February 12, 2013/United States/U.S. Senate Congressional Record (raw)

= Congressional Record (raw) = undefined

Page: S597

Page: S597

Page: S597

The majority leader is recognized.

Page: S597

Following leader remarks, the Senate will resume consideration of, the. Time until 11 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees.

At 11 a.m. there will be up to six rollcall votes in order to complete action on this legislation. Following disposition of VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act, we will recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

The State of the Union Address is this evening. Senators will gather at 8:20 p.m. tonight in this Chamber in order to proceed as a body to the House of Representatives, where the speech will be given.

There are up to six rollcall votes remaining: the Leahy amendment dealing with sex trafficking, the Portman amendment dealing with sex trafficking, the Murkowski amendment dealing with tribal protections, the Coburn amendment dealing with consolidation of DOJ rape programs, the Coburn amendment dealing with notice to victims and, most importantly, final passage of this legislation.

We are still working on some committee hearings that are creating some conflict, and we are going to see if we can work something out. At this stage we have not done that. Unless we ask the Senate to change the voting order, we will have those votes starting at 11 o'clock today.

State of the Union
Four years ago, as newly elected President of the United States, Barack Obama prepared to deliver his first address to a joint session of Congress. The country at that time was in the midst of a grave crisis. Our economy had been shaken to its core by a financial crisis sparked by Wall Street greed. Millions of Americans had lost their jobs, their homes, and their hope.

President Obama predicted America would rise to meet the challenges of the day. He said:

We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before. The weight of this crisis will not determine the destiny of this Nation.

Four years later we can say with certainty he was right. Over the last 35 months, American businesses have created more than 6.1 million jobs--6.1 million jobs--including hundreds of thousands of jobs in manufacturing in the auto industry. As a matter of fact, the figures are staggering. Five hundred thousand manufacturing jobs have been added, and 1 million jobs have been saved due to the President's auto rescue program. That is a fairly significant change.

We still have a long way to go to get back to full strength, and there are still too many Americans out of work. We made solid progress in the last 4 years, but we have a long way to go. The depth of the crisis did not determine our destiny. Instead, determination drove us to prosper again. We are faced with an opportunity disguised as a challenge. We must build on this progress, fostering a lasting recovery that ensures Americans' success is determined by the strength of their will, not the size of their wallet.

Tonight, President Obama will chart a course to maintain the economic progress we made and revitalize the still struggling middle class. I look forward to hearing his vision. I expect the President will call for commonsense investments in our future. Investments have been deferred for far too long because of economic turmoil. When times are hard, these investments are easy to put off. If America hopes to compete in a changing world, we must prepare today's students for tomorrow's jobs. We must give small businesses and American manufacturers the support they need to thrive. We must stop relying on foreign oil and start investing in renewable energy. It is better for our environment and for our economy.

If we hope to rebuild and maintain a world-class economy, we must build a 21st century infrastructure to support that economy. Renewing these investments is not only the right thing to do for our country, it is the right thing to do for our economy.

In the last 4 years the President has repeatedly reached across the aisle to Republicans, suggesting we find common ground for the sake of recovery. Tonight will be no different. He will reach across that aisle. I expect the President's proposal will include ideas supported by both Democrats and, in the past, Republicans. I hope my Republican colleagues will give his vision the consideration it deserves.

Tonight President Obama will also propose a balanced alternative to the devastating automatic spending cuts which take effect next month. Democrats believe we should prevent these harmful arbitrary cuts, cuts to both military and, initiatives to help middle-class families prosper. Remember, Republicans in the Senate and in the House voted for these harsh measures. We could easily avert these job-destroying cuts which would hinder the economic recovery by ending wasteful tax breaks for corporations and giveaways to companies that ship jobs overseas. A balanced approach to pare senseless spending reduction with a modest contribution from the wealthiest Americans would limit the damage of the so-called sequestration.

I was disappointed to learn yesterday the Republican leaders in the House have no intention of bringing legislation to the floor to replace the sequester with a more sensible approach. They are going to do nothing.

Senate Democrats will offer their own solution to the sequester later this week. If Republicans truly agree that these across-the-board cuts would be damaging to our economy and to national security, they should work to help us pass an alternative.

During his first State of the Union Address a long time ago, the first President of the United States, George Washington, told Congress this:

The welfare of our country is the great object to which our cares and efforts ought to be directed.

As Republicans and Democrats from both Chambers come together, I repeat, the welfare of our country is the great object to which our cares and efforts ought to be directed.

Democrats and Republicans should hear the message that George Washington gave a long time ago. It is important to listen to the State of the Union tonight, which we will, and we should all keep in mind the words of George Washington. Despite our differences, if there is the will to work together, the power to build an economy works for every American, and we will succeed.

Page: S598

Under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013
Page: S598

Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 47, which the clerk will report.

Under the previous order, the time until 11 a.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided between both sides.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The clerk will call the roll.

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

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Page: S598

The Republican leader is recognized.

State of the Union Address
Page: S598

Mr. President, tonight we will welcome the President to the Capitol to deliver his State of the Union Address.

As I mentioned yesterday, Republicans will be listening with great interest to see where the President plans to take the country over the coming year. Some media outlets are already reporting we will be subjected to another litany of leftwing proposals, with plenty of red meat for the President's base. I sure hope not. The campaign is over, and the fact is that if the President plans to accomplish anything good for the country in the coming months, he is going to have to go through a Republican-controlled House.

So this morning I would like to humbly suggest once again that it is time for the President to reach out to Congress, including Republicans, and make divided government work. That is how he will actually address the issues Americans are most concerned about right now, and it is the only way.

The first issue many of us will be listening for tonight is the President's plan for controlling spending and replacing the Obama sequester. The record is clear that the President and his aides came up with that sequester, and they got it. It is a little puzzling to see them now trying to pass it off like a hot potato.

Republicans have been very clear about the fact that we would rather enact smarter spending cuts. House Republicans even voted on the plan--not once but twice--to do just that. But Washington Democrats so far have failed to put forward a serious proposal of their own. They ignored the issue for more than 1 year before finally showing up to the debate last week with the usual gimmicks.

