Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about something very serious, which is the issue of sexual assault in the military, and in support of the Shaheen amendment which I cosponsored in the Senate Armed Services Committee markup. Today, I wrote a letter to the House majority leadership expressing my concern for this issue and asking that it be addressed immediately.

The Senate Armed Services Committee recently considered and passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, and it awaits full consideration of the Senate.

As we all know, our troops need the tools and resources to complete their mission. It is imperative that it gets brought up right away.

As a member of the committee, I joined with members of both sides of the aisle in supporting this amendment which would ensure that women who serve in our Armed Forces and their families are provided access to abortion services in cases of rape or incest.

Sadly, sexual assault of women servicemembers has been recently exposed as far more prevalent than anyone previously thought. As a matter of fact, the Pentagon believes such crimes are vastly underreported. There is evidence that there are as many as 19,000 assaults that are committed every year. That is as many as 50 each day.

Furthermore, women are serving in harm's way--we know that--and they are often in dangerous locations without access to safe, nonmilitary health services. Given their courageous service, they deserve our care and protection, put quite simply.

The language of the amendment is consistent with the longstanding Hyde amendment, which prevents Federal funding for abortions, except for the victims of rape or incest or when the life of the mother is at stake.

It is a simple issue: Those who are serving in harm's way who are victims of such horrific crimes should be afforded the same rights as citizens they protect and who rely on Federal funding for their health care.

Our amendment passed 16 to 10 on a bipartisan basis, as I referenced earlier, in committee, and I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure it remains included in the version that passes the full Senate.

As I said, unfortunately, the House Armed Services Committee did not include a similar provision in their version of the bill, and I am not quite sure why.

I urge the House Members to think about the real-world implications of their actions and not block this legislation. I hope we can work together, in a truly bipartisan and bicameral basis, to ensure that our amendment language becomes law so the President may sign it as such.

Extending these provisions to our military servicewomen is the right thing to do.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

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 for up to 10 minutes.

Madam President, I rise to speak about the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, which is a landmark piece of legislation, one that I believe has saved many lives and brought us together as Americans in standing up for what we believe is right. With this law, we have said that the United States takes domestic violence very seriously and we are taking a moral stance against it now.

In April of this year, I was proud to join a strong bipartisan group of Senators in passing S. 1925, the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Act reauthorization. Sixty-eight Senators from this Chamber supported the bill.

Many of us were moved by the personal stories coming out of our States about the critical impact of VAWA in local communities. In Massachusetts, I was inspired by the work of organizations such as Jane Doe, Inc., the North Shore Rape Crisis Center, the YWCA of Central Massachusetts, and REACH Beyond Abuse, to name a few, and there are many more. In March of this year, I visited service providers in central Massachusetts that receive VAWA funding and learned a great deal more about how VAWA is changing lives for the better.

New problems are plaguing our communities, and as times change government must adapt as well if it is going to make a difference in people's lives. Fortunately, the Senate bill includes many improvements that have been developed over time with various nonprofits in law enforcement agencies and individuals who deal with these challenges each and every day. I am very proud to be a cosponsor of what is clearly a good, thoughtful bill.

Unfortunately, following the bipartisan Senate action, the House passed a dramatically scaled-back version of the VAWA legislation that did not include core provisions that would improve the law. It seems that rather than work through some of these problems, the House was content to pass a bill that didn't address a number of growing problems facing individuals today. That is not how we legislate or how we should be legislating. We need to pass a bipartisan, bicameral bill that the President will sign.

Because the House took up a bill that didn't go far enough, the House bill passed largely along party lines, as compared to the bipartisan Senate bill we passed a short time ago. Now, once again, the House and Senate are at an impasse.

As someone who has personally experienced domestic violence up close and seen its effect on families, including mine, this is completely unacceptable.

The vast majority of the bill is broadly supported by both sides of the aisle. It is beyond frustrating that the House has become distracted by a tiny percentage of the bill that has caused gridlock. Even worse, it seems that some are willing to allow procedural technicalities to block the way forward. I have to tell you that this makes no sense to me, at a time when people's lives are potentially at stake. This bill should be done already. Women in Massachusetts and throughout the country-- survivors of violence--deserve better, and we should provide that leadership immediately.

Today I am calling on the House and Senate leadership and the committees of jurisdiction to listen to the calls from millions of Americans and come together and pass a bill that addresses critical needs in our communities and the citizens of those communities. All sides need to come together and work through the small amount of difference they have. As I have said before, in my experience, when people of good will work together and do one good deed, it begets other good deeds, and so on. We can get together in a room and work through these challenges and come up with solutions. I frequently hear from many colleagues that this is the way things used to be done around here. I yearn and work every single day I am here to get back to that way of bipartisanship and spirit of working together. I hope we can get some of that bipartisan, bicameral spirit back and pass the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization.

In closing, we need to start to look out for the people's interests, not our political and personal interests or the parties' interests but the interests of the people. We need bridge builders in this Chamber to get this bill across the finish line and on the President's desk. The challenges we face in reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act are not insurmountable; far from it. We know that. I am confident if the House and Senate leadership come together and work out our differences, we can pass a bill we can all be proud of and send it to the President's desk and save lives.

Let's put politics aside and focus on solving problems. Remember, we are not just Democrats, Republicans, or Independents, we are Americans first. We need to start to work in that vein to get things done.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in tribute to John M. ``Jack'' Connors, Jr., of Brookline, MA, a larger-than-life figure in a region with quite a few outsized personalities. A Massachusetts native, he grew up in the Roslindale section of Boston and graduated from Boston College. A born go-getter, to help pay for college Jack landed one of the greatest jobs in New England--selling hotdogs and peanuts at Fenway Park.

Not long after graduation, Jack cofounded Boston's Hill Holliday ad agency and spent the better part of 30 years as an ad man. Now a part of the Interpublic Group of Companies, Jack remains chairman emeritus of this leading agency. He is a fierce competitor in business and built hugely successful and profitable enterprises that employ tens of thousands and have contributed billions to the regional economy. In July, Jack will step down after a phenomenally successful 17-year tenure as chairman of the board of Partners Health Care Systems.

Partners began with the merger of two of our Nation's leading teaching hospitals, Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital. Of course, the real work of any merger comes after the deal is signed, and when Jack was elected chairman of Partners' board in 1996, he helped lead the integration and growth of the new not-for-profit network.

Today, Partners is the largest health care network in Massachusetts, and with over 50,000 employees, the State's largest private employer. It is also one of our Nation's great medical research centers. In fact, Partners is the largest recipient of National Institutes of Health research grants, a testament to their world-class scientists and facilities.

Jack serves on the boards of many companies and organizations, including Covidien and Hasbro. He is also a trustee of Emmanuel College, his alma mater Boston College, and is a member of Harvard Medical School's Board of Fellows.

Throughout his career, Jack has been a relentless fighter for the less fortunate in the Boston area. From an early age, Jack worked closely with Boston's leading charities, often providing pro bono ad work for these nonprofits. Jack seemed to always know that any true measure of a successful life must include helping others.

Jack worked tirelessly to save many of the Boston Archdiocese's struggling schools. As a businessman, he knew that rescuing these schools required more than throwing money at the problem--and by some estimates, Jack raised about $70 million for the cause--it also required a more businesslike approach to running these schools. So Jack encouraged the archdiocese to build parochial academies such as Pope John Paul II Catholic Academy that serve more than one parish. These academies are now models of primary education and well over 95 percent of their students go on to college.

