Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, just last month we commemorated Memorial Day. Memorial Day is a day of remembrance, a day of mourning, and a day of gratitude. It is a day when Americans from all walks of life gather to thank and honor the people we have lost, to honor the men and women who gave their lives in service to our country, and to acknowledge a debt that can never truly be paid.

I rise today to honor Army SSG Israel Nuanes. Staff Sergeant Nuanes died on Saturday, May 12, while serving in Kandahar Province in Afghanistan. He was fatally injured by the detonation of an improvised explosive device. He was 38 years old.

In the decade that our Nation has been at war in Afghanistan, thousands of men and women have volunteered to serve our country. In order to protect others, they put their own lives at risk. They leave their homes and their loved ones to defend the freedoms we hold dear. Nearly 2,000 of them, thus far, will not come home.

Staff Sergeant Nuanes was from Las Cruces, NM. He lived most of his adult life as a soldier. He was assigned to the 741st Ordnance Company, 84th Explosive Ordnance Disposal Battalion, 71st Ordnance Group. He served two tours of duty in Iraq. After returning from Iraq in 2010, he enlisted for 6 more years. His unit deployed to Afghanistan earlier this year.

Time and again he answered the call of his country. President Kennedy said:

Stories of past courage . . . can teach, they can offer

hope, they can provide inspiration. But, they cannot supply

courage itself. For this, each man must look into his own

soul.

In Iraq, in Afghanistan, wherever his country needed him, Staff Sergeant Nuanes had that courage. Despite the danger, despite the risk, he went where his country sent him with commitment, with determination, and with an unflinching sense of duty. He was awarded the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart. There is sorrow in his death, but also inspiration in his life.

This courageous soldier loved his family. He loved his country. He made the ultimate sacrifice defending it. He leaves behind two children, Israel and Laurissa. He has left them far too soon.

Abraham Lincoln said it best almost 150 years ago. There is little our words can do to add or detract on these solemn occasions. But I offer my deepest sympathies to the family of SSG Israel Nuanes. We honor his courage, we honor his sacrifice, and we mourn your loss.

Health Care

Mr. President, we have all heard the historic ruling on the Affordable Care Act today. I know the Presiding Officer has been following this closely. We all have been following this closely. The Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable Care Act.

The Affordable Care Act has moved us forward, but now the call on the Republican side is for full repeal of the law. So it seems their legislative objective is going to be to introduce a piece of legislation--and we will have a vote on the Senate floor--for full repeal. I wish to remind New Mexicans in particular what is at stake when we talk about full repeal.

First of all, insurance companies today, with the Affordable Care Act in place, cannot deny coverage if a person has a preexisting condition. That is something that is tremendously important to New Mexicans. If someone has a young child who has cancer and they

have to get insurance, they can't deny them because of a preexisting condition.

There is no doubt that we can improve upon the law, but New Mexico has already received more than $200 million in grants and loans to establish an insurance exchange, strengthen community health centers, train new health professionals, and so much more.

Since passing the law, more than 26,000 young adults under 26 years old have been allowed to stay on their parents' insurance plans. Almost 20,000 New Mexico seniors on Medicare received a rebate to help cover prescription costs when they hit the doughnut hole in 2010. And 285,000 New Mexicans with private health insurance no longer have to pay a deductible or copay for preventive health care such as physicals, cancer screenings, and vaccinations. More is yet to come under the Affordable Care Act.

So this is the contrast: There are some who are calling for full repeal; there are others of us who recognize that there are significant accomplishments, and we want to work further with the other side in a bipartisan way to put aside partisanship and move forward with improving our health care system.

I note the absence of a quorum.

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 June 28, 2012, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``The Need for Privacy Protections: Is Industry Self-Regulation Adequate?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 28, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 28, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``The Law of the Sea Convention (Treaty Doc. 103-39): Perspectives from Business and Industry.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 28, 2012, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on June 28, 2012, at 11 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 Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 28, 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 Session on June 18, 2012, at 2:30 p.m., to hold an African Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Economic Statecraft: Embracing Africa's Market Potential.''

Madam President, I have filed an amendment relating to the Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program that I would like to bring to Senator Stabenow's attention.

As the Senator knows, the Outreach and Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program, also known as the ``2501 Program,'' helps our Nation's historically underserved producers gain access to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's credit, commodity, conservation, and other programs and services.

The program provides competitive grants to educational institutions, agriculture extension offices, and community-based organizations to assist African-American, Native American, Asian-American, and Latino farmers and ranchers in owning and operating farms and participating in USDA programs. The Outreach and Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program has served more than 100,000 rural constituents in over 400 counties and more than 35 States.

In my State many farmers and ranchers have benefited from projects funded through the 2501 Program.

I will just mention a few.

The New Mexico Acequia Association uses a 2501 grant to improve the sustainability and economic viability of small-scale agriculture among the farmers and ranchers who are part of the historic acequias and community ditches in New Mexico. With this funding the association supports centuries-old irrigation systems and agricultural traditions.

The Northern New Mexico Outreach Project, run by the New Mexico State University Cooperative Extension Service, is also working in my State to develop an education network system between northern New Mexico Hispanic and American Indian farmers and ranchers.

And with the help of 2501 funding, the Taos County Economic Development Corporation is revitalizing ranching and farming traditions that support the cultures of the area, utilizing new technologies and marketing opportunities.

Thanks to the efforts of the committee, the Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program can now also extend benefits to veterans.

My amendment would have provided additional funds to support the traditional and new constituencies of the program by increasing direct funding for the program to $150 million over 5 years.

It would continue assistance to disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. And ensure that veterans are fully able to benefit from the program.

The committee mark of the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012 includes $5 million in annual mandatory funds for the Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program and $20 million in annual discretionary funds for the program.

I hope that the Senator and her committee will work with me and with the Appropriations Committee to ensure adequate funding is allocated to the 2501 Program through the Appropriations process in the coming years.

I thank the Senator. I am certain she is aware that the USDA's Office of Inspector General released a preliminary audit report in May finding a level of mismanagement of the 2501 Program within the Office of Advocacy and Outreach, or OAO. The report found that OAO officials had not adhered to the agency's draft policies and procedures and did not carry out proper documentation during the selection of 2012 grant recipients.

The OAO has had an immediate and deliberate response to the report. The previous manager of the Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Outreach Program has been replaced, the office is putting in a more long-term staff, and the 2012 applicants and grant recipients are being reevaluated.

As the Senator knows, the 2501 Program is vital to ensuring that historically underserved farmers and ranchers have access to USDA programs. And, with the new mission to also serve veteran farmers and ranchers, it is more important than ever that the outreach program be properly administered.

I look forward to working with the Chairwoman and the committee in its oversight role to ensure that the Outreach and Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program is properly and effectively administered.

I thank the Senator. In closing, I would like to thank the Senator, the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and dedicated staff for all of the efforts to negotiate a good farm bill, one that provides significant savings and eliminates antiquated subsidies but seeks to ensure a sound future for agriculture and access to healthy food for families across the Nation.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss the farm bill. First, I wish to thank Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts for their efforts in crafting a bill that will strengthen our agricultural and rural economy as well as one which reflects fiscal realities. Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts reached across the aisle. They relied on common sense and they found common ground, with compromise and with a focus on results. They, and the members of the Agriculture Committee, worked together and created this bipartisan legislation.

We all know how important this bill is for the 16 million Americans whose jobs are in agriculture and for the consumers who depend on safe, affordable food. It is also important for the families who need nutritional assistance and for the prudent stewardship of our lands. The importance of this legislation cannot be understated.

Like so many New Mexicans, farming and ranching are in my blood. My grandmother drove cattle through New Mexico in the late 1800s. Ranching and farming is a part of my heritage, and of New Mexico's. And it is vital to our economy. More than 20,000 farms are in New Mexico.

The people in my State know that ranching and farming is hard work. The only thing one can count on is uncertainty. It is a uniquely risky business, vulnerable to calamities of weather, subject to global fluctuations in prices and unfair competition. But, American agriculture is the world's leader. It is second to none. It is crucial to our economy and to our national security.

This legislation is truly a reform bill. It is the most significant reform of our agriculture policy in decades. For years, Congress has reauthorized confusing and inequitable farm subsidies, and the public looked on in wonder. The subsidies have in some part helped to keep sectors of US Agriculture vibrant, but, there have been blatant inefficiencies and waste. The rules surrounding direct payments is one example. Such rules do not even require that the recipient grow the covered commodity to receive their payment. The result is an inequitable flow of Federal funds. This hinders new producers and short changes producers who were not lucky enough to own ``base acres'' when they were identified in the 1980s.