This is the President's chance to rally the American people around a real set of spending cuts and reforms. I will be interested to see what he plans to offer because what we have been hearing so far, frankly, isn't very encouraging. He needs to understand the American people will not accept attempts to replace deficit reduction both parties have already agreed to with tax hikes. We already agreed to reduce spending in the amount the sequester would reduce spending when we voted for the Budget Control Act back in August of 2011 and the President signed it.

What we expect the President will be offering are tax hikes we all know would be used to finance even more spending, when we promised the American people we would spend less. If the President does try to do that, then he shouldn't expect anyone else to go along, least of all the American people.

Many on both sides of the aisle support eliminating tax loopholes in the context of fundamental bipartisan tax simplification that lowers tax rates, and we hope to have a chance to do that in the months ahead. But it is bad policy to punish this industry or that one so Washington can fund 1 more week of government spending and cause more Americans to lose their jobs.

Remember, due to the operation of law, the President already got the tax increases he wanted back on January 1. Because the law expired, the President got the tax increases he wanted--not with any votes, but he got it by the operation of law. So we are done with that part of the equation. The tax issue is over.

If the President wants a balanced approach, now is the time to show his hand on the spending cuts and reforms he will accept. That is how compromise works. But when we hear the White House suggest the challenge of controlling spending is essentially complete or when we hear the House Democratic leader echo the President's claim that we don't have a spending problem, it is hard to know where to start after a ridiculous suggestion such as that.

Over the weekend I spent some time in Nelson County, KY, and I can assure everyone the folks I spoke with there strongly disagree with the President's assessment.

The truth is the President knows better than that himself. Deep down he knows spending is completely out of control. He knows the debt has already grown by $6 trillion over his 4 years in office. He knows that without spending reform, the national debt will increase to double the size of our economy in just a few decades. He knows something must be done now to save Medicare and Social Security before they go broke. Tonight is a chance to show it, to be straight with the American people, and to reveal what he plans to do about all this.

The good news is that many of the things we need to do to control spending and many of the things we need to do to get the economy moving again are all one and the same. So I was pleased to read the President might pivot to jobs again. Unfortunately, we have seen that headline so many times before. We will have to wait to see how serious it actually is. I have lost count of how many times the President has made one of those pivots. He has pivoted so many times, reporters covering the White House must be getting completely dizzy.

I also hope the President doesn't call for more Washington spending tonight. Not only is that an ineffective way to create jobs, but it is also the very reason our debt continues to climb to such completely unsustainable levels.

If the President does want to do something about job creation for a change, he should leave aside the things we know haven't worked and try some things that will, such as getting the government out of the way. Not only will that help jump-start the private economy, it will help us get spending under control at the same time. It would be a twofer. Jump-start the private economy and get spending under control at the same time is the best way to inprove this economy.

I also hope the President will use the big stage he will have tonight to finally level with the American people about the consequences of ObamaCare. They deserve to know what is about to hit them--the cost increases, the premium hikes, the taxes. They deserve to know that not only may they not be able to keep the health plan they have and like but that CBO tells us there will also be fewer jobs. I know these things will not be easy for him to say, but that is what it means to be a statesman; to be honest with the people you represent, to admit when something doesn't turn out the way you said it would.

Even if we don't hear the President speak directly to the issues Americans are most concerned about tonight, I am confident the man who is set to follow him with the Republican's response will do just that. In some ways, Senator Rubio embodies the American dream. As the child of immigrants, he is uniquely positioned to speak to the aspirations of the middle class. Unlike our rather easily distracted President, Senator Rubio has never had to pivot to jobs. He has kept a laser focus on job creation and the economy ever since he got here.

I have laid out the issues the President needs to address if he is interested in working with Republicans to get some good things done for the country in the days and months ahead. I sure hope he is listening.

I yield the floor.

The Republican whip.

State of the Union Address
Page: S598

Mr. President, as President Obama gets ready to deliver his State of the Union Address tonight, I would like to remind the American people of what he said 4 years ago during his first speech to a joint session of Congress. Four years ago President Obama said he did not believe in big government.

Since then he has given us four consecutive trillion-dollar deficits, he has nationalized our health care sector, and he has used Federal agencies to impose Draconian regulations. If we add the cost of all these proposed or final regulations the Obama administration published last year, the total economic burden comes to more than $236 billion. That is a wet blanket on the American economy and economic growth and job creation. If anyone out there still thinks President Obama opposes big government, as the song goes, ``I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona'' I'd like to sell you.

Four year ago the President told us he was concerned about our massive national debt. Since then our gross national debt has increased by nearly $6 trillion and has grown larger than the entire U.S. economy.

Four year ago the President said we could not ignore our long-term challenges. Since then he has ignored the recommendations of his own bipartisan fiscal commission known as Simpson-Bowles, and his own Treasury Secretary has acknowledged that the Obama administration does not have a serious plan for long-term debt reduction.

Four years ago the President told us his trillion-dollar debt-financed stimulus package would feature unprecedented oversight. Then we learned the stimulus package wasted money on boondoggles such as Solyndra.

Four years ago the President promised us his plan for health care reform would reduce the cost of health care for American families. Since then the cost of employer-provided family health insurance has increased by more than $2,300 per family.

Four years ago the President said he viewed the Federal budget as a blueprint for our future. Since then two of the President's budget proposals have been unanimously rejected by this Chamber--by Republicans and Democrats alike--and America's credit rating has been downgraded.

If you buy these unfulfilled promises the President has made over the last 4 years, as the song goes, not only will I sell you some oceanfront property in Arizona, ``I'll throw the Golden Gate in for free.''

In short, much of what the President has said in February of 2009 has been hollow rhetoric, unmet with action and followup. I can only hope the President's speech tonight will seriously address our biggest fiscal challenges: a debt burden larger than our economy, $37 trillion in unfunded Medicare liabilities, and more than $100 trillion in total unfunded liabilities.

In addition, I can only hope the President will offer a serious plan for boosting economic growth and reducing unemployment. Amid the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression, with the national rate still hovering near 8 percent, Americans deserve a President who is focused intensely on the right policies for job creation.

