they have done so because there is one group of Americans who do not care about the calendar or how many days we are out from an election; that is, our unemployed veterans. What they care about is finding work in their communities, finding work that gives them the self-esteem they need today, and finding work that helps them provide for their loved ones. We can do that today.

I urge my colleagues to join with us in waiving this point of order, to join with us in telling our veterans we are not done investing in their care and benefits, not by a long shot. Join with us in moving forward with a bill that is paid for, that will not add to our deficit, and that should not be killed by procedural games. Join with us in putting veterans above political obstructionism and back to work.

I yield the floor and yield back any time that remains.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about the upside-down values and blatant dishonesty that Congressman Paul Ryan and other Republicans have put down on paper and are trying to present to the American people as their responsible budget. The truth is it is anything but. The Ryan budget would be devastating for middle-class families. It would gut our investments in education and job training, research, and our Nation's future. It would do all of that while cutting taxes for the richest Americans and biggest corporations.

Now, if that is not bad enough, it gets even worse. The Ryan Republican budget would permanently cut tax rates for the wealthiest Americans to the lowest level in more than 80 years--more than 80 years. It would cut taxes for the rich below the scheduled top rate of 39.6 percent, below the Bush tax cut rate of 35 percent, all the way down to just 25 percent if you are a millionaire or billionaire. But even that is not all.

What Paul Ryan and the Republicans do not want people to know is their budget does not even add up. It is fiscal fraud. It is a bait- and-switch. It is a desperate attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. Ryan and the Republicans claim they would pay for their massive tax cuts for the rich by ``closing loopholes and ending deductions.'' But they never say which loopholes they would close or which deductions they would eliminate.

In fact, they have been pressed over and over to lay out their plan by the media, by the public, by Democrats. And they refuse. It is just a big secret. This past weekend, both Governor Romney and Representative Ryan were asked again and again to offer even one deduction they would limit. Pick one. Any one. They were asked that so the American people could judge their plan. Both refused. It begs the simple question: What are they hiding?

Well, a former Reagan adviser, Bruce Bartlett, slammed Ryan's budget in the Fiscal Times writing: ``He offers only the sugar of rate reductions without telling us what the medicine of base broadening will be. . . . ''

He says:

Any tax reform plan that simply asserts it will collect a

certain percentage of GDP in revenue while specifying the

rate structure but not defining the tax base is fundamentally

dishonest, in my opinion.

Well, I agree. Why is this? Why are Ryan and the Republicans so specific about the taxes they are going to cut for the rich and so vague about how that is going to be paid for? Well, Ryan and the Republicans know when we do the math it becomes very clear that under their Republican budget the rich pay less and the middle class pay more and the national debt continues to grow. The math does not add up.

Here is why, here is what the Republicans do not want the American people to think about: The most expensive loopholes and deductions, the ones Republicans would need to eliminate to even start paying for these cuts for the rich, those are the ones that middle-class families depend on and the ones they benefit from the most, such as the personal and dependent exemptions, deductions for their home mortgages, charitable contributions, State and local taxes, child tax credit, college tuition credit.

If these deductions are eliminated while tax rates are slashed for the rich, it would mean a massive transfer of the tax burden onto the backs of our middle class. The richest Americans get a massive tax cut--an average of over $250,000 a year for someone who makes $1 million a year, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center--but the middle class, those families who depend on those critical deductions such as the home mortgage deduction, end up paying more. They would benefit far less from the marginal rate cut than the extra they would pay after losing those deductions.

If that sounds unbelievable, that is because it is. If that sounds like something no elected official would ever want to talk about doing, well, that is exactly right. So what Ryan and the Republicans do when they are asked is simply deny it. They simply say: Oh, that is not the case. They claim that loopholes and deductions will only be eliminated for the rich, and the middle class does not have to worry about anything.

Well, that sounds nice, but here is what they will not tell the American

people: It does not add up. The Tax Policy Center took a look at a plan that made a similar claim. Even viewing it in the most generous way, they could not get it to work. They said:

Even when we assume that tax breaks--like the charitable

deduction, mortgage interest deduction, and the exclusion for

health insurance--are completely eliminated for higher-income

households first, and only then reduced as necessary for

other households to achieve overall revenue-neutrality--the

net effect of the plan would be a tax cut for high-income

households coupled with a tax increase for middle-income

households.

That last point is very important. According to independent analysts, if you cut rates for the rich as much as the Republicans want, and pay for it by closing loopholes and ending deductions, there is no way to avoid having the middle class pay more. That is a fiscal reality. It lays bare the fraud in the Ryan Republican budget.

Not only does the Ryan Republican budget decimate programs middle- class families depend on, not only does it end Medicare as we know it and push health care costs onto the backs of our seniors, not only does it cut investment in jobs, in education, in training, in research, in innovation, in roads and bridges, it does not even add up. It is a fiscal fraud. I am hoping, now that the American people have the opportunity to see this clearly, Republicans will stop playing games. Let us get serious about the fiscal future of our country and work with us on a balanced approach to cut spending responsibly, call on the wealthy to pay their fair share and actually reduce the deficit and the debt. As soon as they are ready to do that, as soon as they are ready to accept reality and end this fiscal fraud, I know Democrats are ready to make the kind of balanced and bipartisan deal the American people expect and deserve.

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

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, today marks 18 years to the day since President Clinton signed the Violence Against Women Act into law. Since that day, this law has protected countless women across the country, as seen most directly by the fact that annual rates of domestic violence have dropped by more than 60 percent.

Today also marks a far less celebratory day in the history of this critical bill. That is because today is also the 139th day of delay by the House of Representatives since the Senate passed an inclusive, bipartisan VAWA bill by a vote of 68 to 31. It marks 139 days since House Republicans decided not to follow suit and to instead pass a version of our legislation that stripped vital protections included in our Senate bill--provisions that protect some of the most at-risk women in our country.

It has now been 139 days since 15 Senate Republicans stood to join with us to pass this legislation because they knew the history of this bill. They knew that every time the Violence Against Women Act has been reauthorized, it has consistently included bipartisan provisions to expand protections to women who were not previously covered. They understand that domestic violence protections for all women shouldn't be a Democratic or a Republican issue.

I hope Speaker Boehner and our colleagues in the House hear this: We are not backing down and we will keep fighting because 139 days is inexcusable. In fact, 1 day is inexcusable. It is now long past time for Speaker Boehner to look beyond ideology and partisan politics. Their obstruction clearly is taking a toll on women across this country.

In fact, for Native and 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. The numbers are staggering. One in three--one in three--Native women will be raped in their lifetime, two in five are victims of domestic violence, and Native women are killed at 10 times the rate of the national average.

These shocking statistics aren't isolated to one group of women; 25 to 35 percent of women in the LGBT community experience domestic violence in their relationship, and 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.

While these numbers are frightening, what is even tougher is when we sit down face to face with women who are at risk of being left out of this bill. Over this last August recess I held a number of roundtables in different corners of my State with women who had been trapped in abusive relationships. Many of them are from the communities of the women whom the House Republicans refuse to extend these provisions to. Through painful memories and many tears, they told me about how they feel all alone. Numerous women who are immigrants talked about how they were scared for themselves or their children, so they didn't report their husbands or boyfriends. Tribal women talked about how not only have they been abused but how they then had to watch their abuser do the same thing to other women on their reservation with no recourse.