Over the years, Jack worked closely with Boston Mayor Tom Menino on a number of important projects to help enrich the lives of at-risk youth. Among their more ambitious--and hugely successful--is Camp Harbor View. This partnership with the city and the Boys & Girls Clubs of Boston has, in a few short years, created a summer haven for nearly 800 young people on Long Island off Quincy, MA. This remarkable program has a full-time staff which stays in contact with campers and their families during the school year.

In closing, it is a privilege for me to join Jack's friends, family, and colleagues in congratulating him on his retirement from Partners. And though Jack will be leaving Partners, we can be sure he will continue to have a larger-than-life presence in the educational, cultural, and business life of Boston. I thank Jack for his tremendous service to the people of Massachusetts and wish him and his wife Eileen all the best in the years ahead.

Madam President, may I inquire as to how much time remains for the two sides?

Fifteen minutes per side? How much time remains on the other side?

That is correct.

I will defer to the senior Senator from Massachusetts.

Madam President, I appreciate the senior Senator from Massachusetts setting up that process. We have worked hand in hand to try to develop a nonpartisan, unbiased process. Quite honestly, I was deeply impressed with the way we were able to handle it and get some truly qualified candidates. It was good to work with my colleague, and I look forward to doing it again. I rise also to endorse the nomination of Judge Timothy Hillman to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

As many of you know, when I was a young man, I had a run-in with the law. It was a judge named Samuel Zoll who set me straight and served as a role model for me. No doubt Judge Zoll served as a role model for many young men and women in Massachusetts. My experience shows the ability of judges to do good in their communities.

Today we are considering the nomination of a judge who will make the Worcester, MA, area a better place. I know that for a fact, as Senator Kerry pointed out. Judge Hillman is a man of integrity who will make us proud as the next Federal judge in Massachusetts. He will have a chance to shape young people's lives, much like Judge Zoll did for me.

Before I say a few words about Judge Hillman's background, once again, I thank Senator Kerry. We have in place a process I would recommend to other Senators so they can get good jurists in their own States. We worked very closely on that nomination.

I wish to also thank the judicial nominating committee we comprised. We have, as was said, some of the most respected and experienced attorneys in Massachusetts trying to bring something very special to our State, and that is a balanced judiciary. The attorneys on the panel came from all walks of life and different areas of our State, and the judicial nominating committee reviewed many applications and interviewed nearly every applicant, took their assignment very seriously, and we are both deeply appreciative of their time and effort.

Ultimately, this bipartisan committee made several recommendations, and Senator Kerry and I then interviewed each and every one of them. It was clear during his interview that we were immediately impressed by his poise and intellect. Clearly, he understands the proper role of a judge and is deeply committed to achieving justice.

In his interview, he lived up to his reputation as a thoughtful and thorough jurist with deep ties to the community, which makes it even all the more fitting that he will remain in Worcester to do good for the people of Worcester. They respect him as one of their own and trust that he will serve them well.

Since Senator Kerry and I recommended Judge Hillman to President Obama, we have received an outpouring of support for Judge Hillman from the Worcester bar and its residents, and we are both thankful for that. His legal background also makes him uniquely qualified for this position. He is currently a magistrate judge in Worcester, MA. In that role he has been indispensable to the Federal judiciary in Massachusetts. If confirmed he will seamlessly integrate with the other members of the District of Massachusetts courts.

The bar in Worcester has a tremendous amount of confidence in him, as both Senator Kerry and I do as well. They know when they appear before the judge, they are going to get a fair shake and that he has a sharp legal mind.

In addition to his role as magistrate judge, he generously gives a significant amount of his time to bar activities. For example, in 2008, in partnership with the U.S. Probation Office, Judge Hillman established a Federal reentry court program called RESTART for high- risk ex-offenders who have been released from prison. Judge Hillman's goal in establishing RESTART was to reduce recidivism and to focus on employment skills for ex-offenders. Judge Hillman should be proud that only after a few years, RESTART is becoming a national model for reentry courts, and for that we are also thankful.

In 2009 he was appointed as the national cochair of a group of judges and support staff who are responsible for the design and implementation of the next generation of the Federal courts case management and electronic filing system.

Prior to his service as a magistrate, he served as a State trial court judge for 16 years. Before becoming a judge, Judge Hillman spent 14 years in private legal practice, giving that up, as Senator Kerry referenced, to do good public service. He served as town councilman to three towns also in Massachusetts. So it is rare to find a nominee with the diversity of experience of Judge Hillman.

It will actually also affect the people in the Presiding Officer's State who work in Massachusetts--and I would encourage and seek the Presiding Officer's vote as well. For that reason, he is a superb choice.

In closing, I enthusiastically support Judge Hillman's nomination as a Federal judge. I will be standing right up there encouraging each and every Member of both sides of the aisle to see if we can get him through almost unanimously.

I have had the opportunity to support a stellar candidate to the Federal bench before, and I am excited to do it again. I thank Senator Kerry once again for the process. We have appointed two great judges to the judicial bar back home, and it is good for Massachusetts.

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

Madam President, today I wish to congratulate LCDR Michael George Dulong of Brockton, MA on his retirement from the U.S. Navy. Lieutenant Commander Dulong dedicated more than 24 years of his life to serving our Nation as a Navy SEAL. I am privileged to recognize Michael's accomplishments today, and Massachusetts is fortunate to have a man like Michael who has served in our Navy and defended our Nation.

The grandson of a World War II Normandy beacher and the son of a decorated Vietnam-era 101st Airborne Division veteran, at an early age Michael chose to serve our Nation. He enlisted in the Navy at the age of 16 through the Delayed Entry Program and completed the Navy's basic school of electronics and electricity, followed by the basic underwater demolitions/SEAL training in Coronado, CA. He would go on to spend 8 years in the enlisted ranks serving in three platoons within SEAL Team 8 at Naval Base Little Creek in Norfolk, VA.

As a team member on SEAL Team 8, Michael deployed in support of Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm, as well as numerous other special operations deployments throughout the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf. Needless to say, as part of our Nation's premier special operations forces, Michael was integral to his Team's success and performed exceptionally in some of the most challenging and austere conditions around the world.

Michael would go on to earn his bachelor's degree while simultaneously serving on SEAL Team 4 in the Navy Reserve, followed by successful completion of Officer Candidate School in Pensacola, FL. After completing his training, Michael was commissioned as an ensign on active duty and was assigned to SEAL Team 1. There Michael would deploy as the assistant platoon commander for two SEAL platoons in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Michael always led from the front and inspired SEALs under his command throughout his career and did so again in combat following September 11.

Throughout numerous deployments around the world in support of the global war on terrorism, Michael received countless awards and promotions in the Navy. He would go on to serve in various assignments in the U.S. Southern Command area of responsibility with the Naval Special Warfare Unit 4 in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Embassy in Bogota, Colombia, combating narco-terrorism, the U.S. Embassy in Guyana as the Joint Special Operations Commander, as well as platoon commander of SEAL Team 4. His final assignment brought Michael and his family to our Nation's Capital, at the Washington Navy Yard, where he served as the program manager for the SEAL Delivery Vehicle acquisition program.

Michael has dedicated his life to serving our country, and we owe him a debt of gratitude for his service. Even in retirement, I am confident that Michael will continue to serve his Nation. On behalf of all Massachusetts residents and all Americans, I am proud to thank Michael, his wife Michaelle, son Gabriel, and daughter Eva for their service to the Nation and the Navy.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about a historic ceremony that took place in Boston Harbor--the birthplace of the American Revolution--this very morning.

This morning, the United States Navy named an Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer for retired United States Navy Captain Thomas Jerome Hudner, Jr., of Concord, MA. The ceremony took place aboard the oldest commissioned warship in our United States Navy, the USS Constitution.