For decades, farm bills have come and gone without the subsidy reforms Americans have been calling for. But Chairman Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts have taken that unprecedented bold step. Their bill ends direct payments and other major subsidies once and for all.

The 2012 Senate farm bill offers a more equitable insurance that producers buy into. It is not mandatory, but it is a sound safety net that will support American producers.

Chairman Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts also set new precedent in turning more attention to

crops historically left on the sidelines. Their bill boldly supports fruits, vegetables, nuts and other products so important to creating healthy living. The bill promotes access to nutritious food through farmers markets and locally grown produce. And it strengthens specialty crop provisions. My State is justly famous for its green chile. This bill will help chile and other specialty crops find export markets. And it provides for more research to keep these crops vibrant and competitive.

This legislation will create a more even playing field for dairy farmers, providing a safety net that has no regional or size bias. The bill also continues essential support for livestock producers. In my State, ranchers face grave threats from severe drought and fires and from the continued loss of grazing lands.

This farm bill streamlines and consolidates programs and it reduces the deficit by over $23 billion. Let me repeat: $23 billion in deficit reduction. That is twice the amount recommended by the Simpson-Bowles commission.

This is a strong bill overall. It is not perfect. It consolidates and simplifies conservation programs. But, unfortunately, there are significant cuts in funding. There are cuts in programs that protect watersheds, grasslands, soil, and habitats. These are programs that producers depend on. There are cuts in programs to restore forage, ensure compliance with environmental laws, and maintain healthy soil. It is truly unfortunate to lose such vital funding.

The farm bill covers a very large canvas and addresses many diverse needs. There will be, and should be, healthy debate.

I want to speak today about three specific amendments that I believe will improve this bill.

First, I have filed an amendment to restore mandatory funds for the Outreach and Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program. Thanks to the efforts of the committee, this program can now extend benefits to veterans. My amendment would ensure that the necessary funds are there. This program has helped our Nation's historically underserved producers for over 20 years by providing better access to Department of Agriculture credit, commodity, and conservation services and by providing technical assistance. It has worked and it deserves continued support.

The Outreach and Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program has served more than 100,000 rural constituents in over 400 counties and more than 35 States. With adequate funding, it can also provide critical support for veteran farmers and ranchers.

Specifically, my amendment would restore direct funding to $150 million over 5 years.

It would continue assistance to disadvantaged farmers and ranchers and ensure that veterans are fully able to benefit from the program.

Second, I have proposed an amendment for rural development funding for frontier communities. Across our Nation, including in my home State, there are many very small, very rural communities with a population density of less than 20 people per square mile. These are great communities, proud communities, with rich histories. But, they have a hard time competing for rural development loans and grants. Often, they don't have the personnel. They don't have the resources. But, their need is just as great as that of larger communities.

My amendment would create a setaside for frontier communities allowing them to access USDA funds targeted for these very small, very rural communities. It would allow the USDA to reach our Nation's most rural and underserved communities. The setaside would be a minimum of percent of rural development programs and it would allow frontier communities to qualify for up to 100 percent grant funding, with no minimum grant or loan requirement.

My amendment would also create a grant program for technical assistance and planning for frontier communities, making sure that funding goes as far as possible. Financing for this program would be from overall rural development funding of no more than 5 percent.

And, third, I have filed an amendment for a rural development setaside for community land grants. These land grant Mercedes are part of a unique and important history in the southwest dating back to the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. These were grants of land made by the governments of Spain or Mexico to entire communities.

These community land grants have a history of loss of land, a history of manipulation and unkept commitments, and a recognized need for increased economic opportunities. My amendment proposes to respond to this unfortunate history. Rural development assistance is crucial to these unique communities.

I wish to again commend my colleagues for this bipartisan legislation. It will continue building our economy by providing jobs and by providing the certainty that producers need for innovation and growth and by providing for the safest, healthiest, and most abundant food supply in the world.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I also, as my colleague Senator Whitehouse did, wish to thank the chairman, Barbara Boxer, for her hard work and her leadership to protect our air and our public health on this crucial vote that is going to come up later this month.

I rise in opposition to the resolution of disapproval that we expect Senator Inhofe to offer. This resolution would permanently block the EPA from reducing mercury and toxic pollution from powerplants in the United States. The standard is called the Maximum Achievable Control Technology standard or Utility MACT.

By blocking this standard, this resolution is bad for public health. This resolution is also bad for America's natural gas producers. This resolution is especially bad for electric utilities that did the right thing and followed the law. Environmental protection should be a bipartisan issue. Republicans and Democrats both passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and other environmental laws by wide margins.

I urge both parties not to support this resolution. Here are some key points on the public health issues that are before us when this resolution comes to the floor: The Environmental Protection Agency estimates this standard will save 4,000 to 11,000 lives per year by reducing toxic pollution. The EPA also estimates this standard will prevent nearly 5,000 heart attacks and 130,000 childhood asthma attacks.

Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin. It is mostly a threat to pregnant women and young children. We took lead out of gasoline, we can also take mercury out of smokestacks. Similar to many westerners, I know the Presiding Officer and I both enjoy fly fishing. In too many areas in America, we have mercury advisories for fish from American lakes and rivers.

In New Mexico, most of our streams are under mercury advisories, which means pregnant women and children cannot eat the fish from those streams. We cannot put a price on healthy children. But if we try, this rule produces tens of billions of health benefits each year.

This resolution of disapproval could permanently block these benefits. I would also like to talk about the impact of this resolution on natural gas. Natural gas has much lower toxic emissions than coal. It has no mercury. It has no soot, known as particulate matter. Recent discoveries of U.S. natural gas have led to a 100-year supply. Natural gas prices are low. While that is actually bad for New Mexico's economy in some places, it is good for consumers.

Natural gas has increased its market share in the power sector from 20 to 29 percent recently because it is a lower cost and cleaner fuel. EPA standards do not ban coal, but they do call on coal to compete on a level playing field and reduce its pollution. If we pass this resolution, we will inject further uncertainty into the utility sector, which is balancing its portfolio to more equal shares of coal and gas as opposed to being overly reliant on coal.

I support research in defining ways to clean up coal. If we put our minds to it, we may be able to take out the toxic pollutants.

I see the Senator from Arizona is on the floor. I first wish to thank him for allowing me a couple minutes to get my statement in.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator. I will take 1 more minute to finish.

Finally, I would like to note that this resolution is a bailout of companies that would rather spend money on lobbying than on pollution controls. The EPA standard does not harm responsible coal companies. It is achievable with current technology. It is my understanding that most or all of the coal plants in New Mexico already have the technology to meet these standards. The Public Service Company of New Mexico has invested in mercury controls to reduce pollution in our State. Across the Nation, many other utilities have as well.

A variety of business groups support EPA's mercury standard, including the Clean Energy Group of utilities, the American Sustainable Business Council, and the Main Street Alliance. Those standards are required by the Clean Air Act. If we block them, we will punish the law abiders and bail out the procrastinators. I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution of disapproval.

Once again, I thank Senator McCain.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I was just listening to the Senator who is now in the Chair, and I want to congratulate him on filing that amicus brief with Senator McCain in the Supreme Court. I believe the Supreme Court should heed the good advice both Senator McCain and Senator Whitehouse have given them, and I think if they do not heed that advice, the authority they have undertaken themselves will be taken away from them by the people who are urging a constitutional amendment to give this back to the Congress and back to the State legislatures.

I join my colleagues today to highlight what I consider a significant problem in our country--the unprecedented flow of money into our democratic elections.

Over the past several months, a group of us have been working together to address this problem. We have asked the FEC, IRS, and the FCC to take actions that would help curb the impact of money on our elections.

Led by Senator Whitehouse, we have introduced the DISCLOSE Act. This bill would shine a light into the dark corners of the campaign finance system. Senator Bennet and I have introduced a constitutional amendment, which currently has 22 cosponsors, to overturn the disastrous judicial opinions that have led to the broken system we have today.

In January 2010, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Citizens United v. FEC. Two months later, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals decided the SpeechNow v. FEC case. These two cases gave rise to the super PACs.

Millions of dollars now pour into negative and misleading campaign ads, and often without disclosing the true source of the donations. But our campaign finance system was hardly a model of democracy before these disastrous opinions. The Citizens United and SpeechNow decisions renewed our concerns about campaign finance, but the Court laid the groundwork many years ago.

We can go all the way back to 1976. That year, the Court held in Buckley v. Valeo that restricting independent campaign expenditures violates the first amendment right to free speech; in effect, that money and speech are the same thing.

The damage is clear. Elections become more about the quantity of the cash and less about the quality of ideas; more about the special interests and less about public service.