A second term offers a second chance. If the President wants to regain the credibility he has lost over the last 4 years on each of these issues, he will start tonight.

I yield the floor.

The Senator from Vermont.

The Deficit and VAWA
Page: S598

Mr. President, what is the regular order?

The Senate is considering S. 47.

The Deficit
Page: S598

Mr. President, before I go on to that, I would note that many have come to this floor to talk about the deficit and things of that nature. I ask anybody who is decrying our deficit if they voted for a needless war in Iraq and then voted to put it on the credit card.

The war in Iraq has cost this Nation nearly $1 trillion so far, and with all the wounded who have come back from this unnecessary war, we will, beyond the lifetime of most of us, still be paying for that.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the only wars in America's history we did not have a special tax to pay for--both were put on a credit card. They were begun at a time when the last administration had inherited a large surplus from the Democratic administration before it. Since I have been old enough to vote, only Democratic administrations have left surpluses. But they took that surplus, wasted it on the war in Iraq, and because they were unwilling to pay for this war--a war that was paid for only by the men and women who served and their families; we don't have a draft--most people can say: It didn't affect me. Well, it affected those families enormously, and it will affect every single taxpayer for the rest of their lives because it will take that long to pay for a war that so many in this body and the other body voted for but then stood up and said: We cannot possibly have taxes to pay for things we are spending money on. That is one thing they voted for--for the first time in the history of this country, they voted to not pay for a war.

I urge everybody not to lose sight of the fact that a major part of our deficit was caused by the House and Senate voting for a war we never should have been in, one I voted against. In fact, everybody who actually read the intelligence material voted against it. Now our children and our grandchildren will have to pay for our mistakes.

I don't want to hear lectures about our deficit from people who voted to help create that deficit by voting for an unnecessary war.

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013
Page: S598

On the subject we are on,, after more than a week of consideration, the Senate will finally vote on the. This is a good bill that makes needed changes recommended by victims and those who work with them every day. I urge all those Senators who have opposed reauthorizing VAWA to end their opposition and join with us. Despite the predictions by some that the Republican House of Representatives will refuse to consider the Senate bill, as it did last year, I see reason for hope.

Just yesterday 17 Republican members of the House wrote to their own leadership urging immediate reauthorization of VAWA. They rejected the ideological opposition of Heritage and the Family Research Council. They recognize that VAWA is effective, efficient and successful ``in curbing domestic violence and supporting victims, and that ``VAWA programs save lives. They also note, as I have said repeatedly on this floor: ``VAWA must reach all victims and perpetrators of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking in every community in the country.''

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Republican members' letter to Speaker Boehner be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

The Senate has rejected the Republican substitute and defeated the Coburn amendment to strip the tribal jurisdiction provisions that have been included in the Senate bill for the past two years. Those amendments would have greatly narrowed VAWA's ability to prevent crime and help victims and would have undercut our commitment to all victims of rape and domestic violence. I hope Senators will continue to vote against amendments that weaken this important legislation.

This morning the Senate has the opportunity to vote for an amendment that goes in the opposite direction from the Coburn amendments by allowing us to help more victims of serious crime in the United States and around the world. This morning the Senate is to vote on the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. That is another bipartisan bill that was written with the input of victims and service providers to make critical improvements to existing law. Last year, this legislation had 57 cosponsors--including 15 Republicans. In particular, I thank Senator who has been a strong cosponsor of this important measure.

Today is February 12, the day on which Abraham Lincoln was born. It was 150 years ago that he delivered the Emancipation Proclamation and it would be fitting that the Senate pass the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act on his birthday. Although the 13th amendment to our Constitution was ratified long ago, making slavery illegal, we continue to fight human trafficking, which can amount to modern day slavery. This terrible crime still occurs throughout the world--including in the United States of America. The Polaris Project estimates that there are more than 27 million victims of human trafficking worldwide today.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act will help us continue to make real progress on this issue. It is a parallel effort to our reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Our effort is to stop human trafficking at its roots by supporting both domestic and international efforts to fight against trafficking and to punish its perpetrators. We provide critical resources to help support victims as they rebuild their lives.

This measure strengthens criminal anti-trafficking statutes to ensure that law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to effectively combat all forms of trafficking. It ensures better coordination among Federal agencies, between law enforcement and victim service providers, and with foreign countries to work on every facet of this complicated problem. It includes measures to encourage victims to come forward and report this terrible crime, which leads to more prosecutions and help for more victims.

We have included accountability measures to ensure that Federal funds are used for their intended purposes, and we have streamlined programs to focus scarce resources on the approaches that have been the most successful. A Senator asserted yesterday that trafficking programs have been wasteful and duplicative. In fact, the programs supported by this amendment have been carefully tracked and shown to be effective. Nonetheless, the amendment reduces authorization levels by almost a third from the levels in the last reauthorization because we are determined to ensure efficiency and respond to concerns. We have made similar efforts to streamline VAWA.

The United States remains a beacon of hope for so many who face human rights abuses. We know that young women and girls often just 11, 12, or 13 years old are being bought and sold. We know that workers are being held and forced into labor against their will. I urge all Senators to join in passing the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. People in this country and millions around the world are counting on us.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the, as follows:

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from human rights and civil rights organizations in support of S. 47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be equally divided.

Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will call the roll.

The Senator from Vermont.

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

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013
Page: S598

Mr. President, we have had an early unanimous consent order, so following that, I ask unanimous consent that the sequence of votes outlined under the previous order now start at 11:30 a.m., and the additional 30 minutes of debate be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that following the disposition of the Coburn amendment No. 15, the Senate recess for the weekly caucus meetings; further, that at 2:15 p.m., the Senate resume the sequence of votes under the previous order; and finally, all other provisions of the previous order remain in effect.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment numbered 21 be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be equally divided.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The clerk will call the roll.

The Senator from Vermont.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 21, as Modified
Page: S598

Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 21, as modified.

The clerk will report the amendment.

The Senator from Vermont.