As the Presiding Officer knows, it is a distinct honor for any service member to have a Navy vessel commissioned in his or her name. What made the event today extremely rare is that Captain Hudner is the Navy's last living Medal of Honor recipient from the Korean War.

As the story my colleagues are about to hear shows, no one could be more worthy of this distinction than Tom Hudner.

Tom is a native of Fall River, MA. He was a student at Phillips Exeter Academy when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. As a leader on his school's athletic fields and in its student government, naturally he responded to the call to arms. And although World War II ended before his commissioning at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Hudner began a storied Navy career that would earn him our Nation's highest military honor.

During his first few years in the Navy, Hudner served as a communications officer aboard various warships before being accepted to the Navy's flight school in Corpus Christi, TX. After earning his wings of gold, Hudner became one of the ``Fighting Swordsmen'' of Strike Fighter Squadron 32 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Leyte.

Just a few years after the racial integration of the U.S. military, Hudner began flying alongside a young ensign named Jesse LeRoy Brown, the Navy's first black pilot. Brown was born and raised in the segregated, deep south town of Hattiesburg, MS, a world away from Hudner's home in Fall River, MA.

In the summer of 1950, less than a year after Hudner finished flight school, North Korean Communist forces invaded the Republic of Korea. Within months, President Truman ordered the Leyte into action off the coast of Korea where Hudner and his wingman, Jesse Brown, immediately began flying reconnaissance and attack sorties against Communist positions. Not long after their squadron joined the fight, Chinese forces invaded the Korean peninsula and threatened to overrun U.S. positions.

There are no routine missions in wartime, especially when flying close air support over enemy positions. On the afternoon of December 4, 1950, Hudner and Brown were on a mission to destroy enemy targets near the Chosin Reservoir. About an hour into the mission, Brown's Corsair was hit by enemy fire, began to lose fuel and he was forced to crash land his aircraft into a snowy mountainside.

The events that transpired over the next few hours became enshrined in the history of American Naval aviation.

Despite exposure to hostile ground fire, Hudner continued to make low passes over Brown, who was trapped in the wreckage of his destroyed aircraft. When Hudner saw that his wingman's plane was burning, he deliberately crash-landed his own aircraft, risking his life. And though injured in the violent landing, Hudner ran to try to rescue Brown.

For Tom Hudner, never leaving your wingman was more than just a phrase he learned in flight training, it was a covenant. A short time later a rescue helicopter pilot arrived, and both he and Hudner tried in vain to free Brown from the wreckage. With night falling and Ensign Brown lapsing in and out of consciousness, Hudner was finally forced to evacuate the bitter cold crash site. Brown's final words to Hudner were to tell his wife Daisy that he loved her. He would do that in person.

On April 13, 1951, Daisy Pearl Brown was in the audience when President Harry S. Truman presented Thomas Hudner with the Medal of Honor for his heroic attempt to save Ensign Brown.

Over the next two decades, Hudner continued to serve with distinction in the United States Navy. In addition to flying many of the Navy's newest jet fighters, Hudner's career would take him from various ships and air bases where he served in positions of increasing responsibility, including as executive officer of the USS Kitty Hawk during the Vietnam War.

Hudner and Brown's wife Daisy remained friends, their lives intertwined by the events decades earlier on a snowy mountainside on the other side of the globe. In fact, the two friends would stand together at another ceremony some 22 years later when the

U.S. Navy commissioned the first American warship in honor of an African American, the USS Jesse L. Brown.

Hudner retired from the U.S. Navy at the rank of captain in 1973, and while his day-to-day service in the military would end, he continued to serve his fellow veterans through the USO and a variety of veterans' organizations. In fact, for most of the 1990s, Hudner served as commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Veterans Affairs.

Today, the newly commissioned USS Thomas Hudner will serve as a living legacy to heroism and service. Think about it for a moment. When a sailor or Marine is assigned to this ship, they will proudly tell their family and friends about Hudner and Brown. When the Hudner makes a port call, those in the communities it visits will see the ship in port and meet scores of crew members with ``USS Thomas Hudner'' stitched on their shoulder.

And when citizens around the world learn about Captain Hudner's specific act that the Navy has described as ``conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty,'' they will begin to understand what uncommon valor truly is. Tom Hudner's story will serve as an inspiration to a future generation of Americans.

Please allow me to thank Captain Hudner for his lifetime of exceptional service to our Nation and his dedication to his fellow veterans. I ask my colleagues and our Nation to join me in wishing him and his wife Georgia all the very best in the years ahead.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate is moving this week to consider the FDA Safety and Innovation Act, which is a very important piece of legislation that will help ensure Americans have access to save, innovative medical treatments by giving the FDA the resources it needs to review new products as safely and quickly as possible, while also giving the industry that certainty it needs to continue investing in new research. As I travel around Massachusetts, the No. 1 issue I find is that lack of regulatory certainty and sometimes tax certainty. This is a step in the right direction.

I am pleased that this legislation takes many steps to strengthen the medical innovation industry in the United States. I have championed one such provision with Senators McCain and Casey that will smooth the regulatory path that I referenced earlier for new, moderate-risk medical devices.

The underlying bill before us needs to be passed as quickly as possible to guarantee regulatory certainty at the FDA for the industry and its stakeholders.

However, I am disappointed the Senate has not yet taken time to address a key area of concern related to this bill; that is, the new medical device excise tax. The new 2.3 percent tax on medical device sales that was imposed in the Federal health care law will cost our economy thousands of jobs and limit Americans' access to the most groundbreaking, state-of-the-art medical devices which people need.

For the past 18 months, I have been pushing for the Senate to consider a medical device tax repeal bill that I introduced in February of 2011--one of the first bills I introduced. Today I, along with others, will be introducing an amendment to repeal this job-killing tax--a tax that will, in fact, drive up the cost of health care for patients and make our workers and our companies less competitive.

I can tell you that in Massachusetts we have over 400 medical device companies. We are an innovative State. We have the ability to have companies like these in Massachusetts, and they are employing nearly 25,000 workers and contributing over $4 billion to our economy. That is obviously a substantial industry in Massachusetts. And it affects every person throughout this country indirectly. If it goes into effect next year, this harmful tax will put American workers at a competitive disadvantage and chase jobs overseas. There are already companies, over the last year and a half, that have been looking overseas and already shifting their strategy.

Where is that 2.3 percent tax coming from? It represents, in some instances, the entire net profit for some young companies in Massachusetts and throughout the country. It will potentially cost 43,000 jobs across the country, with a loss of $3.5 billion in wages. I am not quite sure how that makes sense in anybody's book. Massachusetts alone is expected to lose over 2,600 jobs as a direct result of this tax, and up to about 10 percent of our entire medical device manufacturing workforce will be affected. The bottom line is that we cannot have this kind of job loss in any sector of our economy when we are still struggling. In Massachusetts, we have over 400 medical device companies. We do generate a tremendous amount of revenue--in the billions of dollars. So where is this tax going to come from? Is it from R&D, from growth and expansion, hiring, firing? Where? Nobody seems to know.

I can tell you that the Massachusetts companies and companies throughout the United States are deeply concerned about this. I find it surprising and disappointing that there is not a consensus to repeal the medical device excise tax which will affect States across this country. Whether it is on another bill or a stand-alone bill, we need to get it done the way we did, in a truly bipartisan, bicameral manner, on the 3-percent withholding, the 1099 fix, the hire a veteran bill or the insider trading bill. We have worked together in a bipartisan manner to get things done. It matters a great deal to Massachusetts, and it should concern every Member of this body.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my military fellow, Major Jay Rose, be granted floor privileges for the duration of my remarks.