We cannot truly fix this broken system until we undo the flawed premise that spending money on elections is the same thing as exercising free speech. That only can be achieved in two ways: The Court could overturn Buckley and subsequent decisions based on it, something the current Court seems highly unlikely to do, or we amend the Constitution to not only overturn the previous bad Court decisions but also to prevent future ones. Until then, we will fall short of the real reform that is needed.

In Federalist No. 49, James Madison argued that the U.S. Constitution should be amended only on ``great and extraordinary occasions.'' I believe we have reached one of those occasions. In today's political campaigns, our free and fair elections--a founding principle of our great democracy--are for sale to the highest bidder.

I know amending the Constitution is difficult. And it should be. But we didn't start this effort last year or even in the last Congress. Others before us have urged that this longstanding problem needs a long-term solution. Many of our predecessors understood the corrosive effect money has on our political system. They spent years championing the cause.

Senator Fritz Hollings introduced bipartisan constitutional amendments similar to our amendment in every Congress from the 99th Congress to the 108th Congress. Senators Schumer and Cochran introduced one in the 109th Congress. And those were all before the Citizens United decision--before things went from bad to worse. The out-of- control spending since that decision has further poisoned our elections, but it has also ignited a broad movement to amend the Constitution.

I participated in a panel discussion in January with several activists in this movement. One of the panelists, Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin, was asked about overcoming the difficulty of amending the Constitution. Jamie said that:

A constitutional amendment always seems impossible until it

becomes inevitable.

I think we are finally reaching the point of inevitability.

Across the country, more than 200 local resolutions have passed calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. Legislators in four States--Hawaii, Vermont, Rhode Island, and my home State of New Mexico--have called on Congress to send an amendment to the States for ratification. Many more States

have similar resolutions pending. Over 1 million citizens have signed petitions in support of an amendment, and more than 100 organizations under the banner of United for the People are advocating for constitutional remedies.

This grassroots movement is yielding progress. In addition to our amendment, several other campaign finance-related amendments have been introduced in the House and the Senate. Senators Leahy and Durbin recently announced that Senator Durbin's Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution will hold a hearing on the Senate proposals in July. I thank them for their support. The hearing will be a great opportunity to examine the different approaches, to solicit input from constitutional experts, and to have a national discussion about the need to return our elections to the American people.

I hope this dialogue will convince some of my Republican colleagues to join me. Fixing our campaign finance system is only a partisan issue in Washington. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that nearly 70 percent of registered voters want super PACs to be illegal. Among independent voters, that figure rose to 78 percent. But the Court, in its misguided reading of the first amendment, told the Congress that we can't rein in super PACs. In doing so, it gave millionaires and billionaires unchecked power to influence our elections. It has allowed a flood of PAC money to drown out the voices of average Americans. This is a fatal misreading of the real world of political campaigns, and it is wrong. Supporters of super PACs and unlimited campaign spending claim they are promoting the democratic process. But the public knows better. Wealthy individuals and special interests are buying our elections. Citizens United has meant citizens denied. Our Nation cannot afford a system that says ``come on in'' to the rich and powerful, and says ``don't bother'' to everyone else.

The faith of the American people and their electoral system is shaken by big money. It is time to restore that faith. It is time for Congress to take back control.

I know the Senator from Rhode Island, as Senator Whitehouse, has worked very hard on this issue, and has pulled us together. I believe we are going to have others join us in this hour. The crucial thing we are trying to say is we need reform, we need disclosure. We need to get to the bottom of what is happening in this broken system and get our democracy back for the American people.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to just say a few words about my good friend and my mentor in the Senate, Senator Richard Lugar. I heard both leaders this morning mention Senator Lugar, and I thought I would rise for a minute to talk about him because I have been lucky to have him as a mentor since I arrived in the Senate. Senator Mark Pryor organized for our class, when we came in, mentors, usually a senior Democrat, senior Republican, and Senator Lugar was that mentor for me. As a result of that, I have spent a great deal of time with him, both in the Foreign Relations Committee and in a variety of meetings and he has always given me very valuable advice. Above all, his advice was to urge bipartisanship, not for its own sake but because it is what makes the Senate work and what allows us to move forward.

As one of the leaders pointed out, he is going to be with us for 8 more months, but I think there was something very important in the statement he made and I will read a few words and ask unanimous consent the full statement be printed in the Record thereafter.

I want to read a few words from what he said after he suffered this electoral loss. These are words we should all listen to in the Senate because they are so wise. They give us advice and put us on a path we should be on. These are Senator Lugar's words.

Legislators should have an ideological grounding and strong

beliefs identifiable to their constituents. I believe I have

offered that throughout my career. But ideology cannot be a

substitute for a determination to think for yourself, for a

willingness to study an issue objectively, and for the

fortitude to sometimes disagree with your party or even your

constituents. Like Edmund Burke, I believe leaders owe the

people they represent their best judgment.

Too often bipartisanship is equated with centrism or deal

cutting. Bipartisanship is not the opposite of principle. One

can be very conservative or very liberal and still have a

bipartisan mindset. Such a mindset acknowledges that the

other party is also patriotic and may have some good ideas.

It acknowledges that national unity is important, and that

aggressive partisanship deepens cynicism, sharpens political

vendettas, and depletes the national reserve of good will

that is critical to our survival in hard times. Certainly

this was understood by President Reagan, who worked with

Democrats frequently and showed flexibility that would be

ridiculed today--from assenting to tax increases in the 1983

Social Security fix, to compromising on landmark tax reform

legislation in 1986, to advancing arms control agreements in

his second term.

I don't remember a time when so many topics have become

politically unmentionable in one party or the other.

Republicans cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate

change. Republican members are now expected to take pledges

against any tax increases. For two consecutive Presidential

nomination cycles, GOP candidates competed with one another

to express the most strident anti-immigration view, even at

the risk of alienating a huge voting bloc. Similarly, most

Democrats are constrained when talking about such issues as

entitlement cuts, tort reform, and trade agreements. Our

political system is losing its ability to even explore

alternatives. If fealty to these pledges continues to expand,

legislators may pledge their way into irrelevance. Voters

will be electing a slate of inflexible positions rather than

a leader.

I hope that as a nation we aspire to more than that. I hope

we will demand judgment from our leaders.

Those are the words of Senator Lugar. I think they are very wise words. I think we should all read his whole speech and try to put the Senate on a better path.

Exhibit 1

Sen. Richard Lugar:

I would like to comment on the Senate race just concluded

and the direction of American politics and the Republican

Party. I would reiterate from my earlier statement that I

have no regrets about choosing to run for office. My health

is excellent, I believe that I have been a very effective

Senator for Hoosiers and for the country, and I know that the

next six years would have been a time of great achievement.

Further, I believed that vital national priorities, including

job creation, deficit reduction, energy security, agriculture

reform, and the Nunn-Lugar program, would benefit from my

continued service as a Senator. These goals were worth the

risk of an electoral defeat and the costs of a hard campaign.

Analysts will speculate about whether our campaign

strategies were wise. Much of this will be based on

conjecture by pundits who don't fully appreciate the choices

we had to make based on resource limits, polling data, and

other factors. They also will speculate whether we were

guilty of overconfidence.

The truth is that the headwinds in this race were

abundantly apparent long before Richard Mourdock announced

his candidacy. One does not highlight such headwinds

publically when one is waging a campaign. But I knew that I

would face an extremely strong anti-incumbent mood following

a recession. I knew that my work with then-Senator Barack

Obama would be used against me, even if our relationship were

overhyped. I also knew from the races in 2010 that I was a

likely target of Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and other

Super Pacs dedicated to defeating at least one Republican as

a purification exercise to enhance their influence over other

Republican legislators.

We undertook this campaign soberly and we worked very hard

in 2010, 2011, and 2012 to overcome these challenges. There

never was a moment when my campaign took anything for

granted. This is why we put so much effort into our get out

the vote operations.

Ultimately, the re-election of an incumbent to Congress

usually comes down to whether voters agree with the positions

the incumbent has taken. I knew that I had cast recent votes

that would be unpopular with some Republicans and that would

be targeted by outside groups.

These included my votes for the TARP program, for

government support of the auto industry, for the START

Treaty, and for the confirmations of Justices Sotomayor and

Kagan. I also advanced several propositions that were

considered heretical by some, including the thought that

Congressional earmarks saved no money and turned spending

power over to unelected bureaucrats and that the country

should explore options for immigration reform.

It was apparent that these positions would be attacked in a

Republican primary. But I believe that they were the right

votes for the country, and I stand by them without regrets,

as I have throughout the campaign.