Every moment the House of Representatives continues to delay is another moment these women and 30 million women similar to them are left without the protections they deserve.

These statistics should make it perfectly clear to our colleagues in the other Chamber that their current inaction has a real impact on the lives of women across America who are affected by violence. Where a person lives, their immigration status, whom they love should not determine whether the perpetrators of domestic violence are brought to justice.

These women cannot afford any further delay--not on this bill. We all know what it will take to move this bill forward: leadership from Speaker Boehner. Today, the effort we started in the Senate in May--an effort that will continue for as long as it takes--is a call for the very same thing: leadership. It is time for Speaker Boehner to look beyond ideology and partisan politics. It is time for him to look at the history of a bill that again and again has been supported and expanded by both Republicans and Democrats.

For 18 years this bill has expanded protection for vulnerable women. For the last 139 days, Speaker Boehner and House Republicans have put this legacy at risk. It is time for them to do the right thing and pass the Senate's inclusive bipartisan Violence Against Women Act.

Senator Leahy, who is chair of the Judiciary Committee, will be here shortly. He has put tremendous effort into making sure this bill is passed in a way that includes women across this country. We owe him a debt of gratitude, as well as all the members of the Judiciary Committee, some of whom will be here over the next hour to talk.

Again, we are here to remind everyone there are women in this country who do not receive the protections of the domestic violence law that was passed. We are here to make sure we are going to stand for them and keep pushing until Speaker Boehner takes up this bill and passes it to protect women.

I see Senator Leahy arriving on the floor just as I was speaking about him. He will be speaking about this issue. We owe him a debt of gratitude for standing for women across this country but especially for, this time, fighting to make sure this is an inclusive bill, passed on a bipartisan vote out of the Senate, and one that will change the lives of so many women. We owe it to them and Speaker Boehner owes it to them to take up this bill and pass it.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I have come to the floor this evening to make a few things abundantly clear about the Veterans Jobs Corps legislation the Senate is currently considering.

First and foremost, the bill in front of us is fully paid for, using offsets that both Republicans and Democrats have supported in the past. So this bill is paid for.

Secondly, no matter what Republicans try to tell us, this is a bill that includes ideas from both sides of the aisle. In fact, of the 12 provisions in this bill, 8 of them started as Republican ideas.

We in fact included Senator Burr's entire alternative to this bill to make it even more bipartisan. On top of that, we have included bills that are sponsored by Senator Toomey, Senator Boozman, Senator Johanns, and Senator Isakson. So don't let anybody tell you we have not been inclusive in this process.

We know on this side that we do not have a monopoly of good ideas to help solve the problems of veterans who are looking for work today, and that is why we have included as many avenues to employment as possible in this legislation.

Finally and most importantly, I want to make sure that everyone who is considering voting for the budget point of order that Senator Sessions has been out here talking about and indicated he may raise knows exactly what is at stake. Believe me, every single veteran in the country needs to know what is at stake as well. What his budget point of order says is we are now going to draw a line in the sand on what we will provide for our Nation's veterans. It does not matter if the bill is paid for. The point of order puts a pricetag on the care of veterans and then says not a dime more.

This point of order really ties our hands. It says even at a time of war, even at a time when nearly one in five young veterans is out of work, at a time when the veterans' suicide rate is skyrocketing and when more young veterans are becoming homeless, we are done; veterans are on their own.

It says even if we find offsets for new investments and ideas to aid our Nation's heroes--we paid for it--tough luck; nothing you can do. It says countless bills waiting for consideration in the Senate, sponsored by Republicans and Democrats, can be tossed along the wayside.

When are we going to realize that our veterans are a cost of these wars; that helping to give them the skills and training to find work is a cost of war; that their transition home is a cost of war and it is a cost we are going to face, not just this year or next year or 10 years from now but for the rest of the lives of these men and women? When are we going to realize it is not enough to pat our veterans on the back for their service but not give them a helping hand when they come home? The budget point of order says we have done enough for veterans.

I say we cannot do enough. Less than 1 percent of U.S. citizens have served. Less than 1 percent of U.S. citizens have served for the well- being of the other 99 percent. It is simply wrong for us to say we are out of help.

Veterans across the country are watching, they are waiting, and they are tired of excuses. They want to see we can get this bill to the finish line.

I know some Republicans have pointed to the calendar as a reason for their opposition to this bill. Honestly I wish it were not September either and we did not have to deal with politics here in Washington, DC. But, you know, who could care less about what month it is or how many days out we are from an election? The nearly 1 million unemployed veterans looking for work. When you talk to them, their concern is not what month it is or how many days before election, it is about what jobs are available in their community. What training program can they take advantage of. What is being done to honor their two or three or more tours overseas.

Our answer cannot be that we are all out of options. It cannot be that their service was worth only so much. I am here to urge Republicans to join us this evening in rising above politics as we have done time and time again throughout history for our veterans, to ignore the calendar and do what is right. Let's send a message from the Senate that our veterans come first; that we will keep our end of the bargain; that we will never put a price on the commitment we owe them.

I urge my colleagues to join me in waiving the budget point of order when it is offered later this evening.

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

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

Madam President, I want to first join with the many Senators today who have strongly condemned the violent attacks against the men and women serving bravely in our diplomatic corps. The senseless murders in Libya are a reminder of the dangers these public servants take on every day and the courage they show in furthering our diplomatic goals all across the globe. We are all so grateful to them. My thoughts and prayers go out to Ambassador Chris Stevens and the other victims of the attack, and I stand with the President, as we all do, in supporting efforts to secure those who continue to serve us abroad.

I have come to the floor today to respond to the statements that were made here earlier, that are completely inaccurate, about the bill we are currently considering on the floor, the Veterans Job Corps bill. In particular, I want to respond to the baseless and frankly offensive charges the Senator from Oklahoma made, insinuating that supporters of this bill don't ``really care about veterans'' and that this bill ``isn't about veterans.''

I have been working on veterans issues in the Senate for nearly two decades and in all of that time, under Democratic and Republican- controlled Senates, under administrations of both parties and in times of war and peace, if there was one issue I have seen that rises above the day-to-day bomb throwing that often characterizes the debate here, it has been the care and benefits for our veterans.

We can certainly disagree about policy, of course. We can fight with all of our hearts for what we think is right. But never--never--have I seen accusations that one party or one group was not fighting for what they believed to be right for our veterans. In fact, the accusations leveled on the floor here earlier today were one of the biggest departures from the spirit of cooperation around veterans issues I have seen in my time in the Senate. So I am here today to set the record straight about the steps this bill takes to put our veterans back to work.

In doing so, I will not question the motives or the degree to which those who may oppose this legislation care for our veterans because, as chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee myself, I see Republicans' commitment every single day. I will not level allegations designed to make our veterans political pawns and I certainly will not mislead anyone about what we have set out to do. I will not because honestly I believe our veterans deserve far better. What they and the American people deserve is the truth.

The truth is that caring for our veterans and helping to provide them with the training they need to find jobs when they return home is a cost of the wars we have fought for the last decade. The truth is that less than 1 percent of U.S. citizens serve and sacrifice for the well- being of the other 99 percent. The truth is that what the Senator from Oklahoma calls a charade is an effort to give those veterans as many avenues as possible to find work. It is an effort to give them the economic security and self-esteem that only a job can provide and that is so essential to their return home.