Mr. President, I rise today in tribute to retired United States Navy Captain Thomas Jerome Hudner, Jr. of Concord, MA, a true American hero. For his uncommon valor and dedication to the highest principals of our military, the Navy announced this week it will name the Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer DDG 116 the USS Thomas Hudner.

It is a distinct honor, for an individual to have a Navy vessel commissioned in their name; it is an extremely rare honor indeed for a warship to be named after a living person. Yet there are few, if any, people more deserving of this honor than Tom Hudner.

A native of Fall River, MA, Hudner was a student at Philips Exeter Academy when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Already a leader on his school's athletic fields and in its student government, he responded to the call of duty and was admitted to the U.S. Naval Academy. Though World War II ended before his commissioning at Annapolis, Hudner began a storied Navy career that would ultimately earn him our nation's highest military honor.

During his first few years in the Navy, Hudner served as a communications officer aboard various warships before being accepted to the Navy's flight school in Corpus Christi, TX. After earning his ``wings of gold,'' Hudner became one of the ``Fighting Swordsmen'' of Strike Fighter Squadron 32 (VF 32) aboard the aircraft carrier USS Leyte. Just a few years after the racial integration of the US military, Hudner began flying with a young ensign named Jesse LeRoy Brown, the Navy's first black pilot. Brown was born and raised in the segregated deep south town of Hattiesburg, MS, a world away from Hudner's upper middle class home in Fall River and the fields of Hudner's alma mater Philips Exeter Academy.

The relative calm of post-war life as a Naval Aviator aboard the Mediterranean-based USS Leyte would not last long. In the summer of 1950, less than a year after Hudner's flight certification, North Korean Communist forces invaded the Republic of Korea. Within months, President Truman would order the Leyte into action off the coast of Korea where Hudner and his wingman, Jesse Brown, immediately began flying reconnaissance and attack sorties against Communist positions. Not long after VF 32 joined the fight, China invaded and threatened to overrun US positions.

There are no routine missions in wartime, especially when flying close air support over enemy positions. Such was the case on the afternoon of December 4, 1950 when Hudner and Brown were on a mission to destroy enemy targets near the Chosin Reservoir. About an hour into the mission, Brown's Corsair was hit by enemy fire, began to lose fuel and he was forced to crash land his aircraft into a snowy mountainside.

The events that transpired over the next few hours became enshrined in the history of American Naval Aviation.

Despite exposure to hostile ground fire, Hudner continued to make low passes over Brown, who was trapped in the wreckage of his destroyed aircraft. And, when Hudner saw that his wingman's plane was burning, he deliberately crash-landed his own aircraft and though injured in the violent landing, ran to Brown's rescue. You see for Hudner, never leaving one's wingman was more than a guideline, it was a covenant. Hudner, later a rescue helicopter pilot, tried in vain to free Brown from the wreckage. With night falling and Ensign Brown lapsing in and out of consciousness, Hudner was finally forced to evacuate the bitter cold crash site. Brown's final words to Hudner were to tell his wife, Daisy, that he loved her. He would have the chance to do just that in person. On April 13, 1951, Daisy Pearl Brown was in the audience when President Harry S. Truman presented Thomas J. Hudner, Jr. with the Medal of Honor for his heroic attempt to save Ensign Brown.

Over the next two decades, Hudner would continue to serve with distinction in the United States Navy. In addition to flying many of the Navy's newest jet fighters, Hudner's career would take him from various ships and air bases where he served in positions of increasing responsibility, including as executive officer of the USS Kitty Hawk during the Vietnam War.

Hudner and Daisy Pearl Thorne, she had since remarried, remained friends, their lives intertwined by the events decades earlier on a snowy mountainside on the other side of the globe. In fact, the two friends would be together at another ceremony some 22 years later when the US Navy commissioned the first American warship in honor of an African American, the USS Jesse L. Brown.

Hudner retired from the US Navy at the rank of captain in 1973, and while his day-to-day service in the Navy would end, this American hero would continue to serve his fellow veterans through the USO and a variety of veterans' organizations. For most of the 1990s, Hudner served with distinction as Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Veterans Affairs.

In closing, I will quote Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus:

Thomas Hudner exemplifies the core values of honor, courage

and commitment the Navy holds dear. Naming the Navy's next

DDG for him will ensure his legacy will be known, honored and

emulated by future generations of sailors and Marines who

serve and all who come in contact with this ship.

I thank Captain Hudner for his lifetime of exceptional service to our nation and his dedication to his fellow veterans and wish him and his wife Georgia all the very best in the years ahead.

Wow. That was interesting. I remember when the Senator who just spoke before me, before we left for our district work period, was praising the Republicans for working with her--one Republican specifically--and about how appreciative she was for working together and taking the time in a bipartisan manner to move forward on a very important piece of legislation that she was spearheading. We didn't filibuster that. We didn't filibuster the postal bill or the Violence Against Women Act or the crowdfunding bill or the insider trading bill. But all of a sudden we are filibustering now.

The bottom line is we want to have the opportunity to have an alternative proposal and to have a full and fair debate. I think the American people are smart. I know the American people are smarter than that.

I stand before my colleagues today to reference that most students and parents know in July the fixed interest rates on subsidized government student loans are set to double. That was very eloquently pointed out just now. But let's be clear. The vast majority of the Members of this body want to prevent that from happening. I think that is a no-brainer.

Unfortunately, today we voted on a bill that is not bipartisan. It is very clear it is not bipartisan to raise taxes on subchapter S corporations, which are the people who are doing some of the very serious job creation in this country. It is not going to pass the

House, and it is not going to pass muster with the American people. It was not negotiated in good faith, and it has no chance of passing in the House of Representatives, as I said.

Once again, we are preparing for an unnecessary political battle. That is kind of what happens. We have a rough spot with a political battle, then we do two or three things that are good. Then we get stuck again, and then we do two or three things that are really good. It is unnecessary. We need to work in good faith and negotiate a compromise instead.

A 100-percent Democratic bill isn't going to pass, I say to my colleagues. A 100-percent Republican bill isn't going to pass. It needs to be a bipartisan, bicameral bill that the President will sign. That is how we passed some of the most important pieces of legislation dealing with ethics on the insider trading bill that I was proud to sponsor with Senator Gillibrand in a bipartisan manner. We got it through and out of this Chamber and passed and signed by the President in record time.

We just passed the postal bill, the Violence Against Women Act, the crowdfunding, the jobs package. We need to work in the same manner on this matter.

With so many recent graduates unemployed or underemployed, Members of Congress need to work together to keep the interest rates where they are currently. Rather than wasting time trying to blame the other side, let's try to build some bridges as we did before we left--or I thought we had done. I was looking forward to coming back after the week off and getting right back at it and working on important things such as cybersecurity and the student loan issue.

So let's allow people of good faith to figure out how to solve these very real problems. That is why today, as I have referenced to many of my colleagues in our weekly caucuses and through e-mail, I am offering a bill that would extend the 3.4-percent rate for another year, without raising taxes, as is being proposed, or cutting sacred programs, which is also being proposed.

My bill, the Subsidized Stafford Loan Reduced Interest Rate Extension Act, would extend the subsidized rate for a year. To pay for it, I suggest using a noncontroversial option: reducing Federal improper payments.

We have all heard about the amazing amount of waste that goes on just by paying people who are dead who should not be getting their payments and also paying other entities that have either already been paid or are being improperly paid. It is millions and--sorry, billions and billions of dollars.