Mr. President, I have already spoken about this, and I want to reiterate what I said earlier. Our country, justifiably so, is a beacon of hope for so many who face human rights abuses. I think of what is written on the iconic Statue of Liberty; so many people come to our shores for freedom. We also know there are many who are being held in these despicable trafficking schemes around the world. There are children who are 11, 12, 13 years old being held, and we have to speak for them.

I hope all Senators will join me in voting for this amendment. There are protections for victims of trafficking in the reauthorization act. It is a bipartisan bill written with the input of victims and service providers. It helps us to more effectively fight human trafficking, which is really modern-day slavery. Whether people are trafficked in the sex trade--especially children--or in forced labor, it is slavery. It is not isolated. There are 27 million victims worldwide today according to the Polaris Project. This amendment will help us to stop it by supporting both domestic and international efforts to fight against trafficking.

Just as important as it is to help us punish the perpetrators, the amendment will help us rebuild the lives of those caught up in it. We know funds are always limited. We put in accountability measures to ensure the Federal funds are used for their intended purposes.

Let us continue to have the United States as a beacon of hope to people around the world.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters in support of amendment 21, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, to S. 47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the, as follows:

Let's pass this.

Mr. President, I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum unless somebody else seeks recognition. I see the distinguished Senator from Florida on the floor, and I yield the floor.

The Senator from Florida.

Amendment No. 21
Mr. President, I wish to echo my support for this amendment which is, basically, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

Human trafficking is an issue which is shocking to people in its prevalence, both in our country and around the world. The idea of human slavery is something people think about as a historical issue, something that happened a long time ago. The fact is it is happening today all over the world, and it is happening in the United States. It is a tragic issue.

There is not just sex trafficking, which gets all the attention and, obviously, is something that is very bad, but there is also labor trafficking. There are people in this country who are brought here under false pretenses, and when they get here they don't get paid, they are mistreated, and on many occasions they are threatened that their family back home is going to be hurt if they go to the authorities.

We have had cases of this happening in Florida. We have seen horrible cases that have been documented in Florida. This is one of the issues I have become passionate about, and anyone could become passionate about, if ever a person meets any of these survivors, these young men and women who have survived some of the most brutal treatment one can imagine. So this is a great step forward in reauthorizing not just this bill but America's example to the world that we take this issue seriously.

I also think this is an issue of awareness. In the years to come, I hope we will continue to talk about this issue because there is still a lack of awareness in this country among many people about how serious this problem truly is. I am grateful we will, hopefully, be able to move forward, and I wish to thank the Senator from Vermont for offering this amendment.

Should I yield the floor?

Mr. President, before the Senator from Florida yields, I appreciate the strong support of Senator Rubio. He has been the voice of reason and consistency in this area and I appreciate it.

I suggest the absence of a quorum with the time equally divided.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The clerk will call the roll.

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

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask permission to speak as in morning business for 8 minutes.

The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.

I thank the Chair.

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

The clerk will call the roll.

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

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 21, as Modified
Mr. President, we are going to vote in a couple minutes, but I would reiterate what I said earlier. This is going to be a vote on the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. It is a bill that was written with the input of victims and service providers. Last year, we had 57 cosponsors, including 15 Republicans.

I do want to thank Senator Rubio, who was on the floor a few minutes ago speaking about it.

I could not help but think, as I said earlier, when I looked at the calendar today, February 12--the day on which Abraham Lincoln was born; and 150 years ago, he delivered the Emancipation Proclamation--wouldn't it be great if the Senate passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act on President Lincoln's birthday?

I also said earlier today that the Senate should be--often is--the conscience of the Nation. I have to imagine that the conscience of the vast majority of our 300 million Americans--whether they are Republicans or Democrats; liberals, moderates, or conservatives; Independents--their conscience would rebel against the idea of, really, slave trafficking, whether it is people trapped in the sex trade or in factories where they face the possibility, if there is a fire, they are all going to die because they are forced to be there.

Let's speak. Let's speak to the conscience of this country.

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on my amendment?

They have not.

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

Is there a sufficient second?

There appears to be a sufficient second.

Mr. President, I yield back all time.

The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 21, as modified.

The yeas and nays were previously ordered.

The clerk will call the roll.

I announce that the Senator from New York is necessarily absent.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona.

Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

Rollcall Vote No. 15 Leg.
Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The Senator from Vermont.

Amendment No. 10
Parliamentary inquiry: Under the previous order, we are now on amendment No. 10?

The amendment has not been made pending.

The Senator from Ohio.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 10.

The clerk will report.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from Ohio.

Mr. President, this is a commonsense amendment. We just voted on the Violence Against Women Act amendment for trafficking offered by Senator Leahy. This is an amendment that actually deals with the underlying legislation. It is really a clarifying amendment.

I am pleased to be joined by Senators BLUMENTHAL, AYOTTE, COLLINS, BROWN, COCHRAN, RUBIO, ALEXANDER, and GILLIBRAND. It has to do with offering protection and services to victims of sex trafficking under VAWA. This simply says under section 302 of VAWA that we ensure sex trafficking is covered.

Right now youth and children who are exposed to domestic violence, dating violence, or sexual assault or stalking are covered but not sex trafficking. I think it is consistent with the amendment we just passed. It is also an important clarification of the underlying bill.

There are about 300,000 young Americans the FBI says are at risk today. This is a commonsense approach, and I would hope that all Senators on both sides of the aisle would agree that sex trafficking should be covered by this act.

The Senator from Vermont.

I agree with the Senator from Ohio. I am perfectly willing to accept this amendment by a voice vote, and I do support it.

I am encouraged that the Senate has voted to pass the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which will let us make real progress in helping victims of human trafficking. I worked with Senator Rubio last Congress to reauthorize and improve our antitrafficking law and needed programs. We were stymied by an anonymous Republican objection. Today we achieved a breakthrough when the Senate voted to approve the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.

I thank Senators from both sides of the aisle who have rejected the cramped view of the Heritage Foundation and joined with us to make progress on this important issue, to help victims and to help prevent human trafficking. The vote the Senate just took to approve vital antitrafficking legislation will ensure that resources and services get to trafficking victims in ways shown to work. By our action, we are improving and strengthening antitrafficking programs.