From time to time during the last two years I heard from

well-meaning individuals who suggested that I ought to

consider running as an independent. My response was always

the same: I am a Republican now and always have been. I have

no desire to run as anything else. All my life, I have

believed in the Republican principles of small government,

low taxes, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and

trade expansion. According to Congressional Quarterly vote

studies, I supported President Reagan more often than any

other Senator. I want to see a Republican elected President,

and I want to see a Republican majority in the Congress. I

hope my opponent wins in November to help give my friend

Mitch McConnell a majority.

If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good

Senator. But that will require him to revise his stated goal

of bringing more partisanship to Washington. He and I share

many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan

mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance

and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the

Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is

reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid

opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party.

His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in

Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who

embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support

to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican

Party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it.

This is not conducive to problem solving and governance.

And he will find that unless he modifies his approach, he

will achieve little as a legislator. Worse, he will help

delay solutions that are totally beyond the capacity of

partisan majorities to achieve. The most consequential of

these is stabilizing and reversing the Federal debt in an era

when millions of baby boomers are retiring. There is little

likelihood that either party will be able to impose their

favored budget solutions on the other without some degree of

compromise.

Unfortunately, we have an increasing number of legislators

in both parties who have adopted an unrelenting partisan

viewpoint. This shows up in countless vote studies that find

diminishing intersections between Democrat and Republican

positions. Partisans at both ends of the political spectrum

are dominating the political debate in our country. And

partisan groups, including outside groups that spent millions

against me in this race, are determined to see that this

continues. They have worked to make it as difficult as

possible for a legislator of either party to hold independent

views or engage in constructive compromise. If that attitude

prevails in American politics, our government will remain

mired in the dysfunction we have witnessed during the last

several years. And I believe that if this attitude expands in

the Republican Party, we will be relegated to minority

status. Parties don't succeed for long if they stop appealing

to voters who may disagree with them on some issues.

Legislators should have an ideological grounding and strong

beliefs identifiable to their constituents. I believe I have

offered that throughout my career. But ideology cannot be a

substitute for a determination to think for yourself, for a

willingness to study an issue objectively, and for the

fortitude to sometimes disagree with your party or even your

constituents. Like Edmund Burke, I believe leaders owe the

people they represent their best judgment.

Too often bipartisanship is equated with centrism or deal

cutting. Bipartisanship is not the opposite of principle. One

can be very conservative or very liberal and still have a

bipartisan mindset. Such a mindset acknowledges that the

other party is also patriotic and may have some good ideas.

It acknowledges that national unity is important, and that

aggressive partisanship deepens cynicism, sharpens political

vendettas, and depletes the national reserve of good will

that is critical to our survival in hard times. Certainly

this was understood by President Reagan, who worked with

Democrats frequently and showed flexibility that would be

ridiculed today--from assenting to tax increases in the 1983

Social Security fix, to compromising on landmark tax reform

legislation in 1986, to advancing arms control agreements in

his second term.

I don't remember a time when so many topics have become

politically unmentionable in one party or the other.

Republicans cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate

change. Republican members are now expected to take pledges

against any tax increases. For two consecutive Presidential

nomination cycles, GOP candidates competed with one another

to express the most strident anti-immigration view, even at

the risk of alienating a huge voting bloc. Similarly, most

Democrats are constrained when talking about such issues as

entitlement cuts, tort reform, and trade agreements. Our

political system is losing its ability to even explore

alternatives. If fealty to these pledges continues to expand,

legislators may pledge their way into irrelevance. Voters

will be electing a slate of inflexible positions rather than

a leader.

I hope that as a nation we aspire to more than that. I hope

we will demand judgment from our leaders. I continue to

believe that Hoosiers value constructive leadership. I would

not have run for office if I did not believe that.

As someone who has seen much in the politics of our country

and our state, I am able to take the long view. I have not

lost my enthusiasm for the role played by the United States

Senate. Nor has my belief in conservative principles been

diminished. I expect great things from my party and my

country. I hope all who participated in this election share

in this optimism.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank you for the recognition, Mr. President.

Let me say, I have been sitting here listening to my colleague, the Senator from Wyoming, and I think he makes some good points. I think we do need a more open process. I think we need to try as much as possible to work with each other in the committee process. I do not think there is any doubt about that. I think we need to allow germane amendments and have a good, robust debate on the bills that are on the floor.

But what I want to talk about today is the fact that we are in a filibuster. Fifty-two of us wanted to move forward on this bill and 45 of us did not. That is why we are locked in this situation.

I rise with regret today, and there is much to regret about yesterday's vote on the student loan bill. First, I regret the false choice between helping students or funding preventive health care. Most Americans support student loans. Most Americans see the value of preventive health care. Yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would ask that we sacrifice one for the other.

An affordable education should not be held hostage to cuts in preventive health care. That is not a choice; it is an ultimatum.

Have we come to this? We teach our children to set goals, to set priorities. It should surprise no one that they seriously question our goals, our priorities. It is like a bus heading toward a cliff. We can turn it around, and we ought to be able to do so without throwing students underneath it.

The other side says they care about our Nation's students too. Perhaps, but there is caring, and then there is devotion. Once again, their devotion is for the wealthiest among us and not for the 7 million students who are worried about how they will pay for their education.

Back to choices. As any bright college student can tell us, it always comes down to choices. How do we protect the Stafford Student Loan Program? By further cuts to preventive health care? By weakening research to prevent disease? By cutting our response to public health emergencies? No, of course not. We do it by closing a tax loophole, by requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share of payroll taxes.

I submit that this is not, and should not be, a tough choice, but apparently it is. In fact, it is so tough that the other side doesn't want to talk about it any further. The result? Yet another filibuster.

That brings me to my other regret. Once again, this Senate is broken, in limbo, stuck. Once again, the American people look on in dismay.

The Senate was once called the greatest deliberative body in the world. Now it reminds me of that song, ``The Sound of Silence,'' ``and no one dared disturb the sound of silence.''

That is what we hear more and more--silence. No debate, no discussion. Yesterday's vote was the 21st filibuster by Republicans of a Democratic bill this Congress--the 21st--and the year is young.

This ugly parade of filibusters--and for what? Let's see. To block the President's job bill, to stop the repeal of tax breaks for big oil companies, to not help local governments pay for teachers and first responders, to prevent a minimum tax on households earning more than $1 million a year, and now it is student loans--another filibuster, more sounds of silence.

I have previously joined my colleagues and friends, Senator Merkley of Oregon and Senator Harkin of Iowa, to push for fundamental reforms in how the Senate operates. The reason then and even more abundantly clear now is that the Senate was broken.

This is tragic. At a time when our country needs us to act, we do almost nothing. It is no wonder that Congress's approval ratings are at an all-time low. Instead of working to solve the major problems our country faces, we retreat to the shadows.

In order to have real change in the process, the Senate has to change the way we go about business. I have advocated, and will continue to do so, that the Senate, at the beginning of each Congress, should adopt its own rules by a simple majority vote. The Constitution clearly gives us this authority, and it is time to exercise it. Yet at the beginning of each Congress, the Senate, unlike the House of Representatives, doesn't vote to adopt its rules. The Senate simply accepts the rules of the previous Congress--rules that lead to the unfettered abuse of filibusters, rules that have made the Senate a graveyard of good ideas.

When we fail to reform our rules, their abuse becomes an entrenched part of the Senate's culture. That is where we are today--after years of filibuster abuse, we have turned the Senate into a supermajoritarian body. To do anything in today's Senate requires 60 votes.

Yesterday's vote on the student loan bill was a prime example. We can't even get onto the bill. Fifty-two Senators voted to move forward, but 45 Senators chose to filibuster. Once again, minority obstruction prevents majority rule. That is not democratic, and it is not how our Founders intended the Senate to operate.

This has to change. A new Congress will begin next January. Right now, we

don't know which party will control the House, the Senate, or the White House, but it should not matter. The Senate must reform itself regardless of which party has control, not for the good of the Democrats or the Republicans but for the good of the country.

The Senate will have many new Members next January, and I think most of them will want to become part of a functioning legislative body, one where they can bring their best ideas and have them debated, a body where all views are heard and considered but majority rule is once again the norm. That institution cannot exist under the existing rules, and we continue to prove that on a daily basis.

The reforms Senators Harkin, Merkley, and I proposed at the beginning of this Congress had strong support, but it did not pass. So here we are, 21 filibusters later, and the line of Americans who wait for a Congress that works, that actually gets things done, and that comes together to find solutions--that line just got longer by about 7 million students.

Several of my constituents have watched and have seen this filibuster proceed, and they have written me on my Facebook page. I thought I would share a couple of those comments because they really go to the heart of what is happening on student loans.

Tracy Edwards writes me, saying that student loans are vital. She says:

My daughter graduates this Saturday from UNM. Without

student loans, this day would not have come.

Her daughter would not have graduated.