The bill establishes a governmentwide ``Do Not Pay List,'' and requires new audit pilot programs across Federal agencies to provide more tools to battle back and make sure we can recapture those moneys.

Let me give a few examples of the improper payments so the folks up there in the gallery listening and those who are watching on TV can kind of reference it. These are payments I hear about working as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management--a committee where Senator Carper and I have been diligently working in a bipartisan manner, once again, to try to solve problems.

Medicaid, which is the primary source of health coverage for over 50 million Americans, made an estimated $21.9 billion of our tax dollars in improper payments in 2011. The Federal-State Unemployment Insurance programs made an estimated $13.7 billion in improper payments in 2011.

SSI made an estimated $4.6 billion in improper payments in 2011.

I think, if I am not mistaken, we are looking for $6 billion to pay for this student loan extension. I just referenced almost $38 billion, $39 billion. We need $6 billion. That is it.

We spend over $1 billion in payments that are sent to dead people, as I said. Mr. President, $1 billion we pay. Can you believe that? We pay $1 billion to people who are dead. There are billions in payments that are sent to the wrong recipient, billions in incorrect amounts sent to the right recipients, and billions in payments where documentation is missing and where the recipient is not using the funds for the intended purpose.

All we have to do is be marginally successful--just marginally successful--to recover the $6 billion we need to pay for this very important student loan program. When government is so wasteful, raising taxes should not always be the first thing we look at.

How about reestablishing the trust with the American taxpayers--the people who are listening in the gallery and on TV. Why is it every single time we are going to raise taxes on one particular group or another? This time we are going after the small business owners, the subchapter S corporation owners.

I am not saying my bill is the only answer. But it does provide a neutral starting point for both sides to come together in a truly bipartisan manner, as we have done before, to find a solution with which we can all live. I am willing to work with my colleagues, and I am willing to consider all options that will allow us to move forward. If we fail to act, we will burden our students who are going to college with an extra $1,000 in student loan interest--just because we could not find a compromise. Pretty simple.

The student loan situation, as we are all discussing and has been discussed throughout this country through various media outlets and the like--and they are focusing more and more and more on this issue, which I think is critical--we need to start a national conversation about addressing the primary issue affecting families with kids in college: the cost of annual tuition, room and board.

Between 2000 and 2010, the cost of tuition, room and board rose 36 percent, and that is after adjusting for inflation. That means students are now paying one-third more for the same education they would have gotten 10 years ago. Looking at previous decades shows a similar trend: From 1990 to 2000, the increase was 26 percent; from 1980 to 1990, it was 37 percent.

Why are students paying so much more for the same education? As we know, it is a huge problem for families.

While tuition is skyrocketing, there is still a total lack of transparency when it comes to schools' financial decisions. If the recent reports of outrageous administrator and faculty compensation packages are any indication, it would seem students and parents-- students and parents--are funding administrators' and faculty members' million-dollar salaries.

Instead of being surprised by every new expose of outrageous pay packages, I propose increasing transparency by requiring schools to post their financial disclosures online, right in front, right on their Web sites, so everyone can see them. This would not be hard to do. In fact, the IRS already requires nonprofit institutions of higher education to file the IRS Form 990 yearly, which includes disclosure of the compensation packages for the highest paid employees. It also provides a financial snapshot of schools' finances and also how schools choose to spend tuition dollars.

Making the information available so easily online will increase transparency and allow students and parents and the general public to check the schools' spending decisions--way before they make headline news. On the outrageous pay issues, sunlight may help begin to solve the spending problem associated with the high cost of education.

No one disputes the importance of a college education, but we are setting our students up for failure by giving them above-market student loans and not requiring our schools to be transparent about their financial operations.

So my suggestion is, let's work together. Let's not fail our students. It is time we finally focused the Federal Government on how we can set our students up for success instead of failure.

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

Madam President, I thank my colleagues for their support on final passage of this critical piece of legislation.

This is an important first step forward towards putting the Postal Service on a path for solvency and success in the future.

The long-term survival of the Postal Service is an issue that touches every single home, community, and business in this country, including in my home State of Massachusetts. Its poor financial health is a real problem.

There is an envelope company in Worcester that has had to recently lay off almost a third of its workforce because incoming orders have dropped by a quarter from last year. The owner says his customers have told him that they have stopped mailing because of the unknown future of the Postal Service. This is but one example of the impact that a failing Postal Service has on businesses large and small across the country.

So, that is why I am so pleased that we can show the American people that, yes, once again the U.S. Senate can come together in a bipartisan manner and solve real problems.

In a Congress infamous for gridlock and division, the passage of this bill is proof positive of the results when we work together in good faith.

Reforming the Postal Service is no easy task and there are no easy answers. Millions of jobs, a trillion-dollar mailing industry, and an institution as old as this Nation are all at stake.

But this shows that a majority of Members here knew that resolving the crisis at the Postal Service would require a balanced approach, some difficult decisions, and a lot of compromise to see a bill passed.

We all recognize the new business environment that the Postal Service operates in, but we also know that the focus had to be on helping the Postal Service sustain their customer base in that environment, not surrender to it.

I am proud of this bill and the example this sets for the power of bipartisanship for the rest of this session.

The other cosponsors--Senators Lieberman, Collins, and Carper have been setting this example for some time. I have been proud to be in their company on this bill and thank them for their leadership on this important issue.

With the recent passage of the STOCK Act and the crowdfunding bill, I feel like we have all been on kind of a streak lately. I hope that it continues and that our colleagues in the House can now take our lead and pass a balanced postal reform bill as well. The Postal Service is running out of time and they cannot afford any further delay.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for speaking on this important issue. This is something that is ratepayer costs, not taxpayer dollars. It is something we have worked on for a couple months. All of a sudden we are here at the end now and everybody is saying, by the way, we cannot do it.

Bottom line: If we don't do this and pass it, we will not have a Postal Service. This is something we recognize--there is a new business environment that the Postal Service operates under but one focused on sustainment. If we don't give them the tools to do that, we are going to be losing the Postal Service.

There is a misconception somehow out there that there is a bailout going on. These are dollars that are ratepayer dollars, not taxpayer dollars. Our bill doesn't prevent the Postal Service from making changes or streamlining operations, but it ensures that it rolls out changes in a deliberate and responsible manner. It is fair to the employees and gives postal customers the ability to continue to use the service, provide short-term relief without taxpayer funding--that FERS overpayment of between $7 billion and $10 billion, part of which we can use to help reduce the workforce without even blinking. It is a no- brainer.

It provides long-term relief as well, curbside delivery, administrative efficiencies and other reforms, retiree health care restructuring. It focuses its primary attention on the primary costs, the controversial Postal Service closures, going from 5-day service to 6-day service. Listen, both sides are highly charged on these issues. Had they been involved in the conversations of upward of 400 hours between staff and Members working on these things, we could have worked through those, instead of waiting until, once again, the end hour to get on these issues.

Once again, I am with Senators Lieberman, Carper, and Collins, obviously, in my effort to continue to move this bill forward so we can have a good conversation about how to reestablish that trust between the American ratepayer, taxpayer, and the Postal Service. We need to do this.

It is very important for us to do it. We need to move on and focus on the things that matter. This matters. I want to make sure I can send my mom a card. I want to make sure we can continue to keep our people employed. I want to make sure we have an institution that will be viable into the next century. I hope we will move forward.

I yield the floor.

I also want to, as a cosponsor of this important piece of legislation, commend Senators Bennet and Blunt for working together in a truly bipartisan way to make sure we get another good addition to this bill. I agree the communities affected by postal closings should have that strong advocacy to protect them against arbitrary and capricious closings. This bill also asks the Strategic Advisory Commission, established in our bill, to look into how other Federal and State agencies and the Postal Service might enter into interagency agreements in order to better utilize the services and improve efficiencies as referenced by the Senator from Colorado.