I understand it has taken some in the Senate a long time to come to grips with the fact that our fiscal commitment we owe to those who wear the uniform does not end the day they are discharged. The truth is, it is not enough to give our veterans a pat on the back for their military service. We also have to give them a helping hand in the job market today. As the jobs report that was released last month reminds us, we have over 720,000 unemployed veterans across the Nation, including over 225,000 veterans who served since September 11. Despite what the Senator from Oklahoma may have said, this bill makes the resources available to all of them. In fact, that is exactly why we brought this bill forward.

What we need right now is an ``all hands on deck,'' ``all of the above'' strategy. That is why in fact this bill includes both Democratic and Republican ideas. This is a bill that will increase training and hiring opportunities for all veterans, using proven job training programs from across the country. For instance, it increases grants under the COPS and SAFER Programs that we have seen work to train and hire qualified veterans to work as police officers, firefighters,

and other first responders. This is at a time when 85 percent of law enforcement agencies were forced to reduce their budgets last year. It comes at a time when we face a $10 billion maintenance backlog for our public lands. This bill will help training and hire veterans to restore and protect our national, State, and tribal forests, our parks, and our other public lands.

Because training and hiring veterans has never been and should never be an effort that divides us, we have included a host of Republican ideas into this bill. We included a bill from Senator Toomey that gives veterans increased access to computers and Internet tools to help them find jobs in in-demand areas in their own communities. We included a bill sponsored by Senator Boozman that will increase transition assistance programs for eligible veterans and their spouses. And we included a very important provision from Senators on both sides of the aisle that will help force our States to consider the military experience of our veterans when they issue licenses and certifications--something we have all heard when we go home.

We figured this comprehensive bipartisan approach would certainly be enough to gain Republican support, even if it did come as we are, of course, inching closer to an election. But over the course of the last 48 hours or so we have heard that Republicans, including Senator Burr, who is the ranking member of my committee, had an alternative version of the bill that Republicans wanted to push forward. The bill of Senator Burr includes a system to have States certify military experience for jobs skills and helps veterans get hired into the Federal workforce, among a number of other provisions. It appeared to all of us that this late alternative might derail what I believe can be and ought to be a bipartisan effort. But again, we are committed to making this a bipartisan effort. So, instead of showing our veterans that we are just about gridlock and partisanship, here is what we have done.

Because, as I said before, this has to be an ``all of the above'' approach, we have, therefore, added every one of the provisions in the alternative offered by Senator Burr to our bill. Now I believe we have an even more bipartisan, more inclusive bill on the floor right now awaiting action. This is a bill that is paid for with offsets that both Republicans and Democrats have supported. It is a bill unquestionably that represents ideas from both sides of the aisle, including now from the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee.

There is no reason now that Republicans should not join us in passing this bill and passing it quickly, because this does not have to be an either/or situation. Neither party has the magic bullet to solve these problems, so we have to open as many proven opportunities to employment as we can.

You know, veterans are out there watching and waiting. They are tired of excuses and they certainly have no stomach for the kind of political posturing they saw earlier today, that comes only at their expense.

I know some Republicans have pointed to the calendar as the reason for their opposition to this bill. Honestly, I wish it were not September and we did not have to deal with the silly season here in Washington, DC. But who could care less about what month it is or how many days out from an election we are? Here is the issue: Nearly 1 million unemployed veterans are looking for work today. They are concerned about what jobs are available in their communities. Their concern is what training program they can take advantage of and what is being done to honor their two or three tours overseas.

This is a bill now that offers them new resources to answer those questions. It is a bill that will help them serve their community and help them provide honorably for their families. I truly hope now, with the change we have added to the alternative bill offered by Senator Burr, we will have overcome our last hurdle before passage.

I come to the floor today to urge Republicans to join us now in rising above politics as we have done time and time again for our veterans. Ignore the calendar and the never-ending chatter about who is up and who is down. That is not what this is about. This is about making sure our veterans come first this and every week and that we intend to keep our commitment to them for their services.

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

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

Mr. President, we just heard the Senator from Florida talk about the very important piece of legislation that is in front of us. I wish to thank him for being the lead on this and all the work he has put in it and the passion he has had to make sure our veterans in this Nation have what they need when they come home from these wars.

Last Friday we were again reminded of the difficult employment picture our Nation's veterans continue to face. In the monthly unemployment rate for August, we saw across the country there were 720,000 unemployed veterans. It is a number that includes over 225,000 post-9/11 veterans, many of them who have served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and have sacrificed time and again for our safety.

This should not be the case. Our veterans have what it takes to not only go out and find work but to excel in the workforce of the 21st century. In fact, the characteristics that our veterans have and exemplify read like the job qualifications you might find at any major company or small business, and that is because they have leadership ability, discipline, technical skills, team work, and the ability to perform under pressure--no question.

They have those skills because as a country we have invested in training them. We cannot and should not let that training or the millions of dollars we have invested in these men and women go to waste. In far too many instances, however, that is what is happening. Too often on the day our servicemembers are discharged, we as a nation pat them on the back, thank them for their service, but we do not give them a helping hand in the job market. That has to end.

The Senate has taken bipartisan action in the past to begin to change the way our veterans do transition from the battlefield to the job market. We were able to pass the VOW to Hire Heroes Act, which I coauthored. That was signed into law last year. Importantly, that law transforms the way we provide transition training to our servicemembers when they leave the military. It includes a provision that in my home State and across the country is providing thousands of dollars in tax credits to businesses to hire our vets.

In addition to that bill, we have also worked to build partnerships with the private sector in order to tap into the tremendous amount of good will that our companies have for our returning heroes. Sometimes this is as simple as working with a company to show them the easy steps that can help bring veterans on board, such as ensuring that they are advertising their job openings with local veterans service organizations and on their local military bases or having veterans in their own H.R. department with whom veterans can identify when they apply for work or having someone on staff who can help translate the experience of veterans into the work that company does.

Time and again, big companies such as Amazon and Microsoft or a lot of smaller businesses I have seen tell me these steps make an impact. But beyond those steps, it is very clear more needs to be done, particularly when the unemployment rate among young veterans who are ages 18 to 24 continues to hover around 20 percent. Action has to be taken because 20 percent is one in five of our veterans who cannot find a job to support their family; one in five of them who does not have an income to provide stability; one in five of them who does not have the work to provide them with the self-esteem and pride that is so critical to their transition home.

This a problem that manifests itself in homelessness, in broken families, and far too often in our veterans taking their own lives. It is a problem that neither the veterans themselves nor government alone can solve. But it is also one that we have to do everything we can to address.

Here in the Senate, that means a bipartisan, all-hands-on-deck strategy. That is exactly what the Senator from Florida is putting forward. Senator Nelson has put forward the veterans job corps bill. What this bill does is, over the next 5 years, it will increase training and hiring opportunities for all our veterans who are using successful job training programs in the country.

It is going to help hire qualified veterans as police officers and firefighters and first responders--by the way, at a time when 85 percent of law enforcement agencies had to reduce their budgets in the last year. It is going to help train and hire veterans to help restore and protect our national, State and tribal forests, our parks and our public lands--at a time, by the way, when we face a $10 billion maintenance backlog for our public lands. It is a backlog I have seen at home personally in my home State of Washington.

Because training and hiring our veterans has never been seen and never should be an effort that divides us along partisan lines, the veterans job corps bill takes good ideas from both sides of the aisle. In fact, our bill will provide veterans with access to the Internet and computers to help conduct job searches at one-stop centers and other locations. This is an idea championed by Senator Toomey. It is going to help guarantee that our rural and disabled veterans have access to veterans employment representatives. This is a bill that is championed by Senator Tester, who is presiding over the Senate this morning. It is a good idea. We put it in this bill.