In 6 months, we will start repayment of those loans. I am

not asking anyone else to pay my daughter's loan, but why

should we be punished with an increase for trying to ensure

our children get a solid education? If a bankruptcy is filed,

you could lose your home, your car, and your credit, but

student loans are mandated for repayment, no matter what. Is

it too much to ask for a fair interest rate? I think the 1

percent will not be happy until it is a world of the haves

and have nots.

Thank you, Tracy.

Donna Kubiak writes this:

I agree . . . my daughter is a single mom of 3 kids and

working on her degree to teach elementary school . . .

without financial aid, she will have to work for a minimum

wage job and get welfare indefinitely.

Thank you, Donna, for that comment.

Mr. President, as we know, this issue is absolutely crucial to 7 million American students who don't want to see those interest rates skyrocket a couple months from now. I believe the estimate is about $1,000 per student. They can't afford that, and we need to get this bill on the Senate floor. We need to cut out the filibusters and settle down and do the amendment process, the debate, and produce a bill.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, it is good to see the Presiding Officer in the chair today and to know that Alaska is well represented having the Senator from Alaska in the chair and presiding over the Senate. I very much appreciate that.

I come to the floor to commend one of New Mexico's most celebrated authors, Rudolfo Anaya. This year marks the 40th anniversary of Professor Anaya's acclaimed novel ``Bless Me, Ultima.''

This beloved book is an iconic part of Chicano literary history. It has been read by thousands of high school and college students, as well as the general public. It tells the story of a young boy growing up in a small New Mexico town during World War II. ``Bless Me, Ultima'' is a classic portrait of Chicano culture in a particular time and place, but it also resonates with universal themes: the search for identity, the conflict between good and evil.

Literature expands our horizons. It increases our understanding. As President Kennedy said, ``Art establishes the basic human truths which must serve as the touchstone of our judgment.''

For 40 years, Rudolfo Anaya's work has explored the human condition. The University of New Mexico organized a reading marathon to commemorate the publication of ``Bless Me, Ultima,'' and I was pleased to take part.

Rudolfo Anaya was born in 1937 in the small New Mexico village of Pastura. He grew up in Santa Rosa and in Albuquerque. When he was only 16, he suffered a terrible accident. His injuries required years of rehabilitation. He has commented on that painful time in his young life and how those events affected his sensibilities as a writer.

He obtained his B.A. and M.A. from the University of New Mexico. ``Bless me, Ultima,'' in 1972, was his debut novel. It was the beginning of a remarkable literary career. He is also the author of ``Tortuga,'' ``Zia Summer,'' and ``Albuquerque,'' among many other works. He was a professor of English at the University of New Mexico from 1974 until his retirement in 1993. Professor Anaya was awarded the National Medal of Arts in 2001. He received the award for his ``exceptional contribution to contemporary American literature that has brought national recognition to Chicano traditions, and for his efforts to promote Hispanic writers.''

Rudolfo Anaya has been a prolific writer and a dedicated teacher. He has made a lasting contribution to American arts and letters. I am pleased to congratulate him on the 40th anniversary of ``Bless Me, Ultima,'' and I wish him the very best in his future endeavors.

I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. Specifically, I want to talk about how crucial the tribal provisions in this bill are for Native American women. For the past 18 years, this historic legislation has helped protect women from domestic violence, from sexual assault, from stalking. It has strengthened the prosecution of these crimes and has provided critical support to the victims of these crimes.

It has been a bipartisan effort. Democrats, Republicans, and law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, health professionals--all have supported this Federal effort to protect women. Why? Because it has worked.

Since its passage in 1994, domestic violence has decreased by over 50 percent. The victims of these crimes have been more willing to come forward knowing that they are not alone, knowing that they will get the support they need, knowing that crimes against women will not be tolerated.

Unfortunately, not all women have seen the benefits of the Violence Against Women Act. That is why the tribal provisions in the reauthorization are so important. Native women are 2\1/2\ times more likely than other U.S. women to be raped. One in three will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. It is estimated three out of five Native women will experience domestic violence in their lifetimes. Those numbers are tragic. Those numbers tell a story of great human suffering, of women in desperate situations, desperate for support, and too often we have failed to provide that support.

But the frequency of violence against Native women is only part of the tragedy. To make matters worse, many of these crimes go unprosecuted and unpunished. Here is the problem: The tribes have no authority to prosecute non-Indians for domestic violence crimes against their Native American spouses or partners within the boundaries of their own tribal lands. And yet over 50 percent of Native women are married to non-Indians; 76 percent of the overall population living on tribal lands is non-Indian. Instead, under existing law, these crimes fall exclusively under Federal jurisdiction. But Federal prosecutors have limited resources. They may be located hours away from tribal communities. As a result, non-Indian perpetrators often go unpunished. The cycle of violence continues and often escalates at the expense of Native American victims.

On some tribal lands the homicide rate for Native women is up to 10 times the national average. But this starts with small crimes, small acts of violence that may not rise to the attention of the Federal prosecutor. In 2006 and 2007, U.S. attorneys prosecuted only 45 misdemeanor crimes on tribal lands.

For perspective, the Salt River Reservation in Arizona--which is a relatively small reservation--reported more than 450 domestic violence cases in 2006 alone. Those numbers are appalling. Native women should not be abandoned to a jurisdictional loophole. In effect, we have a prosecution-free zone.

The tribal provisions in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act provide a remedy. The bill allows tribal courts to prosecute non- Indians in a narrow set of cases that meet the following specific conditions: The crime must have occurred in Indian Country; it must be a domestic violence or dating violence offense or a violation of a protection order; and the non-Indian defendant must reside in Indian Country, be employed in Indian Country, or be the spouse or intimate partner of a member of the prosecuting tribe.

This bill does not--and I emphasize does not--extend tribal jurisdiction to include general crimes of violence by non-Indians or crimes between two non-Indians or crimes between persons with no ties to the tribe. Nothing in this provision diminishes or alters the jurisdiction of any Federal or State court.

I know some of my colleagues question if a tribal court can provide the same protections to defendants that are guaranteed in a Federal or State court. The bill addresses this concern. It provides comprehensive protections to all criminal defendants who are prosecuted in tribal courts whether or not the defendant is a Native American. Defendants would essentially have the same rights in tribal court as in State court. These include, among many others, right to counsel, to a speedy trial, to due process, the right against unreasonable search and seizure, double jeopardy, and self-incrimination. In fact, a tribe that does not provide these protections cannot prosecute non-Indians under this provision.

Some have also questioned whether Congress has the authority to expand tribal criminal jurisdiction to cover non-Indians. This issue was carefully considered in drafting the tribal jurisdiction provision. The Indian Affairs and Judiciary Committees worked closely with the Department of Justice to ensure that the legislation is constitutional.

In fact, last week 50 prominent law professors sent a letter to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees expressing their ``full confidence in the constitutionality of the legislation, and its necessity to protect the safety of Native women.''

Their letter provides a detailed analysis of the jurisdictional provision. It concludes that ``the expansion of tribal jurisdiction by Congress, as proposed in Section 904 of S. 1925, is constitutional.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter to which I have referred.

Mr. President, I respect my colleagues' concerns about the tribal provisions of this bill, and I am willing to work with any Senator who may have concerns about these provisions. Native American law can be daunting, but I want to stress how much effort, research, and consultation went into drafting the tribal provisions in the Violence Against Women Act. Title 9 is taken almost entirely from S. 1763, the Stand Against Violence and Empower Native Women Act, the SAVE Native Women Act. This bill was passed on a Department of Justice proposal submitted to Congress last July. That proposal was the product of extensive multiyear consultations with tribal leaders about public safety generally and violence against women specifically. It builds on the foundation laid by the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010.

The SAVE Native Women Act was cleared by the Indian Affairs Committee in a unanimous voice vote. The Presiding Officer serves on that committee and knows that this is a committee--the Senate Indian Affairs Committee--that works in a bipartisan way. This passed by a unanimous voice vote through the Senate Indian Affairs Committee.

Shortly thereafter, its core provisions were again vetted and incorporated in the Judiciary Committee's Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization as title 9. In short, the Safety for Indian Women title has been vetted extensively and enjoys wide and bipartisan support. The tribal provisions in this bill are fundamentally about fairness and clarity and affording Native women the protections they deserve.

As a former Federal prosecutor and attorney general of a State with a large Native American population, I know firsthand how difficult the jurisdictional maze can be for tribal communities. One result of this maze is unchecked crime. Personnel and funding run thin, distance is a major prohibitive factor, and the violence goes unpunished. Title 9 will create a local solution for a local problem by allowing tribes to prosecute the crime occurring in their own communities. They will be equipped to stop the escalation of domestic violence. Tribes have already proven to be effective in combating crimes of domestic violence committed by Native Americans.