They are both fine improvements, and I and the prime sponsors of the amendment support this amendment.

I thank the Chair.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Irene Davey of Attleboro, MA, who on January 26, 2012, turned 104 years of age. It is a privilege for me to join her family, friends and veterans everywhere in extending warm wishes to Irene.

In March of 1943, Irene joined the U.S. Army and served until November 1945. Irene had a distinguished military career where she earned the rank of staff sergeant. She was part of a force of about 351,000 women who served in World War II. Irene served in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps and was assigned to motor transport.

While serving in the Army, Irene directly contributed to the success of the motor corps by training the other women in the auxiliary corps to drive trucks and provide vehicle maintenance. One of her duties while serving in the motor corps included transporting sick and injured soldiers home by ambulance. She even became a recruiter, using what she had learned in the Army to bring in the next generation of soldiers.

Irene understood the true meaning of shared sacrifice. The motto of the time was ``release a man to help your man.'' According to Irene it meant that if a woman could take a man's job, that man was released to join the armed forces. That made the armed forces stronger, helping your man who was in the armed forces be that much safer.

After World War II, Irene continued her service by becoming a warden at the election polls in her hometown of Attleboro. Irene is an exceptional woman who has served her country and community in many ways. Irene has been a champion for veterans all her life and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts owes her its deepest gratitude.

There is nothing Irene likes more than hearing someone thanking a veteran for their service. Today, however, the Senate recognizes Irene Davey the poet, songwriter, and lifelong public servant.

Irene has witnessed many wonderful events during her long and distinguished life. Throughout her years, she has demonstrated that one person can make a difference. It is people as dedicated as Irene who continue to make a difference in this world. Others should take notice and become inspired by the example that she has set.

I would like to thank Irene for her tremendous service to our country and our communities. I know that her family and friends, as well as the people of Massachusetts are extremely proud of her selfless service.

Mr. President, I object in order to ask a question as well.

Yes.

I wish to ask a question, Mr. President.

Yes.

Mr. President, I would yield to the Senator from Michigan for 15 seconds.

Mr. President, I concur with the Senator from Tennessee. Listen, we need to step back and move back a little bit. This is a bill of which I am a cosponsor. I work very hard. I note in the majority leader's comments he referenced Senators Carper, Lieberman, and Collins. But I spent an equal amount of time working on this bill and I am a cosponsor. I care very deeply about our postal workers and the security and the viability of the post office itself.

I am hopeful also that the majority leader will step back because before we left we had 2 great weeks of working on relevant issues. We had the insider trading bill, which passed 96 to 3. The leader allowed us to have a couple of days to get our Members in order, not 4 hours.

We should have the ability, when we have amendments or issues that involve our Members--they should have the right to bring them forward in any form they want, and we should have the ability to get together with them before we move on to another totally different, very important issue, such as the Violence Against Women Act, of which I am also a cosponsor. So I do not care which one we go to.

But this one is relevant. It is time sensitive. It needs to be addressed right away. I have been honored to work with Senator Carper once again and Senator Lieberman once again and Senator Collins once again, working on something that can be very important and will be very important for our country.

We are here today because the post office is clearly at a crossroads. They are in deep trouble. For more than two centuries it has played a key role in both our economy and our communities, and for decades communities large and small and citizens far and wide have come to depend on the regular and dependable mail service 6 days a week for a reasonable price.

It is plain and simple that in the past a steady volume of mail has provided that adequate revenue. But things have changed. Yet in the face of the technological changes and difficult economic conditions, first-class mail volume, as we know, has dropped by over one-quarter in the last 5 years. It is forecasted to do the same thing over the next 5 years, and the business model that proved successful for generations is now sinking the Postal Service in a pool of red ink.

As we all know, they have lost over $13 billion--billion dollars--in the last 2 years. They are almost on the verge of bankruptcy. As we know, the workforce is too big, costs are too high, and operations are being maintained that are unequal to the revenue that is actually coming in. We need to stop that right away. The number of delivery addresses increases every day, and the Postal Service's liability to its employees grows each and every day. The longer we wait, the more difficult it becomes. We are up against a deadline. We do need to work together in a bipartisan, bicameral manner.

This is not about Democrats and Republicans or Independents. It is about us as a body showing once again--trying to reestablish that trust with the American people--that, my goodness, the Senate can do things together, as we did with the crowdfunding jobs bill, as we did with the Arlington Cemetery bill, as we have done with the 3-percent withholding, and as we have done most recently with the insider trading. We can do these things. This is a no-brainer.

Everybody here agrees we need to save the post office, and we all have some very real concerns: rural concerns, city concerns, everybody has concerns. We should have the ability to have these aired, and we need to do it right now.

I would once again encourage the majority leader to step back from the path he has chosen to move on to another bill because one Member had a deep concern about what is happening in Egypt, as many of us do. Would it hurt to give him his 15 minutes and then move on? I just do not get it. It is such a disservice to the American people.

We need to put the Postal Service on the path to solvency right away--right away. The bill that has been brought here has been worked on between our four offices probably 300 or 400 hours easy. Throw in the office hours for all our staff, it is probably upwards of 1,000 hours we have been working on this bill.

This is something I speak to our constituents of, working with Congressman Lynch in Massachusetts and others, to try to make sure we can have a plan, a good base, a good starting point. We may not agree on everything. But I will tell you, we all agree we need to save the U.S. Postal Service. We need to give them the tools and the resources to do their job and be viable and competitive into the new century. We all agree on that.

So we have a little hiccup, then we are going to move on to another bill. Once again, it is just as important, and I am happy to move on to it. I am a cosponsor. But come on. We deserve to give the American people better. We should be doing better. We need to recognize and address right away the serious financial condition of the post office and provide it with the flexibility to cut costs but do so in a way that is responsible to its employees and considerate of the customers who are continuing to use their service, to grant them the ability to find ways to increase revenue and innovate without competing with private industry or giving them an unfair advantage over private industry. That is a good thing.

We also want to make sure rates do not rise abruptly. That is also a good thing. We need to ensure that the Postal Service maintains a certain standard of service so it will have business and individuals who want to continue to use that service.

It is a delicate balancing act, with little disagreement on that. There is also little disagreement that the current size in both workforce and postal operations is neither sustainable nor required for the long term. We must reduce costs and we need to have greater efficiencies, and they must be found if the Postal Service is to survive and thrive in the future. The Postal Service still plays a significant role in our economy; we all know it. There is a standard they have to hit, and we all demand it.

I fear that if we don't pass this bill, the Postal Service will continue to advocate for a more aggressive approach. We are up against a deadline. If we fail to address this, the Postmaster General will have the ability to do things that I think will not be in the best interests of everybody in this Chamber and the American citizens. We can provide different tools that he would be able to use, and we would be able to have input on that.

In Massachusetts, the Postal Service has made plans to close four main processing facilities and dozens of post offices. Yet there has been a lack of detailed explanation provided to government leaders--me and others--and employees or the surrounding communities to fully justify these changes as both necessary and prudent. We can do better and should do better.

Eliminating the overnight delivery standard or days of delivery will be transformational shifts in service. We don't know whether those are appropriate. Little is known about the combined impact these major changes will have on the postal customers or future revenues.