It is going to increase transition assistance for eligible veterans and their spouses. That is a bill that was introduced by Senator Boozman of our committee.

It will require consideration of a veteran's training or experience gained while they are serving on Active Duty when they seek certifications and licenses. That is a bill that is cosponsored by Democrats and Republicans alike. This bill says all good ideas are welcome.

Our veterans need all the help they can get. It is fully paid for in a bipartisan way. It has been endorsed most recently by the National Association of Police Organizations. But there are also a lot of veterans service organizations that stand behind this bill as well. They do so because they know that helping veterans find employment is absolutely critical to meeting many of the challenges they face when they come home.

Our veterans do not ask for a lot. Oftentimes, they come home and do not even acknowledge their own sacrifice. My own father never talked about his time fighting in World War II. In fact, I never saw his Purple Heart or knew he had a wallet with shrapnel in it or a diary that detailed his time in combat until after he died and my family gathered to sort out his belongings.

But our veterans should not have to ask. We should know to provide for them. When my father's generation came home from the war, they came home to opportunity. My father came home to a community that supported him. He came home to college and a job. It was a job that gave him pride and a job that helped him start his family, and one that, of course, ultimately led me to starting my own. That is the legacy of opportunity this Senate, in a bipartisan way, has lived up to for today's veterans.

I urge our colleagues to build on the successes we have had in passing bipartisan veterans employment legislation. Veterans returning home from across the country are watching us. They certainly do not have time to let politics block their path to a job that will help them serve their community. Surely, this is a bill that is something we can show them that we can come together on no matter how close or far away we are from an election.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess until 2:15 under the previous order.

Madam President, I thank Senator Leahy and Senator Blumenthal and so many others who have come to the floor to speak on this critical issue.

Today the women of the Senate and the men who support the Violence Against Women Act are on the Senate floor to give Speaker Boehner and the Republicans another chance to do what is right. It is another chance to stop the delay. It is another chance to provide peace of mind to 30 million women whose protections are at risk, and it is another chance to pass the inclusive, bipartisan Senate, Violence Against Women Act bill.

The bipartisan Senate bill passed almost 100 days ago by a vote of 68 to 31. Fifteen of our Republican colleagues on the floor--I will repeat that--15 Republicans joined us that day, and they did so because they know the history of this bill. They know every time the Violence Against Women Act has been reauthorized, it has consistently included bipartisan provisions to address the women who have not been protected. They know domestic violence protections for all women should not be a Democratic or Republican issue.

But here we are back on the Senate floor urging support today for a bill that should not be controversial. Just as we did last week, just as we are doing today, and just as we will do in the coming weeks, we will be making sure this message resonates loudly and clearly both in Washington, DC, and back home in our States because we are not going to back down--not while there are thousands of women in the country who are excluded from the current law.

The numbers are staggering. One in three Native Americans will be raped in their lifetime. Two in five of them are victims of domestic violence, and they are killed at 10 times the rate of the national average.

Those shocking statistics are not just isolated to one group of women; 25 to 35 percent in the LGBT community experience domestic violence in their relationships. Three in four abused immigrant women never entered the process to obtain legal status, even though they are eligible. Why? Because their abuser husbands never filed their paperwork.

This should make it perfectly clear to our colleagues in the other Chamber that their current inaction has a real impact on the lives of women across America affected by violence. Where a person lives, their immigration status, or who they love should not determine whether perpetrators of domestic violence are brought to justice.

Last week, the New York Times ran an editorial on this bill that gets to the heart of where we are. It began by saying:

House Republicans have to decide which is more important:

protecting victims of domestic violence or advancing the

harsh antigay and anti-immigrant sentiments of some of their

party's far right. At the moment, harshness is winning.

The editorial also made the point that it doesn't have to be this way. It pointed out:

In May, fifteen Senate Republicans joined with the

chamber's Democratic majority to approve a strong

reauthorization bill.

It ended with what we all know it will take to move this bill forward: leadership from Congressman Boehner. The effort that was started in the Senate last week--an effort that will continue for as long as it takes--is a call for the very same--leadership.

It is time for Speaker Boehner to look beyond ideology and partisan politics. It is time for him to look at the history of a bill that again and again has been supported and expanded by Republicans and Democrats and end the delay because, frankly, it is taking a toll.

Every moment the House continues to delay is another moment that 30 million vulnerable women are without the protections they deserve in this country.

The women this bill protects have seen their lives destroyed by the cowardice of those who claimed to care for them. We have a chance now to stand for them where others have not. But the only way we can help protect these women is to prove that we as a nation have the courage to do so--the courage to show them that discrimination has no place in our domestic violence laws. To do that, we need to pass the Senate's inclusive, bipartisan Violence Against Women Act.

Yes.

Yes, the Senator from California is correct.

The Senator from California is correct. In fact, those 30 million Americans would be covered under the Senate bill. We made sure that Native American women are covered, and we put in important provisions to make sure campus violence is covered, and those provisions have been left out of the House bill.

The Senator from California is absolutely correct. We cannot even imagine what it is like to have somebody hold that kind of power over you and use it to beat you day in and day out. We cover those women in this bill so that they have the protections they ought to have as human beings.

The Senator is correct.

The Senator from California is correct.

The Senator from California is correct. That is why we have work to do, in a bipartisan fashion in the Senate, to make sure in this country, America, we do not discriminate against women when it comes to violence.

The Senator from California is correct. It seems to me such a simple procedure to do, which

we have done many times in the Senate, to just by unanimous consent send the Speaker back the bill so he can't put a piece of blue paper in front of us and say that stands between women and the protections we are trying to pass for them today.

I thank the Senator from California and say that she is absolutely correct. What I am about to do is to ask consent to do what we have done on many pieces of legislation, including the jobs and Transportation bills the Senator from California was able to pass, and the Senate overcame that technicality through a motion on the floor.

We have done it time and time again on bills like that. It seems to me that on a bill like this, which is affecting so many women and their right to protect themselves and the ability to get help in their communities, there should not be a technicality between them and our passing protections for them in this country.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 9

Having said that, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 9 and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the language of S. 1925, the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, as passed in the Senate on April 26 by a vote of 68 to 31, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, has the Senator from Iowa objected to my request?

Madam President, the Senator from Iowa has objected. I just have to say that it is stunning to me that the Senator has objected to a simple procedure that we have done many times on Transportation bills and FAA bills and, sadly, now there is an inability to provide protections for the women we have been talking about.

I object.

Mr. President, I listened carefully to the passion of the Senator from Iowa on behalf of the Republican majority and Speaker Boehner, and, frankly, I have to say it is offensive to say that the issue of violence against women is about politics. This is about women who are abused, women who are powerless to fight back, and

women being able to get the protection they need in this country that has provided protection for a very long time, to make sure women who are immigrants, women who live in a tribe, women who are gay and lesbian, women who are on college campuses get the protection this legislation supports. This is not about politics, this is about violence and this country standing up and saying we are going to protect them.

Make no mistake about it, what the Republicans are saying is that they want to move this bill to conference so they can strip out those provisions. Well, they have crossed a line--a line that in the history of this nonpolitical, bipartisan bill has been so deeply important to so many of us. They made this bill about politics just now. I find that offensive.