I do not wish to conflate or confuse the two issues. The Violence Against Women Act provides programs for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. Trafficking is different, a unique form of abuse with separate programs designed to address it in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

When trafficking victims also experience sexual assault, they can also access programs funded through VAWA for sexual assault victims. The Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act explicitly provides that VAWA programs are to help victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. That includes trafficking victims. That language was carefully crafted with advocates for victims of those crimes.

Accordingly, I believe that amendment 10 is unnecessary. It duplicates and reiterates what the bill already provides. So long as it does not harm and does not create confusion, I support it. The Senator from Oklahoma may accuse us of providing duplicative programs, but no one is going to subject themselves to sexual assault just because they might be eligible for a VAWA program or help from a trafficking program. No individual victim is going to somehow profit at taxpayers' expense. The amendment is accepted merely as further clarification of the availability of VAWA programs to children who are both victims of trafficking and sexual assault. Sex trafficking victims are by definition also sexual assault victims.

I am not in favor of confusing program administrators or taking program funds away from victims of rape and domestic violence. I have worked hard not to pit victims against each other. Instead, I have tried to provide for the needs of all victims.

The Senator from Connecticut.

Madam President, I want to again thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, for his leadership on this bill and on the issue of human trafficking. He has led this Chamber.

I want to thank my colleague, Senator Portman, for truly a commonsense amendment that aims to combat one of the great scourges in the United States and around the world, sex trafficking involving young people. We can take a strong step and send a strong message by providing the kinds of services to young victims as we do to other victims who receive aid under VAWA. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

The Senator's time has expired.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Is there a sufficient second?

There appears to be a sufficient second.

The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

The clerk will call the roll.

Rollcall Vote No. 16 Leg.
Madam President, I move to reconsider.

I move to lay that on the table.

Amendment No. 11
Madam President, the distinguished Senator from Alaska,, has filed amendment No. 11, a technical fix to ensure that VAWA's tribal provisions apply to Alaska. I now offer the amendment on her behalf. I support this amendment and I ask it be added to the bill.

Without objection, the clerk will report the amendment.

I ask further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided.

I yield back all time.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Amendment No. 15
Under the previous order, there will be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 15, offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.

Madam President, this is an amendment that follows GAO recommendations with which the Justice Department agreed in terms of an audit on the duplication within their program. As a matter of fact, I have the data where the Justice Department actually concurred with the GAO on it. The purpose of the amendment is to eliminate the backlog in DNA testing, both in terms of rape kits and CODIS. The Cornyn amendment improved the bill but does not direct the money necessary. It is a small percentage, less than 2 percent over 10 years out of that bill, less than 2 percent of 1 year's spending. We spent $40 million for 10 years on these grants and what we are asking for is .4 of 1 percent to help solve the backlog on all the DNA cases.

The Senator from Vermont.

The bipartisan Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act already reduces authorization levels and adds important accountability measures. These are careful, appropriate, and effective steps. The Coburn amendment would mandate sweeping cuts which would decimate programs. The amendment is opposed by law enforcement, including the National Association of Police Organizations, and by the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women.

Of course we all want to combat fraud, waste, and abuse. But this amendment is not the way to do it. The amendment purports to be based on findings by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO, but it misconstrues those findings. The amendment states that the GAO identified $3.9 billion in ``duplicative'' grants programs. That is simply not the case. The July 2012 GAO report states that the total amount of grants awarded by the Justice Department in fiscal year 2010 was only $3.6 billion. You cannot have $3.9 billion in duplication when the total amount of grant money awarded was less than that.

More importantly, the GAO report did not actually conclude that there was duplication. The July report said there was ``the potential risk of unnecessary duplication'' and recommended that the Justice Department conduct an assessment to determine if grant programs could be consolidated to mitigate that risk. The GAO did not recommend any funding cuts and certainly did not recommend the $780 million cut that this amendment would require. As I have noted, our bill already includes a 17-percent cut in authorizations.

The amendment offered by Senator Coburn requires the Department of Justice to gut key grant programs. It would mandate that the Department cut at least $780 million from its grant programs, many of which provide critical funding to law enforcement and victim service providers. This would have devastating effects on victims of rape and domestic violence, and I urge Senators to vote against it.

The amendment tries to sugarcoat the damage it will do by reference to untested rape kits. In fact, it is the amendment that is duplicative. We have established the Debbie Smith Act to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits and the Leahy-Crapo bill already includes measures to reduce the backlog through core VAWA programs and through the inclusion of the SAFER Act.

By gutting grant programs to law enforcement and victims, the Coburn amendment does not help victims of rape, who rely on victim service providers funded with these grants and on law enforcement who count on Federal support. Mandating vast cuts in programs for victims and law enforcement at a time when those programs are already being squeezed is bad policy. These grant programs save lives. The amendment is bad for victims and bad for law enforcement. I urge Senators to oppose it.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters in opposition to amendment No. 15 to S. 47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the, as follows:

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Is there a sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the roll.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee.

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

Rollcall Vote No. 17 Leg.
Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

Page: S613

Under the previous order, the Senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m.

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013
Page Page: S613

Amendment No. 16
Page Page: S613

Under the previous order, there will be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 16 offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.

The Senator from Oklahoma.

Madam President, this is simply an amendment that says if a woman is raped and there is an article of indictment against the rapist, she ought to have a right to know the sexually transmitted diseases that rapist carries.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Who yields time?

The Senator from Vermont.

The Senator from Oklahoma was a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee when the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act was considered and approved. He was a member for many years and never came to me to raise this issue. It has not been considered and its potential consequences of cutting 20 percent of Federal assistance grants to states that help law enforcement and encourage arrests in sexual assault and domestic violence cases could be disastrous. It is the wrong way to go.

I think we all agree that victims of sexual assault should receive testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. The Leahy-Crapo bill already adds new coverage for HIV testing and services for sexual assault victims. There is also already a five percent penalty in the law for those who don't provide HIV testing.