Let me reiterate this very important point: Without an act of Congress, tribes cannot prosecute a non-Indian even if he lives on the reservation, even if he is married to a tribal member. Without this act of Congress, tribes will continue to lack authority to protect the women who are members of their own tribes. With this bill, we can close a dark and desperate loophole in criminal jurisdiction.

Beyond extending the jurisdiction of tribes within specific constraints, the bill will also promote other efforts to protect Native women from an epidemic of domestic violence by increasing grants for tribal programs to address violence and for research on violence against Native women and also by allowing Federal prosecutors to seek tougher sentences for perpetrators who strangle or suffocate their spouses or partners.

All of these provisions are about justice. Right now Native women don't get the justice they deserve, but these are strong women. They rightly demand to be heard. They have identified a desperate need and support logical and effective solutions. That is why Native women and tribal leaders across the Nation support the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act and the proposed tribal provisions. Let us work with these women to create as many tools as possible for confronting domestic violence.

There are far too many stories of desperation that illustrate why the provisions protecting Native women are in this bill, and I want to share one story now. This is the story of a young Native American woman married to a non-Indian. He began abusing her 2 days after their wedding. They lived on her reservation. In great danger, she filed for an order of protection as well as a divorce within the first year of marriage. The brutality only increased. It ended with the woman's abuser going to her place of work--which was located on the reservation--and attempting to kill her with a gun. A coworker, trying to protect her, took the bullet. Before that awful day, this young woman had nowhere to turn for help. She said:

After a year of abuse and more than 100 incidents of being

slapped, kicked, punched and living in horrific terror, I

left for good. During the year of marriage I lived in

constant fear of attack. I called many times for help, but no

one could help me.

The tribal police did not have jurisdiction over the daily abuse because the abuser was a non-Indian. The Federal Government had jurisdiction but chose not to exercise it because the abuse was only misdemeanor level prior to the attempted murder. The State did not have jurisdiction because the abuse was on tribal land and the victim was Native American.

Her abuser, at one point after an incident of abuse, actually called the county sheriff himself to prove that he was untouchable. The deputy sheriff came to the home on tribal land but left saying he did not have jurisdiction. This is just one of the daily, even hourly, stories of abuse, stories that should outrage us all. These stories could end through local intervention and local authority that will only be made possible through an act of Congress. We have the opportunity to support such an act in the tribal provisions of VAWA.

I encourage my colleagues to fully support the tribal provisions in this very important bill.

I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2043 and ask that it be modified with the changes at the desk.

Madam President, this amendment strikes a provision allowing the USPS to move to 5-day service in 2 years. Two years is simply not enough time to see the changes we are making in this bill take effect before we cut this essential service.

My amendment doesn't say we can never move to 5-day service, but it says that 2 years is not enough time for the Postal Service to implement the many cost-saving measures in the bill.

Why eliminate one of the key competitive advantages and hurt rural America before we know the effects of these reforms? It makes no sense.

Why would we make a change that would reduce mail volume by almost 7 percent? Isn't that why we are in this crisis in the first place?

I hope my colleagues will join me in protecting rural jobs and go on record to say clearly that moving to 5-day service should be a last resort.

I reserve my time.

Madam President, Saturday service is absolutely essential in rural areas.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of my amendment to strike section 208 from the postal reform bill. Section 208 would authorize the U.S. Postal Service to move to 5-day delivery service within 2 years.

The U.S. Postal Service faces significant financial problems. Changes must be made for the Postal Service to adjust to a digital world. The budgetary concerns are very real--we all know this--but an imminent reduction in service to 5 days a week is not the answer. No. 1, a shift to 5-day service could result in the loss of up to 80,000 jobs nationally. Is this the time to be proposing 80,000 layoffs? No. 2, 5- day service would undercut a market advantage the U.S. Postal Service currently has over its competitors. No. 3, especially in rural America, many of our businesses and most vulnerable citizens depend on 6-day postal delivery. Newspapers, advertisers, pharmacy delivery services, and senior citizens all could be hurt by the loss of Saturday service.

Last week I met with the community of Mule Creek in New Mexico. Mule Creek is small and rural. Folks there told me that they have no cell phone service, no high-speed Internet. They depend on their post office. It is the lifeline, the center of their community--and not just 5 days a week. For many working people, Saturday is the only day they can sign for packages, including for delivery of prescription drugs.

I know some of my colleagues believe moving to 5-day service is necessary because of the Postal Service's financial problems, but we need to give the changes we are making in the bill a chance to take effect. Two years simply isn't enough time before we make such a drastic and far-reaching change. We should not rush prematurely to 5- day service.

I urge support for my amendment to protect jobs, to strengthen the competitiveness of the Postal Service, and to protect the millions of Americans who depend on that service.

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

Both Senator Sessions and Senator Snowe are here, and I don't know if they wanted to speak. I know we have had a flow of speakers on this side, and if one of you wants to speak before I speak, I think it is the fair thing to do.

I am probably going to be the concluding remarks on celebrating Senator Mikulski, so I am going to proceed with that.

Madam President, we have been here now for almost 3 hours--I was down here when we started. Senator Feinstein started about 2:00 and we are approaching 5:00 now--for an incredible celebration of Barbara Mikulski's career. I have listened to a lot of it both at my office and here on the floor, and it is pretty remarkable to hear the kinds of things she has done with her life and I rise today to honor my colleague, Senator Barbara Mikulski.

As has been noted, this month Senator Mikulski becomes the longest serving woman in the history of Congress. With her perfect sense of timing, Barbara reaches this historic milestone during Women's History Month. And it is for the history books. But, as Barbara has said: It is is not how long I serve but how well I serve. And she has served very well. She has served her beloved State of Maryland very well, and she served this country in a number of capacities on the Appropriations Committee and on various committees in the Congress.

We celebrate this historic occasion but, more deeply, we celebrate Barbara's record of achievement--a record that transcends gender, a record that is rooted in a life dedicated to public service.

Since she was first elected to public office in 1971 to the Baltimore City Council, Barbara has been setting milestones. Think about that for a minute--1971. This is 40 years plus of public service. As the Chair knows, this is pretty remarkable. She served in public service for a while. I have served for a while. But 41 years of public service is remarkable--the first woman elected to statewide office in Maryland; the first Democratic woman elected to the Senate in her own right; the first woman in the Senate Democratic leadership; and the first Democratic woman to serve in both Houses of Congress. Yet it is not her being first that is the most impressive; it is her commitment to putting others first. Barbara has shown that commitment time and again.

In over 35 years in the Congress, she has never wavered in her service to our Nation and her dedication to the people of Maryland. She has fought for quality education. She has fought for American seniors. She has fought for women's health and for veterans. For women facing unequal pay, Barbara championed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. For senior citizens facing bankruptcy because of a spouse's nursing home care, Barbara wrote the Spousal Anti-Impoverishment Act. Yes, she is a trailblazer, but she blazes those trails to help others--for young people who dream of going to college, for families facing devastating illness, for opportunity for all Americans. That has been her passion, that has been her true achievement, and that will be her greatest legacy.

When Barbara was first elected to the Senate in 1986, there was only one other female Senator. Now there are 17. Barbara is, rightly so, the dean of the women. She is a mentor to her female colleagues, but no less so she is an inspiration to all of us.

I admire Barbara's remarkable determination and her tenacity, but also her ability to work with others to get things done. She will fight for what she believes, but she will sit down to dinner with her colleagues across the aisle. And she has never forgotten where she came from. The daughter of a Baltimore grocer, each night she returns home to Baltimore. She has never forgotten the values she learned there: hard work, helping one's neighbor, patriotism.

She is diminutive in height only. That was evident early on. The story is well known how, as a young community activist, Barbara stopped that 16-lane highway from coming through Baltimore's Fells Point neighborhood. She is not afraid to stand up to power, and she is not afraid of speaking strongly to power. In all the ways that count, Senator Barbara Mikulski is a towering figure.

Albert Schweitzer once said: I don't know what your destiny will be, but one thing I know for sure. The only ones among you who will be truly happy are those who have sought and found how to serve. This Barbara Mikulski has done. From her early days as a social worker to her years in Congress, she has served. She has served long and well.

Congratulations, Barbara. It is an honor to be your colleague.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss our broken judicial confirmation process. I know many of my colleagues will discuss individual nominees and how long they have languished on the executive calendar without a vote. We can point to many statistics about the length of time it takes to confirm President Obama's nominees versus President Bush's and how many nominees each had confirmed in their first term.

This is an important argument to make. And while these statistics are helpful in highlighting the problem, they are merely the symptoms of a much larger disease--a broken Senate. Since joining the Senate in 2009, I've said repeatedly that we must take decisive action to reform our rules in order to restore deliberativeness to this body.