What they want is to take the Senate's bipartisan-passed bill, supported by both Republicans and Democrats here, send it to conference, and then pick it apart. They want to take it to conference so they can have a discussion about which women in this country deserve protection and which do not. They want to pit one group of women against another. This is not a game. It is not politics. And it certainly is not a game I am going to play. The new protections in this bill have been supported by Republicans and Democrats, groups across this country, and millions of Americans. They are not bartering chips, and it is not about politics.

The objection of the Senator on behalf of the Republicans raises issues that really are nothing more than a smokescreen. They do not want to be out in front saying they are willing to discriminate against certain women. They would rather hide behind these procedural objections. But I would remind all our colleagues that these procedural objections they are out here talking about--the politics--have been routinely overcome here in the Senate. Just as I said a few minutes ago, the transportation and jobs bill we passed a month ago, the blue slip issue was overcome. The FAA reauthorization last year funding our Nation's airports--overcome. The Food Safety Act--overcome. The Travel Promotion Act. All those had blue slip issues, and all of them were overcome, and there was a reason why--leadership and the will to do the right thing.

So let me make it abundantly clear. This is not about politics. It is about protecting women in this country. It is about making sure we do what is right for so many women who are looking to Congress to put in place the protections they deserve.

So the ball is in the Speaker's court now. He is going to have to talk to women across the country about why their protections are at risk because of politics. But I want everyone to be clear: We are not going to compromise on the issues that are so important to so many women and throw them under the bus. That is not what we have fought for year after year on bipartisan legislation when we passed the Violence Against Women Act before. It is inclusive, it is bipartisan, and it is above ideology and partisan games. It is a bill that makes sure that no matter who you are or where you live or whom you love, you are protected in this great country in which we live.

Politics has no place in this. I would agree with the Senator from Iowa. Who is playing politics? We will leave it up for those who are watching. What I have asked is that the Senate do what we have done many times on many bills--move this bill to the House in a bipartisan way and pass it, and then politics won't matter, women will be covered.

I hope our Senate colleagues who have objected and the Speaker will reconsider. They can easily pass this bill today or next month, put it in place, and women in this country can say the leaders of this country are fighting for them.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today very excited about the great progress America is going to make tomorrow, August 1, for women across this country and to share the outrage I just heard from the Senator from Illinois and others that before those even go into effect tomorrow, on the eve of this great opportunity for so many women, the Republican leader has come to the floor and said: We want to repeal it--first amendment, on an issue not related at all to cyber security but to take those away before they even begin.

It is an exciting moment for women in this country. Two years ago health insurance companies could deny women care due to so-called preexisting conditions such as pregnancy or being a victim of domestic violence--denied. Two years ago women were legally discriminated against when it came to insurance premiums and were often paying more for coverage than their male counterparts.

Two years ago women did not have access to the full range of recommended preventive care, such as mammograms or prenatal screenings, that the Senator from Illinois talked about. Two years ago insurance companies had all the leverage. Two years ago, too often, women paid the price. That is why I am so proud today to come to the floor with so many of our colleagues to highlight just how far we have come for women in the past 2 years and the new ways women will benefit from health care reform starting tomorrow, August 1.

Since the Affordable Care Act became the law of the land, women have now been treated more fairly when it comes to health care costs and options. Deductibles and other expenses have been capped, so a health care crisis won't cause a family to lose their home or their life savings. Women can use the health care exchanges to pick quality plans that work for themselves and their families. And if they change jobs or have to move, which so many people have to do today, they can keep their coverage.

Starting tomorrow, August 1, additional types of maternity care are going to be covered. Women will be armed with the proper tools and resources in order to take the right steps to have a healthy pregnancy. Starting tomorrow, women will have access to domestic partner violence screening and counseling, as well as screening for sexually transmitted infections. Starting tomorrow, women will finally have access to affordable birth control so we can lower rates in maternal and infant mortality and reduce the risk of ovarian cancer and improve overall health outcomes and encourage far fewer unintended pregnancies and abortions, which is a goal we all share.

I also wish to note that the affordable contraceptive policy we put in place preserves the rights of all Americans while also protecting the rights of millions of Americans who do use contraceptives, who believe that family planning is the right choice for them, and who don't deserve to have politics or ideology prevent them from getting the coverage they deserve and want.

Starting tomorrow, women will be fully in charge of their health care, not an insurance company. That is why I feel so strongly that we cannot go back to the way things were. While we can never stop working to make improvements, which we all know are important, we owe it to the women of America to make progress and not allow the clock to be rolled back on their health care needs.

Despite the recent Supreme Court decision upholding this law, I know some of our Republican colleagues are furiously working to undo all the gains we have made in health care reform for women and families. We heard the minority leader this morning come to the floor, and he wants to offer an amendment on the next bill that is now coming up on cybersecurity to repeal all of these important protections for women, that women are taking advantage of today, and certainly something we all should want for our families and our daughters and for the women in this country. I know they apparently think repealing the entire health care law would be a political winner for them, but the truth is that this law is a winner for women and for men and for children and for our health care system overall.

So I am proud to be out here with my colleagues today who are committed to making sure the benefits of this law do not get taken away from the women of America because politics and ideology should not matter when it comes to making sure women across America get the care they need at a cost they can afford.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

If the Senator could abstain from the quorum, please.

Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today in order to continue the efforts started right here earlier this week, efforts by the women of the Senate and the men who support the Violence Against Women Act to bring a simple, straightforward message to our friends in the House of Representatives: Stop the games and pass the inclusive, bipartisan Senate VAWA bill without delay.

The Violence Against Women Act is a bill that has successfully helped provide lifesaving assistance to hundreds of thousands of women and families. It is a bill that passed the Senate 3 months ago today by a vote of 68 to 31. It is a bill that has consistently included bipartisan provisions to address those who are not being protected by it each and every time it has been reauthorized. But here we are, back on the Senate floor, urging support for a bill that should not be controversial.

Just as we did on Tuesday, just as we are doing today, and just as we are going to continue to do in the coming weeks, we will be making sure this message resonates loudly and clearly both in Washington, DC, and back in our home States because we are not going to back down--not while there are thousands of women across our country who are excluded from the current law. In fact, for Native and immigrant women and LGBT individuals, every moment our inclusive legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act is delayed is another moment they are left without the resources and protection they deserve in this country.

The numbers are staggering: 1 in 3 Native American women will be raped in their lifetimes--1 in 3. And 2 in 5 of them are victims of domestic violence, and they are killed at 10 times the rate of the national average. These shocking statistics are not isolated to one group of women; 25 to 35 percent of women in the LGBT community experience domestic violence in their relationships, and 3 in 4 abused immigrant women never enter the process to obtain legal status, even though they were eligible, because their abuser husbands never filed their paperwork.

This should make it perfectly clear to our colleagues in the other Chamber that their current inaction has a real impact on the lives of women across America affected by violence, women such as Deborah Parker. Deborah is the vice chairman of the Tulalip Tribe in my home State of Washington.

Deborah was repeatedly abused starting at a very young age by a nontribal man who lived on a reservation. Not until after the abuse stopped--sometime around when she was in the fourth grade--did Deborah realize she was not the only child suffering at the hands of that same assailant. At least a dozen other young girls had fallen victim to that man--a man who was never arrested for his crimes, never brought to justice, and still walks free today, all because he committed these heinous acts on the reservation. As someone who is not a member of a tribe, it is an unfortunate reality that he is unlikely to ever be held liable for his crimes.