However, the amendment would mandate that states force tests on defendants, those accused of crimes but not tried or convicted. To require such testing within 48 hours of information or indictment is practically difficult or impossible for many states and violates the state constitution in others. This amendment sets up requirements that many state and local governments cannot comply with and will cause states to lose millions in assistance that helps victims of rape and domestic violence.

The Senator from Oklahoma has consistently voted against VAWA. That is his right. But we should not make the programs more difficult for law enforcement and victims because he does not support them. This is not the right way to reduce government--by setting up government mandates that law enforcement cannot meet and then cutting their assistance funding when they cannot. I do not believe this one-size-fits-all mandate from Washington to our states is the right way to go.

A large majority of states are not in compliance with this provision and would lose crucial funds for preventing rape and domestic violence and helping victims. These funds are particularly important in difficult economic times, and cutting them would be devastating for victims. The amendment's mandate is overly proscriptive and intrusive and would result in a loss of crucial services to many victims. That is why the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women strongly opposes this amendment.

I am willing to work on even more ways to ensure that rape victims receive all needed treatment. But doing so with measures that will punish the rape victims themselves by denying them access to needed services is inhumane and counter-productive. I urge Senators to oppose this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters in opposition to amendment No. 16 to S. 47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013.

The Senator from Oklahoma.

The people who oppose it oppose it on the grounds they might not get as much money unless they actually keep a woman from getting raped twice--once by the system we set up and once by their attacker.

If Senators vote against this, what they are saying is they don't have any compassion for the women who don't know the status of the person who raped them. Therefore, they go under treatment; they go through unknown and severe psychological stress, having to be repeatedly tested.

We put this in the bill the last time at 5 percent. All we did this time is raise it to 20 percent to try to reduce this behavior in the States.

The chairman of the Judiciary Committee voted for this last time. So to say what we are doing is not in the best interests of women is wrong. If someone really thinks women ought to get raped twice, vote against this amendment.

The time of the Senator has expired.

Madam President, would that it were so simple. The amendment is simply going to take protections away from thousands of women, and that is why I oppose it.

The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Is there a sufficient second?

There appears to be a sufficient second.

There is a sufficient second.

The clerk will call the roll.

Rollcall Vote No. 18 Leg.
Page Page: S613

On passage of S. 47
Page Page: S613

Madam President, today I would like to address a provision of the Violence Against Women Act, S. 47, that is of great concern. Title IX of VAWA provides tribal courts with special jurisdiction over non-Indians who are charged with crimes of domestic violence. While title IX requires tribal courts availing themselves of this special jurisdiction to provide the non-Indian defendant ``all other rights whose protection is necessary under the Constitution,'' I am concerned that such proceedings have the potential to deprive U.S. citizens of crucial due process rights, especially without further connection to the existing Federal court system.

First, title IX currently requires a defendant to be tried by an impartial jury drawn from sources that ``reflect a fair cross section of the community.'' We are always concerned that the population from which a jury is drawn not result in bias against a defendant who may not be part of the same race, culture, or religion as the jurors. While the population of many Indian lands consists of a wide variety of both Indians and non-Indians, many parts of Indian country are populated by Indians who have close ties to one another but limited interaction with non-Indians. I believe we must seek to minimize the potential for bias against non-Indian defendants under such circumstances.

Second, in State and Federal courts, the defendant has several options with which to challenge the validity of the court's rulings. Under the special jurisdiction laid out in title IX, the defendant lacks both the ability to remove his case to Federal court when appropriate and the ability to appeal a decision to a Federal appeals court. While many tribal courts have proven to be as consistent and fair as traditional courts, the possibility of removal and appeal is key to the oversight that U.S. citizens rightfully expect in criminal proceedings.

For these reasons I respectfully urge my colleagues to oppose S. 47.

On passage of S. 47
Page Page: S613

Madam President, I recognize the concerns of the Senator from Oklahoma. His amendment has good intentions by seeking to find ways to reduce duplication for all Department of Justice, DOJ, grants to State and local governments and nonprofit organizations. I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma that we need to pinch every penny.

However, as chairwoman of both the Appropriations Committee and the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science, CJS, I must oppose the amendment. It directs the Justice Department to develop and implement a plan that eliminates, consolidates or streamlines seemingly similar existing grant programs to find at least $780 million in savings. Then, regardless of whether or not duplication in grant programs is identified, $780 million would be automatically rescinded for deficit reduction, unless DOJ chooses to redirect a portion for DNA backlog reduction grants.

I oppose this amendment for two reasons. First, the fiscal year 2013 Senate CJS bill already rescinds over $61 million from DOJ grants, coming on top of $93 million rescinded in the fiscal year 2012 enacted bill. The Justice Department's grant components are already struggling to meet those mandatory rescissions. In order to meet an additional $780 million, this amendment would give the Department enormous power to unilaterally terminate programs with no input from Congress.

Second, Justice grants have already been slashed, and are likely to take more cuts in the coming months and years. Since fiscal year 2010, DOJ grants have been cut by more than $1.5 billion, a 41 percent reduction, from $3.6 billion in fiscal year 2010 to $2.1 billion in fiscal year 2012, shifting the burden of crime fighting to State and local governments where budgets are also stressed. Should sequestration kick in, grants will be cut by at least $110 million, or another 5 percent reduction. This amendment would cut another $780 million from programs like Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, COPS Hiring, youth mentoring, bulletproof vests, and the Violence Against Women Act. Altogether, this would be an astounding cut of $2.4 billion, or 64 percent, since fiscal year 2010.

The Senator from Oklahoma and I agree that we need to be strong sentries over taxpayers' funds. I have encouraged the Attorney General to follow GAO's recommendations, and he has responded by directing the Department to assess and consolidate grant programs when possible in order to prevent unnecessary duplication. But the Coburn amendment implements sweeping cuts, which will impact every Justice grant program. It will hurt our law enforcement and community partners at home, who are already struggling with limited tools to keep our families and neighborhoods safe and help victims of crime.

I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote no.

On passage of S. 47
Page Page: S613

Madam President, as a cosponsor of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, I urge my colleagues to adopt this important measure.