Mr. President, as we know, volume declines means decreased revenue for some and driving costs up and getting those costs under control are driving users away at alarming rates. These plans require a thoughtful consideration of alternative solutions, public input, and cautious implementation. We have, in fact, done that with our bill. We have sat down, as I said, for more hours than I can tell you trying to work through every issue. We have met with the players ad nauseam to try to make sure we address each and every consideration, including Members of this Chamber. There are Members on the other side who have their own ideas how to fix this. We have amendments here, also, and people want to address their issues.

Since when do we bring up a bill and do it in a day--especially something like this, which is so massive and affects so many people and an entire industry. We are going to do it in a day or 2 days. Even when we did insider trading, we did it in 4 or 5 days. This bill, I figure, is a good 6 to 8 days of hard-core debating, letting people come up with ideas for trying to rescue this important industry.

I and others in this Chamber want the postal employees to be treated fairly. We recognize their dedication and their service in this bill. We have over 100,000 employees eligible for retirement today. Rather than advocating for layoff authority, our bill provides a means for the Postal Service to increase attrition rates through buyouts and separation incentives to leave the post office voluntarily and with dignity. That is deeply important to me.

Additional provisions in the bill include long-overdue improvements to the Federal Workers' Compensation Program, a more affordable schedule of prefunding the retiree health benefit trust fund, and encouraging eligible retirees to join the Medicare rolls.

These are no doubt difficult times for the Postal Service, and some very tough choices are going to be made. So far in this legislative session, the Senate has shown that there are issues, as

I said in my presentation, on which we can find bipartisan solutions. In closing, I am confident this is one of them, and I look forward to having our bill heard and we get back on track, have the leader step back and allow us to come up with an agreement of relevant amendments and do the people's business.

I am grateful for the leadership Senators Lieberman, Collins, and Carper have shown on this issue over the years. I look forward to working on this bill with them.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I agree with the statements of the Senator from Arizona about the majority leader and allowing us to actually work on relevant amendments that are important to each and every person in this Chamber, to make sure we can address those very real issues, to move not only this issue forward but to try to attempt to rescue the Post Office.

I also agree with him in his commenting on some of the deals that were cut by the Postmaster General in dealing with contracting. We actually have spoken about this many times. I asked the Postmaster General personally what was the thought process associated with entering into a contract? Did you want us to be the bad guys? What was the thought process there? Our hands are somewhat tied in dealing with some of these legislative issues.

There is nobody I respect more than the Senator who just walked out of this Chamber but I have to respectfully disagree. During our many long hours of deliberation between staff and cosponsors we wrestled with many things that were brought up in his presentation. With all due respect, I read many other articles that comment we are moving boldly to try to rescue the Post Office, taking into consideration everybody-- not only the union workers but obviously the Postmaster General, the citizens--i.e., the users of the Postal Service, and everybody in this Chamber.

The impending financial crisis at the Post Office I can tell you is foremost in our minds. It was the only consideration we had, was trying to make the Post Office viable for future generations to use. That is the only consideration we had. The fact that we are here today, and I guess are not going to be able to move forward on this, is mind- boggling. But any legitimate reform of the Postal Service has to recognize we need to cut costs and streamline an organization that is too big, especially in light of the future mail volumes and the decreasing of future mail volumes. Our bill recognizes this, but where it differs from the approach of the Senator from Arizona is in our recognition of the full impact that major service changes will have on postal customers and future revenues.

The Saturday delivery service of the Post Office is one of the strongest benefits it has. When you are competing with the other entities delivering mail or delivering packages and the like, that is the leg up that the Postal Service has. We want to deliver that.

As a matter of fact, I want to address two other things. It is not the taxpayers who are paying this money. It is the ratepayers who have already paid into the system and have in fact overpaid into the Postal Service in some of their retirement issues, the retirement

program that we have. We are merely giving them that money back to allow them to get their financial house in order in order to offer some buyouts, to get these 100,000 people retired so we can reduce the cost of the Postal Service.

Once we make these changes, the Senator from Arizona also referenced that it is going to take a 2-year study? No, it is not a 2-year study to see if we are going to cut down Saturday service. They want to cut it right off. If we do all these other changes, the consideration we did in a joint and bipartisan manner was to determine whether, in fact, if we had done these, do we still need to cut the Saturday service? Which, by the way, is the benefit the Postal Service has over everybody else. Are we going to contribute to that downward spiral or are we actually going to work together and give them the little bit of flexibility, to say we have done all these changes, we don't need to cut Saturday delivery?

We still do it. We may need to streamline it. We may need to do curbside instead of going to the door. We may need to do clusters, shift it in some rural areas. But we have cut retirees. We have cut, consolidated--we have done everything. That is what the 2-year study is: If it doesn't work, we will do it. But to cut off your nose to spite your face makes no sense to me.

As the Postal Regulatory Commission has pointed out time and time again, the assumptions on customer and revenue impact as a result of these proposals have been weak at best and nonexistent at worst. We need to make sure when and if we give the Postmaster General the ability to do these certain things, he is going to do them. There are no two ways about it. He needs to draw a line in the sand and, more importantly, get everybody in the same room. I cannot imagine that our postal employees, whatever union they are from, want to have the Post Office go bankrupt and go out of business. I can't imagine there are people listening who don't want to get their cards from their grandchildren, get their checks, magazines, these things they are accustomed to.

I am listening to the Senator and I am signing letters I am going to be putting in the mail. How ironic is that. I am sitting here signing letters and the Senator, for whom I have great respect, says we communicate by this cell phone--yes, but the personal touch and that feeling of how you feel I think is best expressed right here. That is why I take the time and effort to respond, not only to my constituents, to my family and friends. Call me old fashioned. I think there is something worth saving here and that is what I am working on.

Let me say, by the way, about the Senator from Connecticut, what a legacy he is going to leave. We just did the insider trading bill. Without Senator Collins' and Senator Lieberman's help that never would have come to fruition, had they not actually had the guts to move that forward. What a legacy to leave.

Then to actually have another legacy, to save the United States Post Office? They may actually name it after the Senator. I will make that effort, the Joe Lieberman Post Office. That will be great.

And I will put it in Massachusetts. How about that?

You need to have a sense of humor around here. Trust me, sometimes you have to laugh at some of the things that happen here.

But in all seriousness, we need to take these drastic steps in order to provide for the economic viability of the Postal Service. In our bill, S. 1789, we will have a better way. The likelihood of the House bill passing is, I am understanding, quite remote. But there is a good likelihood that we can actually get this out first if the majority leader lets us move forward and get it out the door and put the pressure on the House to join with us in a bicameral way.

I want to say I was honored to be part of this effort to rescue the Post Office, as I have been honored to work on everything in our committee. We are going to miss the Senator very much. I said that before and I am not kidding. I know Senator Collins feels the same way. To do these two major pieces of legislation, I am excited to see what else we can do before the Senator leaves.

With that in mind, I will yield the floor and note I am excited to continue to work on this very important initiative. I encourage the majority leader to allow us to move forward and get this done and then we will move on to the Violence Against Women Act. As I said before, I am a cosponsor of both. As I said before, I am a cosponsor of both, so flip a coin--either way I win. It is ``heads'' on both sides. This is time sensitive. But it is until May 15, if I am not mistaken, in order for us to do it and have some control over these cuts; otherwise, you could see Draconian cuts, willy-nilly, with no input from us at all and no protection for our constituents.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish rise to speak about jobs and the Massachusetts innovation economy.

In July 2010, the Kauffman Foundation noted that ``startups aren't everything when it comes to job growth. They're the only thing.'' In fact, the Kauffman Foundation found that ``without startups, there would be no net job growth in the U.S. economy.'' In Massachusetts, where we have the second largest venture capital market in the country, venture capital helps drive our innovation technology. Massachusetts public companies that were once venture-backed start-ups account for 775,151 jobs and $190 billion in revenue in the United States.