Reauthorizing an inclusive VAWA is a matter of fairness. Deborah's experience and the experience of other victims of that man do not represent an isolated incident. For the narrow set of domestic violence crimes laid out in VAWA, tribal governments should be able to hold accountable defendants who have a strong tie to the tribal community.

I was very glad to see Republican Congresswoman Judy Biggert and several of her Republican colleagues echo those sentiments last week. They sent a letter to Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor. These Republican Members explicitly called on their party leadership to end this gridlock and accept the ``Senate-endorsed provisions that would protect all victims of domestic violence, including college students, LGBT individuals, Native Americans and immigrants.''

So today I am here to urge Speaker Boehner to listen to the members of his own caucus and join us in taking a major step to uphold our government's promise to protect its people, people such as Maribel and Maria, two more constituents who come from my home State of Washington.

As a transgender woman, Maribel has been subject to random acts of violence by family and boyfriends and strangers. She has been mugged and attacked on the street. She has suffered broken bones and cuts and bruises. She has been raped, and she was left for dead. What Maribel said to me was deeply concerning. She said:

Not once have the police ever conducted an investigation,

much less shown any concern for me. Rather my experience with

law enforcement is one of harassment and abuse. I have been

ostracized by family and friends . . . in fact it is most of

my first memories.

She experiences hate daily from those who think she has no place in our society.

Then there is Maria. Shortly after their wedding, Maria's husband became a different man, she said. His abuse ranged from emotional to physical, and on two separate occasions he held a knife to Maria's throat threatening to kill her. He constantly threatened Maria with deportation back to Jamaica. Eventually, he refused to attend the interview with immigration authorities necessary for her to obtain a green card. Her application was denied for lack of attendance. She was angry and scared, but she found the courage to ask her husband for a divorce. In response, he raped her. Maria moved out of the house though her husband repeatedly tracked her down and assaulted her. To save her own life, Maria fled to Seattle with her two young children.

It does not have to be this way. I was so proud to have been serving in the Senate 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 and social service providers, and law enforcement professionals to meet the immediate challenges of combating domestic violence. Along with its bipartisan support, it has received praise from law enforcement officers and prosecutors, judges, victim service providers, faith leaders, health care professionals, advocates, and survivors.

The Violence Against Women Act has broad support for one reason: It works. Where a person lives, their immigration status, who they love should not determine whether perpetrators of domestic violence are brought to justice. These women cannot afford any further delay--not on this bill.

I would be happy to yield for a question.

The Senator from Oregon is absolutely correct. If a woman has been beaten and abused and believes she is a victim of violence with nowhere to turn, especially in a rural community where everyone knows everyone and a person doesn't know who to turn to, there is no place to go. The Violence Against Women Act provides the support of law enforcement officers and advocates so a person can get out of a very abusive situation.

I thank my colleague from Oregon. I know he is going to speak in just a few minutes, but I know he has spent a great deal of time traveling around his State and listening to these women and he knows personally from their stories how important it is that we cannot continue to delay this bill over something called a blue slip. It is not about a blue slip. It is about doing what is right.

We have overcome the blue slip issue time and time again for issues such as FAA and Transportation bills and many other pieces of legislation because it is the will of the body to do so. So to tell a woman in Oregon or Washington State that this bill can't happen because of a blue slip is ridiculous. They have been told they can't get help for a lot tougher reasons. Let's not let a blue slip be what comes between them and the support they need.

In fact, I say to my colleague from Oregon and all of my colleagues that on Tuesday the New York Times ran an editorial that gets to the heart of it. They said:

House Republicans have to decide which is more important:

Protecting victims of domestic violence or advancing the

harsh antigay and anti-immigrant sentiments of some on their

party's far right. At the moment, harshness is winning.

The editorial also echoed our sentiments that it does not have to be this way. It pointed out:

In May, 15 Senate Republicans joined with the chamber's

Democratic majority to approve a strong reauthorization bill.

It ends with what we all know it will take to move this legislation forward: leadership from Congressman Boehner. So today we are on the Senate floor to make this effort and to call for the same thing: leadership.

It is time for Speaker Boehner to look past ideology and partisan politics. It is time for him to hear the stories of women across America who have not had the protection of this bill and to make a major step forward which will assure that a woman, no matter where she lives or who she is, will have the protections this great country can offer.

So I thank my colleague from Oregon for his real passion and understanding on this issue and for taking the time to hear from women and men who have been impacted.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I would like to take a moment to recognize the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Institutes of Health, NIH, for their research into an innovative surgery that has demonstrated success in improving the stability of muscle movement for veterans with Parkinson's disease. VA and NIH's joint research collaboration regarding deep brain stimulation therapy has furthered the medical community's understanding of Parkinson's disease and will be incredibly valuable to doctors and Parkinson's patients throughout the world.

For many individuals, medication alone is insufficient when it comes to dealing with neurological diseases such as Parkinson's disease. VA and NIH conducted research into an alternative treatment option known as deep brain stimulation therapy to test the long-term outcomes of the treatment. Deep brain stimulation therapy is a surgical procedure that implants electrodes into specific stimulation sites within the brain. These electrodes are then able to send electrical pulses to areas of the brain that controls movement and motor control and helps mitigate the symptoms of Parkinson's disease as well as reduce some of the side effects caused by medication. Thanks to deep brain stimulation therapy, thousands of individuals suffering from Parkinson's disease have experienced a dramatic improvement in their quality of life.

Since deep brain stimulation therapy was approved by the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, as a therapy for Parkinson's disease in the late 1990s, there has been an ongoing debate about which stimulation sites within the brain provide the best and most durable treatment outcomes and how long those results last. To better understand the role that stimulation sites play in deep brain stimulation therapy, VA and NIH conducted a 3-year clinical trial. The trial ultimately found that the benefits gained from deep brain stimulation therapy remained after 3 years and the benefits from the surgery were not dependent by which stimulation site was selected for implantation.

This is the type of research that is crucial to providing the care that our Nation's veterans need and deserve. Thanks to the hard work of VA and NIH researchers, the 40,000 veterans living with Parkinson's disease whom VA cares for along with Parkinson's patients across the world will be better equipped to make informed decisions about their treatment options.

In closing, I commend VA and NIH for their efforts to combat a disease that affects so many of America's veterans.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to support the extension of tax cuts for 98 percent of workers and 97 percent of small business owners.

This should be a no-brainer. Democrats do not want taxes on our middle-class families to go up, and Republicans claim they want that too. They also say they want these tax cuts extended.

So this should be easy. When 100 Senators agree on a policy, we should be able to pass a bill. But, unfortunately, Republicans are not focused on the 98 percent we agree on. They are preoccupied with the 2 percent we are not. They are prepared to take our country over the edge and into the new year in an effort to prevent millionaires and billionaires from paying a penny more in taxes.

Republicans are so opposed to having the wealthy pay the very same rate they were paying during the Clinton years that if they cannot force through more tax cuts for the rich, they would prefer taxes to go up on middle-class families. They want 98 percent of workers to pay the price if millionaires are asked to pay a penny more. This is unbelievable and a deeply cynical position to take. It does not make any sense.

We have a fundamental difference of opinion between the two parties about the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that have added trillions of dollars to the deficit and debt.