The issue before us is not partisan. It is not of importance to just one State or region, or to a single group or interest. It is manifestly in the interest of every American to reauthorize these important programs that have made such a difference in the lives of women and families across this country.

Since its passage, the Violence Against Women Act has provided comprehensive support to survivors of domestic and sexual violence and to the Federal, State and local agencies that confront this scourge every day. The original legislation passed in 1994 laid a strong foundation that helped establish a coordinated response to violence against women. Reauthorizations in 2000 and 2005 strengthened that foundation. Today, through violence prevention grants, services to survivors of sexual assault, legal assistance, transitional housing grants, assistance to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors and other efforts, VAWA has made an enormous difference.

Deaths due to violent acts by intimate partners have decreased significantly. And according to a cost-benefit analysis, VAWA saved nearly $15 billion in its first 6 years of existence by avoiding the high social costs violence against women exacts on our Nation. William T. Robinson, the president of the American Bar Association, calls VAWA ``the single most effective federal effort to respond to the epidemic of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking in this country.''

I had hoped the Congress would act to reauthorize VAWA last year. There is no reason that today we cannot pass this legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support. Doing so will make an enormous difference in protecting women from domestic abuse and other forms of violence. And it will make a strong statement that the Senate is united in our desire to ensure that our mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters will continue to receive that protection.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.

Under the previous order, there will be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on passage of S. 47, as amended.

On passage of S. 47
Page Page: S613

As the Senate now votes on the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, I hope we will join together in a strong bipartisan majority to pass this important legislation. Enactment of our bill to help all victims of domestic and sexual violence is overdue. Together we can finally finish what we started last year. We are deeply indebted to the women and men around the country who have been working with us and have been steadfast in their commitment to the victims and to our efforts to combat domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, and sexual assault.

The Violence Against Women Act has been effective at preventing crimes and protecting victims. But there is so much more to be done. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's recent survey found that one in four women has been the victim of severe physical domestic violence, and one in five women has been raped in her lifetime. More than half of the homicides in my state of Vermont are related to domestic violence. This is simply unacceptable. We can and we must do better.

The Senate overwhelmingly passed the Leahy-Crapo bill last April. In the nearly 10 months since then, thousands of women around the country have been victimized. We have heard of too many cases, yet the vast majority of these crimes are never reported at all. I cannot help but feel that some of those crimes could have been prevented. Some of those victims could have gotten more assistance. Congress should not delay any longer.

Our bill offers support for those techniques already proven in the field that help identify high-risk cases and prevent domestic violence homicides. It will increase VAWA's focus on rape victims and push colleges to strengthen their efforts to protect students from domestic and sexual violence. This reauthorization will allow us to make real progress in addressing the horrifying epidemic of domestic violence in tribal communities. This bipartisan bill will allow services to get to those in the LGBT community who have had trouble accessing services in the past. The bill also includes key improvements for immigrant victims of domestic and sexual violence.

All of these provisions were included because victims and the people who work with them every day told us they were needed to prevent crimes and provide better assistance to victims. We are trying to help victims and prevent crime. We have been working to get this bill through the Senate and to the House so we can quickly get a good bill to the President for his signature. We cannot afford further delay while more victims suffer unnecessarily.

I, again, thank the Majority Leader for making violence against women a priority for the Senate. We have been debating this measure since last Monday. We have considered a number of amendments. In the legislative process we have been able to make additional progress by adopting the bipartisan Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, as well.

I noted at the outset of this debate that by providing new tools and resources to communities all around the country, we have helped bring the crimes of rape and domestic violence out of the shadows. The Federal Government is standing with the women of this country and sent the message that we would no longer tolerate their treatment as second class citizens. Our bill renews and reinforces that commitment.

Ending violence against women is not an easy problem to solve, but there are simple and significant steps we can take right now, without delay, by passing this legislation. We have worked hard to make this bill bipartisan and I am proud that it has more than 60 Senate cosponsors. It also has the support of more than 1400 local, state and national organizations from around the country that work with victims every day and know just how critical this law has been. I included their most recent letter of support with my remarks last Monday. I, again, thank them for their tireless efforts.

There remain some special interest lobbies and some Senators who do not appreciate the role of the Federal Government in helping improve the lives of Americans. It is disappointed that Heritage Action and the Family Research Council are urging opposition to our bipartisan bill. I hope that Senators will listen, instead, to the victims and to law enforcement and to the more than 1400 national, state, and local organizations that strongly support our Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.

If anyone needs a reminder of how important government help can be, just think about the way that Federal and local law enforcement worked together last week to rescue Ethan, a 5-year-old kidnapped boy, from an underground bunker in Alabama, where he had been held hostage for almost a week. Ask the family and local law enforcement if they appreciated the help of the FBI, the Defense Department and so many who contributed to the safe return of that innocent victim.

Every day across this nation we are reminded of the importance of programs like the Violence Against Women Act. Our bipartisan bill does more than protect victims of domestic violence. It also contains provisions to protect victims of stalking. This morning the Washington Post reported that a ``man stalking one of his victims shot and killed two women waiting to pass through metal detectors at a courthouse ..... Two male police officers also were struck by bullets ..... but were saved by their bullet-proof vests.'' This episode should remind us all that after working to reauthorize and reinvigorate the Violence Against Women Act, we must also reauthorize the Bullet Proof Vest program so that more of our law enforcement officials can be protected.

I spent years in local law enforcement and have great respect for the men and women who protect us every day. When I hear Senators say that we should not provide Federal assistance, we should not help officers get the protection they need with bulletproof vests, or that we should not help the families of fallen public safety officers, I strongly disagree. In our Federal system, we can help and when we can, we should help. And that is exactly the opportunity that is before us today. We have the power to help improve the lives of millions of people in this country by renewing and expanding our commitment to end domestic and sexual violence and strengthen our commitment against human trafficking. A recent study from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that more than 24 people per minute are the victims of rape, domestic violence and stalking in this country. We can take action to change that and we must.