At the beginning of this Congress, Senators Harkin, Merkley, and I tried to do that. Ultimately, our success was limited. We didn't achieve the broad reforms we wanted. But we did initiate a debate that highlighted some of the most egregious abuses of the rules, including how the rules are manipulated to obstruct the confirmation process for judges and executive branch nominees.

There was some hope that the debate we had, along with the modest reforms that were adopted, would encourage both sides of the aisle to restore the respect and comity that is often lacking in today's Senate. Unfortunately, any goodwill rapidly deteriorated and the partisan rancor and political brinksmanship quickly returned.

That is why we are here again today, talking about yet another aspect of this body's dysfunction--the broken judicial confirmation process.

This is not a new problem, nor is it one on which either side can claim to be innocent. For about the past decade, the minority party-- whether Republicans or Democrats--has gone to inexcusable lengths to slow or block judicial nominees who have strong majority support. This has lead to a new norm in the Senate--the need for any nominee to get at least 60 votes for confirmation. This directly conflicts with the Founders' intent and a plain reading of the Constitution.

The arguments my colleagues and I make today--that judicial nominees who have been approved by the Judiciary Committee deserve a vote by the full Senate--are the same arguments my Republican colleagues made when President Bush's nominees were held up by a Democratic minority.

In April 2003, the freshmen members of the 108th Congress sent a letter to Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Daschle. That freshman class was made up of nine Republicans and one Democrat. I'd like to read part of that letter. The senators wrote:

[W]e write to express our concerns about the state of the

federal judicial nomination and confirmation process. The

apparent breakdown in this process reflects poorly on the

ability of the Senate and the Administration to work together

in the best interests of our country. The breakdown also

disserves the qualified nominees to the federal bench whose

confirmations have been delayed or blocked, and the American

people who rely on our federal courts for justice. . . . We

seek a bipartisan solution that will protect the integrity

and independence of our nation's courts, ensure fairness for

judicial nominees, and leave the bitterness of the past

behind us.

Regrettably, the rest of the Senate did not heed their advice and the confirmation process remained dysfunctional. Two years later, Senator Hatch, a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wrote an op-ed in the National Review Online that clearly outlined the problem. Senator Hatch's commentary began with the following:

Judicial nominations will be one of the most important

issues facing the Senate in the 109th Congress and the

question is whether we will return to the tradition of giving

nominations reaching the Senate floor an up or down vote. The

filibusters used to block such votes have mired the judicial-

confirmation process in a political and constitutional crisis

that undermines democracy, the judiciary, the Senate, and the

Constitution.

He then went on to argue that there was a solution to address this crisis--using the Constitutional Option to amend the Senate rules. Just as I argued last year at the start of the session, Senator Hatch stated that at the beginning of a new Congress, a simple majority can invoke cloture and change the Senate rules. The rules weren't amended then, and they weren't amended last year, either. This is why we are here today, having the same debate about judicial nominations that the Republicans had when they were in the majority and President Bush's nominees were stalled.

It's time we stop having this debate and actually fix the process. Both sides have acknowledged the problem and offered solutions when they were in the majority. In the 108th Congress, Senator Frist introduced a resolution to change Rule XXII that would have gradually reduced the cloture threshold on nominations after successive votes over the course of several days of debate. That resolution was cosponsored by Senators McConnell, Kyl, and Cornyn--all members of the current minority leadership.

Last year, at the beginning of this Congress, Senators Harkin, Merkley, and I introduced a resolution to reform the rules. It included reforms that would have addressed the broken confirmation process, including reducing the post-cloture time on nominees from thirty hours to two and requiring real debate in order to sustain a filibuster. Unfortunately, neither of these resolutions was adopted.

During the debate on our resolution last year, Senator Harkin made a very good point. He said, ``I believe each Senator needs to give up a little of our pride, a little of our prerogatives, and a little of our power for the good of this Senate and the good of this country.'' Let's hope that someday enough of our colleagues will agree with him and we finally institute the reforms necessary to restore the Senate's reputation as the ``World's Greatest Deliberative Body.''

I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the freshman class of the 108th Congress and Senator Hatch's National Review op-ed be printed in the Record.

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

Madam President, I also rise today to join New Mexico's senior Senator, who has served New Mexico so well. It is a real honor to join Senator Bingaman in paying tribute to one of our great New Mexico citizens, Speaker Ben Lujan. Ben, as Senator Bingaman said, is retiring this month. He is an esteemed colleague of ours, and he is also our friend--a good friend at that. Indeed, Ben Lujan is a friend to all New Mexicans. Ben recently said:

Let us make our time on Earth . . . worthwhile, and do what

is right, and make a difference for the children, our working

families, and our elderly.

He has lived up to that challenge throughout his career, fighting for education, for workers, for middle-class families, for Native Americans, for health care, and for jobs. In a world that grows ever more cynical, Ben Lujan has always been the real deal.

Ben was born in 1935 in the small community of Nambe, NM, one of nine children. His family, like so many, struggled through the Great Depression. He used to relate tales of his father as a sheepherder herding sheep from the Valley Grande to the Chama in New Mexico. Ben still lives on the property that has been in his family for three generations.

Ben is that rare combination--humble but tenacious in what he believes. He has never forgotten from where he came, and he has always been a champion for the less fortunate among us. Even in his youth, Ben showed a remarkable talent for teamwork, for playing by the rules, for just plain hard work, and for determination.

He loves basketball. In high school he was the captain of his high school varsity basketball squad, and the gymnasium where the Pojoaque Elks play today is named in his honor. Ben Lujan has been leading teams ever since.

He attended the College of Santa Fe but had to disenroll for lack of money. For the next couple of years, he sought work wherever he could find it in California and in New Mexico, wherever he had to go to get a job. He understands hard times. He knows what it is like to try to make ends meet. And in all of his years of public service, a sense of justice and fair play has always been at his core.

Ben worked as an iron man in Los Alamos. He joined the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing Iron Workers. In 1959 Ben married his high school sweetheart, the love of his life, Carmen, his devoted partner for over half a century. They began a family that would grow to include four children: Shirley, Jackie, Jerome, and Congressman Ben Ray Lujan. As Jeff said, we are fortunate to have Ben Ray serving in our delegation, and we have worked with him on many occasions on a daily basis. Ben began his extraordinary career in public service when he was elected to the Santa Fe County Commission in 1970. Four years later he was elected to the New Mexico House of Representatives. After a quarter of a century of service in that body, he was elected speaker of the New Mexico House of Representatives.

He has always called attention to the needs of others and not to himself. Ben is an inspiration not just to those who aspire to a life of public service but also to a life of personal integrity. His word is his bond to his family and to the people of New Mexico. His principles have illuminated his life and brightened the lives of all who know him. I count myself among that number. I am proud to call Ben Lujan my friend.

I was present at the opening of the New Mexico State Legislature last month when Ben informed us of his illness--an illness that left him weakened but not defeated. Like everyone in that room, I was deeply saddened at the news of Ben's illness, but that sorrow is tempered by admiration--admiration for Ben, for Carmen, for the entire Lujan family and for the incredible strength they have shown. He would not allow a terrible illness to distract from his duties as speaker of the house. He remains steadfast in his services to the people of New Mexico. Even while undergoing chemotherapy, he continued to work as speaker. Even a devastating illness could not deter Ben Lujan from the job he had committed to do, and his family supported him every step of the way. That is honor, that is integrity, and that is courage.

None of us will ever forget Ben's brave words the day last month when he said, ``While this has taken a toll on me physically, it has not broken my spirit, my will, my faith and my commitment to New Mexico.''

So to Ben, I want to say thank you. Thank you for your service, thank you for your sacrifice, and thank you for your friendship.

As we celebrate this great son of New Mexico, I will close with these lines from the poet, Lord Alfred Tennyson:

Though much is taken, much abides, and though we are not

now that strength which in the old days moved earth and

heaven, that which we are, we are--one equal temper of heroic

hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to

strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

That, my friends, is Ben Lujan--to serve, to strive, and not to yield.

It is a real honor to be on the floor with Senator Bingaman to talk about our good friend Ben Lujan.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, thank you so very much.

I first wish to ask my colleague from Vermont a little bit about some of the things he said that I find remarkable.

We are still in a very fragile recession. The economy is starting to grow, but it is not strong enough, and we could slip back. So what has happened is, we have these--what we call in this language--tax extenders. What we are talking about is jobs, isn't it? We are talking about the idea that we can have a clean energy economy; that over the last couple years this has been the fastest growing sector, and we have a production tax credit for wind, we have a section in the Treasury Department's 603, and those provisions create jobs.