I am not asking Republicans to set aside their values. It is clear they are deeply committed to putting more money into the pockets of the wealthy. All I am saying is--all Democrats are saying is--we should not let that disagreement on tax cuts for the rich cause taxes to go up for the middle class. We can certainly have a debate about the merits of extending tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. I am confident Republicans are ready to stand here on the floor and make their case. I am prepared to make mine. But I urge our Republican colleagues now to not play political games with the tax cuts that both sides believe should be extended. Because holding these middle class tax cuts hostage is bad policy, it is bad economics, and, frankly, it is bad politics.

Poll after poll shows the American people support ending the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Republicans know they are in an unsustainable political position. They know they cannot be seen as holding middle-class tax cuts hostage for more tax cuts for the rich.

Last week we saw how they reacted when they got called on that reality: stomping their feet and shaking their fists, trying to muddy the water and change the subject. They do everything but admit it is time for compromise.

In fact, just this morning, the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania gave a speech about his plan for even deeper tax cuts for the rich-- down to 28 percent for the wealthiest Americans. It is stunning. While Democrats are fighting for tax cuts for the middle class, Republicans are not only holding them hostage to continue the tax cuts for the rich, they are also scheming for ways to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans even more. But their rhetoric is not going to fool families and small business owners in America.

I recently heard from a constituent of mine. His name is Rob Robinson. He is from Walla Walla in my home State of Washington. Rob owns a small construction company. He just finished work on the local police department. He said to me, ``I've been a small business owner for over twenty-five years and it's outrageous to me that some members of Congress would hold up middle class tax cuts for the sake of protecting the wealthy from paying their fair share.''

He went on. He said: ``The fact that they justify cutting taxes for the

wealthy by invoking the name of small businesses tells me that they are simply out of touch with the economic reality of the majority of small business owners in this country.''

I heard from another small business owner. His name is Allan Willis. He is from Kennewick, WA. Allan opened his small business, Tri-city Music, in 2008. He wrote to me saying:

I'm like a lot of Main Street small business owners. I open

the shop in the morning and close it down at night. I vacuum

the carpets and clean the bathrooms. I strive to provide my

customers with an incredible level of customer service after

the sale. I work hard and am blessed that I make enough to

pay my fair share of taxes.

Allan told me:

When Republicans hide behind the name of small business to

support their agenda for lower taxes for the rich, they don't

speak for me. Let's call it what it is: political identity

theft. They are stealing the name of small business as a

smokescreen for tax policy that benefits millionaires.

That is a quote from Allan.

I also heard from a constituent of mine named Dallas Baker. Dallas is a Seattle firefighter. He has been on the job for 15 years. He told me he loves serving his community and making a difference. But he said-- and I quote--

My daughters and I are all making sacrifices now. We are

comfortable but we are losing ground.

If taxes went up for middle-class families like his, it would only get harder.

Rob, Allan, and Dallas are among the 98 percent of workers and 97 percent of small business owners the Democrats' bill would extend our tax cuts for. Those are the people I am fighting for--them and millions across America--middle-class families who have been struggling, who have sacrificed so much, and who should not see their taxes go up.

But my Republican colleagues do not seem to be focused on people such as Rob, Allan, and Dallas. They are much more concerned about the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, many of whom happen to be their biggest campaign and super PAC donors. They may claim to be here talking for small business owners, but they are not speaking for the small business owners I hear from--not small business owners such as Rob and Allan or the 97 percent who Democrats are here fighting to protect tax cuts for--but fighting for people such as Joseph Craft. He is a coal industry billionaire. Mr. Craft is worth an estimated $1.4 billion, according to Forbes, and Republicans are fighting to cut his taxes. They are fighting for people like Harold Simmons. He made his billions on corporate buyouts. Harold is worth an estimated $9 billion, and Republicans are fighting to cut his taxes too. And they are fighting for people such as Harold Hamm. He is an oil and gas billionaire. He is worth an estimated $11 billion. Republicans are doing everything they can to make sure their taxes do not go up a penny.

The vote on the middle-class tax cut extension is going to be very illuminating. It is going to highlight some stark contrasts and give the American people a clear view into the priorities of our two parties.

Democrats are here focused on the middle class. We want to extend the tax cuts for 98 percent of our workers and 97 percent of small business owners, people such as Rob, Allan, and Dallas, and millions more. But if Republicans do not vote for our tax cut bill, it will demonstrate clearly they do not care about certainty, they do not care about the economy, and they certainly do not care about the middle class.

Rather, they care about extending those tax cuts for the rich above all else and to use every bit of leverage they have to do it, and they are prepared to let taxes go up on every family if they do not get their way. I hope they change their tune.

They say inaction is not an option. Well, here is their chance to act for 98 percent of workers and 97 percent of small business owners. All they have to do is stop playing games and stand with us to pass their bill this week. If they do, I would be happy to have an honest debate about extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich they are so passionate about. If they do not and taxes go up on every American because Republicans insist on protecting and extending the Bush tax cuts for these guys, then they are going to have to explain that to Rob and Allen and Dallas and millions of families and business owners just like them.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester.) The Senator from Tennessee.

Thank you, Madam President. I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about a very important bill, the Violence Against Women Act. It is hard for me to believe it has actually been months now since we first came to the floor to talk about this important legislation, which is why we are here again this afternoon: to try and pass a bill into law that has consistently received broad bipartisan approval. It is a bill that passed the Senate now almost 3 months ago by a vote of 68 to 31.

The Violence Against Women Act has successfully helped provide lifesaving assistance to hundreds of thousands of women and their families. Every time we have reauthorized this bill we have included bipartisan provisions to address those who are not being protected by it. But here we are back on the Senate floor urging support for a bill that should not be controversial.

So, today, the women of the Senate and the men who support the Violence Against Women Act have come to the floor with a simple, straightforward message for our friends in the House of Representatives: Stop the games and pass the inclusive, bipartisan Senate bill without delay.

In the coming weeks we are going to be making sure this message resonates loudly and clearly both in the Nation's Capital and back home in our States because we are not going to back down, not while there are thousands of women across our country who are currently excluded from the law. In fact, for Native and immigrant women and LGBT individuals, every moment our inclusive legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act is delayed is another moment they are left without the resources and protection they deserve.

The numbers are staggering: 1 in 3 Native women will be raped in their lifetimes--1 in 3--and 2 in 5 of them are victims of domestic violence. They are killed at 10 times the rate of the national average.

These shocking statistics aren't isolated to one group of women: 25 to 35 percent of women in the LGBT community experience domestic violence in their relationships, and 3 in 4 abused immigrant women never entered the process to obtain legal status, even though they were eligible, because their abuser husbands never filed their paperwork.

This should make it perfectly clear to our colleagues in the other Chamber that their current inaction has a real impact on the lives of women across America who are affected by violence--women such as Deborah Parker.

Deborah is the vice-chairwoman of the Tulalip Tribe in my home State of Washington. Deborah was repeatedly abused starting at a very young age by a nontribal man who lived on her reservation. Not until the abuse stopped around the fourth grade did Deborah realize she wasn't the only child suffering at the hands of that assailant. At least a dozen other young girls had fallen victim to that same man.

He was a man who was never arrested for his crimes, never brought to justice, and still walks free today, all because he committed these heinous acts on the reservation and is someone who is not a member of the tribe. It is an unfortunate reality that he is unlikely to be held liable for his crimes.