However, in the current economic climate, institutional investors are wary of investing in ideas that carry significant entrepreneurial and technological risk. With a high risk of failure and often a lack of collateral, small start-up companies cannot qualify for traditional commercial loans. Alternative capital markets are therefore critical to these engines of future economic prosperity. To give entrepreneurs and start-ups the access to capital they need to get their businesses off the ground, I introduced the Democratizing Access to Capital Act--S. 1791--to legalize crowdfunding on November 2, 2011. Crowdfunding will create a new alternative market for capital formation by allowing every American--regardless of income or wealth--to invest in a start-up or a great idea. And according to an economic model by Regional Economic Models, Inc.--REMI, crowdfunding has the potential to increase the number of start-ups by 10 percent, potentially creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

Recognizing that crowdfunding could provide a huge new growth engine for the Massachusetts tech sector and the Internet, our brightest economic frontier, I wrote to President Obama on February 3, 2012 to ask for his help in urging the Senate to pass crowdfunding legislation. On February 27, 2012, I hosted a roundtable with Massachusetts entrepreneurs and small businesses at Boston City Hall. And on February 29, 2012, I called on my colleagues to work together and pass a crowdfunding bill in a speech from the Senate floor.

At the same time, entrepreneurs from the Cambridge Innovation Center created a petition to show Congress their support for crowdfunding. These entrepreneurs founded wefunder.com to rally support for crowdfunding. On March 5, 2012, wefunder.com and MassChallenge, a not- for-profit organization dedicated to supporting the work of entrepreneurs, hosted a roundtable on crowdfunding in Boston. As of March 26, 2012, 3 thousand investors pledged to invest $7.5 million when crowdfunding becomes legal.

On March 8, 2012, the House of Representatives passed the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act by a vote of 390 23, which included crowdfunding legislation. President Obama also issued a statement in support of the JOBS Act. Although my focus was on legalizing crowdfunding, I felt that the JOBS Act bill lacked basic investor protection standards that would give investors some confidence and help the market grow. I worked with Senators Michael Bennet and Jeff Merkley to introduce a bipartisan compromise crowdfunding bill, the CROWDFUND Act--S. 2190, on March 13, 2012. On March 22, 2012, the Senate passed the CROWDFUND Act as an amendment to the JOBS Act, which was approved by a vote of 73 26.

The CROWDFUND Act sets the framework for developing a new market in which entrepreneurs can raise capital and ordinary investors can invest in new ideas. To create a new marketplace for investment, the CROWDFUND Act creates investor protections that are designed to balance entrepreneurs' ease of access to capital with the need for transparency.

In prescribing requirements for issuers, the CROWDFUND Act addresses the importance of providing investors accurate information. While financial disclosures are necessary for investors to make wise investment decisions, the importance of disclosure should be balanced with individuals' right to privacy. The SEC should therefore, under its rulemaking authority provided in Section 4A(b), clarify that entrepreneurs will not be asked to disclose individual personal tax returns. In addition, while the bill clearly states that issuers should be liable for material misrepresentations or omissions, issuers should not be held liable for misstatements or omissions that were made by mistake. The standard of liability for issuers as described in Section 4A(c) should be ``due diligence.'' In other words, issuers must do their ``due diligence'' to make sure that the information that they are providing to potential investors is accurate. This is a widely accepted liability standard.

Although issuers may not advertise the specific terms of an offering, the CROWDFUND Act ensures that issuers are allowed to generally advertise their offerings through email and social media channels, as long as the intermediary website remains the location for all offerings. Potential investors should be given enough information about offerings to spark their interest. To discourage fraudulent operators, provide proper investor education and ``crowdvetting'' of opportunities by impartial third parties, issuers should not be allowed to encourage investment

outside of the intermediary. In addition to facilitating communication between issuers and investors, intermediaries should allow fellow investors to endorse or provide feedback about issuers and offerings, provided that these investors are not employees of the intermediary. Investors' credentials should be included with their comments to aid the collective wisdom of the crowd.

Regulated intermediaries are necessary for investor protection; however, intermediaries should not be over-regulated. Specifically, none of the requirements placed on intermediaries should prevent an intermediary or funding portal from removing or preventing the public display of an offering that it deems not credible. To guarantee the quality of offerings, intermediaries should be able to employ a Kickstarter-like process, in which the staff of an intermediary determines which issuers are invited to present their offerings to site visitors. Intermediaries should also be allowed to inform its users about offerings that may interest them, provided that this is not explicitly or implicitly recommending the offering to an investor. Although intermediaries must only provide offering proceeds to issuers once the issuers' target offering amount is reached, intermediaries should not be required to escrow proceeds.

To streamline the offering process, it makes sense to allow intermediaries to place a hold on investor credit cards until an offer is fully subscribed. At that time, investors' credit cards should be charged and the proceeds immediately transferred to the issuer. Intermediaries should also be permitted to act as the holder of record for offerings that they facilitate to reduce compliance complexity for issuers and to increase the likelihood of subsequent funding from institutional investors. Providing holder of record services will reduce compliance complexity for issuers and place the burden of managing crowdfunded investors on the intermediary. Without this mechanism, issuer capitalization tables may become unwieldy, discouraging subsequent funding from institutional investors. In addition, intermediaries should be allowed to take an equity stake in offerings. This however, does not mean that intermediaries should be able to choose which offerings to participate in but rather it should be a standard process for any offering that the intermediary facilitates. This will incentivize an intermediary to focus on issuer quality over quantity, providing more vetting for investors and greater alignment of interests. Of course, any equity stakes by the intermediary must be fully and meaningfully disclosed to investors. Of course, any equity stakes by the intermediary must be fully and meaningfully disclosed to investors. The SEC should carefully monitor any developments in this area and adjust practices, including restricting the ability for intermediaries to take equity positions, should fraud or manipulative practices arise.

Although the CROWDFUND Act requires intermediaries to register with the SEC and become members of a self-regulatory association, all rules, regulations and registration requirements should be developed with minimal burden and cost to the intermediaries. The SEC and any relevant self-regulatory association should bear in mind that these costs will ultimately be passed through to issuers--costs should not undermine the goals of crowdfunding to create low-burden alternative means of raising capital. In addition, the crowdfunding community may develop its own self-regulatory association to specifically oversee crowdfunding intermediaries.

While preemption of State securities law is necessary for crowdfunding to function, State securities regulators should play a role in crowdfunding offerings. In addition to allowing limited State securities registration, State should retain its authority to take enforcement action with regard to any issuer or intermediary. Further, where state authority is not specifically preempted, the SEC will not presume preemption. State securities regulators are the first line of defense against fraud and their ability to continue to combat fraud should not be curtailed.

Finally, I urge the SEC to take seriously the statutory directive to complete within 270 days of enactment the rulemaking necessary to make the law effective. Crowdfunding entrepreneurs and intermediaries are eagerly awaiting the rules to take full advantage of crowdfunding's potential to unlock capital for start-ups and small businesses. Based on my office's interactions with the SEC, I believe that the SEC is committed the success of this new market, and the rulemaking should be easily completed within 270 days.

Few entrepreneurs take a new start-up to a mature company on their own. New ideas need the support of investors to survive and thrive. Investments power payrolls across our nation and every sector. It's the grease that keeps the gears in the American economy turning. Crowdfunding will allow small businesses to bypass Wall Street and go straight to Main Street for financing. We know that new businesses are the source of all of the net job creation in the United States. This CROWDFUND Act provides an avenue for new growth for that crucial sector with unlimited potential.