I just wish to ask the Senator, it seems to me, at this particular time, we have the potential to grow the American economy, but we have to get off the dime because these things expire on February 29--in less than 2 weeks.

I say to Senator Sanders, the thing we should focus on, when it comes to wind farms, is how much these wind farms can be expanded in terms of jobs. The average wind farm in America built today has 50 large wind turbines. Each turbine can produce electricity to power roughly 500 homes, even accounting for the variability of the winds. So the average wind farm can power about 25,000 homes.

The average wind farm, then, produces many other benefits. This is what is remarkable to me: There is $20 million in construction payroll in a year from an average wind farm; $875,000 per year to rural local school districts; and also $280,000 per year to rural county governments; $150,000 per year in ongoing direct payroll for employees; $1.5 million in contract labor payroll; and $300,000 to $600,000 per year in royalties to land owners, farmers, and ranchers.

So when we talk about wind--wind power--what we are talking about is American jobs, clean energy jobs, growing the economy, and it mystifies me that our friends on the Republican side and in the House are saying: These things are going to expire in 2 weeks, and there is no hurry to push them, to put them in place, and to move it. Is that the Senator's understanding, that they are saying we are going to let them expire?

I say to Senator Sanders, one of the things that I think is very instructive is that the history of the wind production tax credit has been completely bipartisan. I would like to lay out a little bit of that history.

The production tax credit began in a bipartisan energy policy in 1992, signed by then-President George H.W. Bush. It was extended in December 1999 by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. It was extended again in 2002 and in 2004, this time signed into law by President George W. Bush. In 2005, it was extended again as a part of bipartisan energy legislation, the 2005 Energy Policy Act. The Senator and I, I think, were both in the House at that time, and we voted for that in the House. In December 2006, it was extended again. Most recently, it was extended in the 2009 Recovery Act, which was signed by President Obama.

So Congress should continue this bipartisan tradition and extend the wind production tax credit, these other tax credits that create clean energy jobs, and stay focused on the good job we have been doing that has been bipartisan. That is why I do not understand the House, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee saying: Oh, we can do these later. We need to do this work today. We need to put that in place now so that we can grow these clean energy jobs. Is that the Senator's understanding?

Mr. President, may I just ask the Senator-- and I know he may have other places to go, but he mentioned offshore wind on the Atlantic coast, and the study out of the University of Delaware indicated that off of the Atlantic coast there is the potential in wind to generate enough electricity to power the entire east coast group of cities--very large cities, as you know--from Providence, to New York, to Boston. And Google is already out there starting to lay the grid with some other partners. So we have huge potential to move forward, and basically what we are being told at this point is, oh, let these things expire.

That is a very shortsighted position. But that study about the coast is an eye-opener because it tells the American people: Look, here is clean energy. We do not have to import oil anymore. We do not have to bring in energy from outside. Just off our coast, we can go out there and put a grid in place and generate wind energy. I know the Senator has probably heard about this study.

Just to the point of why we aren't able to move--and I agree with Senator Whitehouse, and I think Senator Sanders has seen this also--when you get into energy, there are huge, powerful special interests--especially those special interests that are representing fossil fuels--and they would love nothing better than to just have the status quo. What we have seen is they are relying--and this is amazing to me, and the Senator has been one of the leaders on this issue where Big Oil is getting subsidies today from the Federal Government, and we have tried to take those Big Oil subsidies and move them over into the clean energy area. They resist that even though President Bush and the leaders of their industry say: We don't need these subsidies.

Two weeks from today, the payroll tax cut championed by the President and extended by Congress in December will expire.

Congress should renew this financial relief to American working families while our economy is still recovering.

For a family making $50,000 a year, the payroll tax cut means about $1,000 a year, or about $40 in every paycheck.

I'm encouraged by recent progress that Congress will resolve this issue, but the payroll tax cut is not the only tax provision that can create jobs in New Mexico, and across the Nation.

The production tax credit for wind is set to expire at the end of this year. The Treasury Grant Program for renewable energy tax credits expired this past December.

One of the best things we can do to help our economy recover is invest in the clean energy economy. It has created the jobs of the future while the broader economy was struggling. According to the Brookings Institute, the clean energy economy grew twice as fast as the broader economy during the recession.

To maintain the growth of wind energy jobs, Congress should renew the production tax credit as part of the payroll tax cut. If we wait until the end of the year, or delay until 2013, many projects will be delayed and thousands of jobs will be lost. The production tax credit has, by any measure, been extraordinarily successful. It was first used in 1992 and has led to the installation of wind energy capacity in America equivalent to 75 average coal-fired power plants, and it is rapidly growing.

We added the equivalent of 10 large power plants worth of wind power in 2011, and are on track to do even more in 2012. In New Mexico, we have enough wind power either already built, or currently under construction to power 200,000 homes. New Mexico has tremendous wind capacity, with 20 times more capacity in the planning stages. Those plans depend in large part on Congress continuing to support the American wind industry. The tax credit has been extended seven times by Presidents and Congresses of both parties.

Wind is becoming cost-competitive with fossil fuels. A 4-year tax credit extension would allow the industry to thrive long term. With 60 percent of wind turbines made in America, the beneficiaries of the wind production tax credit are legion, including: U.S. iron and steel producers, over 400 U.S. manufacturing facilities in 43 States, 85,000 employees in well-paid engineering and technical jobs, thousands of farmers and ranchers who lease their land, rural school districts that receive tax payments, and rural local governments.

The future is wide open. The Department of Energy estimates the U.S. could receive 20 percent of its power from wind by 2030. Wind is not just in the west and midwest. The east coast can be powered by huge offshore wind resources in the Atlantic Ocean.

If the wind production tax credit is the engine for the clean energy economy, the Treasury grant program is the turbo boost. Enacted as Sec. 1603 of the Recovery Act, this program allows renewable energy tax credit earners to receive the value of the tax credit as a grant.

This eliminates the need for complex financing arrangements and finding other parties who are able to use the tax credits. Typically financial institutions will receive 10 or 15 percent of the value of renewable tax credits in return for financing a project.

The Treasury grant program removes the middle man, and has led to the rapid expansion of renewable energy in the last 2 to 3 years, especially with solar energy. Until it expired in December, the program awarded over 4,000 grants worth $1.75 billion for 22,000 solar projects in 47 States.

This innovative financing then supported over $4 billion in private sector investment. One report found that an extension of the program would create an additional 37,000 jobs in 2012 in the solar industry alone. China, the EU, India, Japan, and other nations are acting aggressively to take leadership of the clean energy economy. They want the job growth and the energy security that results.

I am confident that our workers and entrepreneurs can compete with anyone.

But if we do counterproductive things, and pull the rug out from underneath our fastest growing clean energy industries, our economy and our energy security will fall behind. The payroll tax extension is a logical vehicle for extending other expiring tax provisions that benefit the economy.

On the other hand, the payroll tax extension is a terrible place to make unrelated policy that subverts Congressional process on behalf of special interests. The Environmental Protection Agency is, by and large, following the Nation's long-standing environmental laws and court orders when it updates standards to reduce pollution.

If Members are opposed to the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act, then they can propose bills to change those laws. Pollution does not create jobs. In fact, reducing pollution saves money for business and reduces health care costs for citizens. I am personally opposed to wholesale rollbacks of long-standing, bipartisan environmental laws.

But I am even more strongly and passionately opposed to backdoor attempts to undermine those laws on unrelated legislation.

Congress has voted down several resolutions of disapproval for EPA updated standards.

While I have opposed those efforts in the past, at least that is a legitimate process under the Congressional Review Act.

Holding much needed tax relief hostage for anti-environmental policy riders will not stand up to public scrutiny.

We must remain vigilant and keep upcoming legislation focused on tax relief that will benefit working families and invest in clean energy jobs.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as to the history of the wind production tax credit, the production tax credit began in the bipartisan Energy Policy Act of 1992, signed by President George H.W. Bush.

It was extended in Dec. 1999, by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Clinton.

It was extended again in 2002 and 2004, this time signed into law by President George W. Bush.

In 2005, it was extended again as part of bipartisan energy legislation, the 2005 Energy Policy Act.

I voted for that legislation when I served in the House.

In December 2006, it was extended again.

Most recently, it was extended in the 2009 Recovery Act, which was signed by President Obama.

Congress should continue this bipartisan tradition, and extend the wind production tax credit very soon.

We should avoid the mistakes of the past, where last minute extensions led to uncertainty and job losses.

I would like to thank the Senator for asking us to come to the floor, for leading this debate. This is a debate we need to carry on until we get the production tax credits and other tax extenders in place and move our clean energy industry forward.

I thank the Senator for that.

I yield the floor.