Reauthorizing an inclusive VAWA is a matter of fairness. Deborah's experience and the experience of other victims of this man do not represent an isolated incident. For the narrow set of domestic violence crimes laid out in the Violence Against Women Act, tribal governments should be able to hold accountable defendants who have a strong tie to the tribal community.

I was very glad to see Republican Congresswoman Judy Biggert and several of her Republican colleagues echo these very same sentiments last week. In a letter to Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor, the Republican Members explicitly called on their party leadership to end this gridlock and accept ``Senate-endorsed provisions that would protect all women of domestic violence, including college students, LGBT individuals, Native Americans, and immigrants.''

So today we are here to urge Speaker Boehner to listen to the members of his own caucus and join us in taking a major step to uphold our government's promise to protect its people. I was so proud to have served in the Senate back in 1994 with Senator Boxer, who is here with me today, when we first passed this bill. Since we took that historic step, VAWA has been a great success in coordinating victims' advocates, social service providers, and law enforcement professionals to meet the challenges of combating domestic violence. Along with this bipartisan support, it 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 works. Where a person lives, their immigration status, or whom they love should not determine whether perpetrators of domestic violence are brought to justice. These women across this country cannot afford any further delay--not on this bill.

Today the New York Times ran an editorial on this bill that gets to the heart of where we are. It began by saying:

House Republicans have to decide which is more important:

Protecting victims of domestic violence or advancing the

harsh antigay and anti-immigrant sentiments of some on their

party's far right. At the moment, harshness is winning.

But the editorial pointed out, it doesn't have to be that way. It pointed out:

In May, 15 Senate Republicans joined with the chamber's

Democratic majority to approve a strong reauthorization bill.

Finally, it ends with what we all know we need to take this bill forward: Leadership from Congressman Boehner.

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

Today the effort we are beginning in the Senate is an effort that will continue for as long as it takes. It is a call for the same thing: Leadership. It is time for Speaker Boehner to look beyond ideology and partisan politics. It is time for him to look at the history of a bill that again and again and again has been supported and expanded by Republicans and Democrats. It is time for him to do the right thing and pass our inclusive, bipartisan Violence Against Women Act because the lives of women across the country literally depend on it.

I am delighted my colleague from California is here with me. She has been with us every step of the way in this bipartisan bill that we have moved forward. With the women and men who support us, we are going to continue to be loud and strong. We need to pass the bill, and Speaker Boehner needs to take it up for the women who are watching and waiting.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Major General Timothy J. Lowenberg for his exemplary record of service to the Washington National Guard, Washington State, and the United States of America.

MG Timothy J. Lowenberg will retire on July 31, 2012 after a distinguished career with the Washington National Guard and 44 years of military service to this country. General Lowenberg has been the Adjutant General for Washington State since September 1999 and in this role he has served as the commander of all Washington National Guard forces, Director of Washington State's Emergency Management programs, and Homeland Security Advisor to the Governor of Washington. Beyond these already extensive responsibilities, General Lowenberg is recognized nationally for his work on Homeland Security policy. In a defining mark of General Lowenberg's forward-leaning leadership, he established the Washington State Domestic Security Infrastructure in 1999, prior to the events of 9/11. This collaborative effort to establish a Statewide system capable of responding to major disaster events preceded the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security by several years.

While his list of titles would be a strong credit to any individual, an equally impressive aspect of General Lowenberg's career has been his ability to provide this leadership during one of the most dynamic periods of Washington State's history. During his tenure, General Lowenberg has led Washington State in the response to 53 Governor Emergency Proclamations, 10 Presidential Major Disaster Declarations, and one Presidential Emergency Declaration. Beyond the sheer volume of emergencies General Lowenberg has addressed during his time as Adjutant General, he has displayed great flexibility and a talent for adapting to the needs of any given situation. One of his signature accomplishments was working with me and others toward the establishment of the 2010 Olympics Security Committee and the construction of the 2010 Olympic Coordination Center. In the years that led up to the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics, General Lowenberg recognized the need for local, State, Federal, and international cooperation to ensure an effective and smooth response to the games. He managed to operate this committee without the benefit of a National Security Special Event designation, achieving the desired outcome without the benefit of additional funding.

Had General Lowenberg spent his time as Adjutant General only responding to emergencies and planning for disasters, he would still have been able to retire as one of the most accomplished Adjutant Generals in the country, but he also commanded the Washington National Guard during a time of war. Though it is easy to forget, our world looked quite different in 2001. The servicemembers who initially deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq didn't have Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, up-armored Humvees, or even the kind of extensive body armor we see today. Some National Guard members deployed to war zones without body armor, necessary equipment, or even vehicles. In the face of these hardships, General Lowenberg and the Washington National Guard stood fast and persevered. Over the last decade Washington Guard members have deployed and sacrificed alongside the Active-Duty military again and again, and in the words of former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the Washington National Guard and all State Guard members have changed from, ``a strategic reserve to an integral part of the operational force.''

While these brave servicemembers were deployed, General Lowenberg worked with me to modernize Cold War-era benefits that no longer sufficiently supported the post-9/11 Guard members and their families. Guard members deploying in the early half of the last decade were doing so without the promise of adequate veterans' benefits, without appropriate TRICARE

benefits for their families, and without the skilled behavioral health resources to keep pace with the toll that repeated deployments would eventually take. General Lowenberg pushed for improved Guard member access to TRICARE and VA benefits, and to make sure that Guard members and members of the Reserve component have improved access to the behavioral health specialists they need while they are on inactive duty or on annual training.

When these Guard members came back from deployment, they came home to a country that was well intentioned but not well prepared to receive them. When Washington Guard members began returning from their first deployments to Iraq, unemployment for some units was extremely high. I have never accepted the premise that it is acceptable for servicemembers who have sacrificed so much to return home from deployment and struggle to find work to support their families, and neither has General Lowenberg. General Lowenberg fought for funding for the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration program and to expand efforts such as the Washington State Joint Services Support Directorate, J9, program to help more Guard members find employment. The positive impact from these programs helped the men and women of the Washington Guard find stable work and these efforts became such a success that the lessons from these programs have spread throughout the country. Members of the Washington Guard now boast an unemployment rate below the national average and the work that General Lowenberg put into reducing Guard unemployment laid the foundation for my VOW to Hire Heroes Act and other efforts to help veterans access secure employment, including overhauling the Transition Assistance program for the first time in 20 years and making it mandatory.

These changes to National Guard since 1999 have been historic, but General Lowenberg has always maintained the ability to understand what is important. Out of all the memories I have of General Lowenberg, the ones that will stay with me the longest are from the catastrophic flooding that hit Washington in January 2009. The Washington State flood of 2009 caused the biggest urban evacuation in the history of the State, and I cannot begin to describe the scene that I witnessed out of the back of a Chinook as General Lowenberg and I surveyed the damage. That flood broke levees, shut down Interstate 5, and compromised the integrity of Howard Hanson Dam. Through all of that chaos and the lengthy effort to move Federal funding to repair the Howard Hanson Dam, General Lowenberg directed relief, recovery operations, and preparedness efforts with an unparalleled understanding of emergency management that didn't ignore the effects that flood and damaged dam had on small communities and individuals. Under General Lowenberg, Washington State had the best possible leadership for these and other demanding situations.

I join the people of Washington State in congratulating General Lowenberg on an impressive career, and I look forward to seeing what he will accomplish in what I know will be an active retirement.

General Lowenberg, thank you for your service. You will be missed.

Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.