I am proud that our bill seeks to support all victims, regardless of their immigration status, their sexual orientation or their membership in an Indian tribe. As I have said countless times on the floor of this chamber, ``a victim is a victim is a victim.'' The Violence Against Women Act is an example of how the Federal Government can help solve problems in cooperation with state and local communities. The fact is that women are safer today because of this law and there is no excuse not to improve upon it and reauthorize it without delay. We are working to protect victims--all victims--of domestic and sexual violence. I urge all Senators to look past the narrow, ideological opposition of some and join with us. That is what the former senior Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, did last year when her Republican substitute was rejected by the Senate.

I hope that despite 14 Republican Senators not voting to proceed to consider the bill and 35 Republican Senators supporting what was a poor substitute offered and rejected early in this debate, we will have a strong bipartisan vote for final passage. I urge those who previously opposed our efforts to improve the Violence Against Women Act to join with us and help the Senate send our strong bill to the House of Representatives so that we can get it enacted. Despite the predictions by some that the Republican House of Representatives will refuse to consider the Senate bill, as it did last year, I see reason for hope. Just yesterday 17 Republican members of the House wrote to their own leadership urging immediate reauthorization of VAWA.

I thank the many Senators who have helped shape this bill and have spoken is such strong support of it, including Senator Crapo, Senator Mikulski, Senator Murkowski, Senator Murray, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Coons, Senator Collins, Senator Shaheen, Senator Franken, Senator Hagan, Senator Casey, and so many others. I also thank their staffs and my own, including Kristine Lucius, Noah Bookbinder, Anya McMurray, Chris Leopold, Bryan Seeley, and Clark Flynt, for their countless hours of work away from their own families as we try to make all families safer and more secure.

Who yields time in opposition?

Madam President, I yield back our time.

Vote on passage of S. 47
Page Page: S613

The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass?

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Is there a sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

The clerk will call the roll.

Text of S. 47 passed in the Senate
Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Madam President, I wanted to thank all my fellow Senators, from both parties, who voted for this bill. If you are someone who has seen firsthand the results of violence against women, it would be almost impossible to vote no on this bill. Will this stop all violence? No. But will it stop a lot of it? Yes; and it will also make possible for those who are caught in violence a chance for support, a chance for someplace to go, a chance to be protected from future attacks.

This is the kind of legislation that speaks to the conscience of our Nation. It speaks to the conscience of the Senate. It tells everybody, usually the most defenseless in our society, this body stands with you. I would urge our friends on the other side of the Capitol to move quickly with similar legislation. This is something we should not hold up. This is a way we can say: We oppose violence against women. We oppose it today. We oppose it tomorrow. We will oppose it forever.

Page: S645

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

Without objection, it is so ordered.

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

The clerk will call the roll.

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

Without objection, it is so ordered.

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

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Cordray Nomination
Page: S645

Mr. President, I was concerned when I saw a number of my colleagues are again trying to block the appointment of Ohioan Richard Cordray to the consumer agency. That agency has already played a significant role in saving tens of millions of dollars for consumers who have been wronged in a checking account transaction, who have been nickel-and-dimed, and then some by bank fees.

Former Ohio Attorney General Cordray has done an excellent job as the Director of that consumer bureau. But what troubles me is this is only the second time in the history of the Senate, at least as far as the Senate Historian can figure, when a group of Senators from one party has blocked the nomination of a Presidential appointee because they do not like the agency, because they oppose the construct of the agency itself.

The first time that ever happened was just a couple of years ago with Richard Cordray in this position. The creation of the consumer bureau went through regular order. It was passed by the Senate Banking Committee, on which I sit. It was part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill, and it went to the House of Representatives. It went to conference committee. All that happened was regular order to create this agency.

Many people didn't like the agency. I submit I agree with that. I understand that. I don't agree that it is not a good agency. They don't like the agency in large part because it stood up to Wall Street, and it stood up to some of the bank abuses that put us in this financial situation as a country with the damage it did to our economy.

Even with that, if you don't like the agency, as I said, never before in history except these two times--with the same appointment process, the same appointee, the same designee, the same nominee of the President--has this happened whereby my colleagues said: Even though he is qualified, we are not going to vote to confirm Richard Cordray because we don't like the agency. If you are not willing to change the agency, we are not willing to support a director.

Imagine the kind of precedent that sets where if you don't like an agency, you are never going to let the President confirm a leader of that agency--in any agency of the Federal Government. If you don't like food safety, then you are going to block the appointment. If you don't like transportation, something in the Transportation Department, you don't like something else, you are going to vote against somebody taking the job to run the agency.

Government can't run that way. The government will be dysfunctional if this precedent is set and is ongoing, in addition to the fact that Cordray is right for the job. Also, this agency is important for the middle class, for working-class people, and for low-income people who need these consumer protections.

It sets a very bad precedent for this body. I am hopeful some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will think clearly about this and move ahead on the nomination and confirmation process.

Tribute to Dennis Meyers
Page: S645

Mr. President, I stand before you today to honor and recognize a man whose legacy of service to the community, both as a physician and a citizen, is completely deserving of such recognition. I am speaking of Mr. Dennis Meyers of Clay County, KY. The Clay County Days Hall of Fame has chosen to induct Mr. Meyers for his excellent leadership of Manchester Memorial Hospital over the past 12 years.

Mr. Meyers' record of service can be traced back to 1969, when he served as a pastor in the Nebraska and Illinois conferences. After close to two decades of pastoral service, he pursued an occupational change that allowed him to aid others in the field of recreational therapy. He continued to pursue opportunities in medicine, moving into a registered nurse position at Hanford Hospital in 1986. Mr. Meyers then accepted the role of vice president of nursing at San Joaquin Community Hospital in 1990 and continued success brought him to Manchester Memorial, where he eventually served as president and chief executive officer.

Dennis Meyers' involvement in and care for his community have been immeasurable, especially when one considers the many community outreach initiatives he fostered. He helped the community by initiating Mission in Motion, public health screenings, Live It UP, and mission outreach programs.

Mr. Meyers' family shares his devotion to helping others, as his wife Susan also works for the hospital and his three children hold nursing degrees. He has recently retired from his lead role at Manchester Memorial Hospital but plans to stay involved through outreach and church programs.

At this time, I would like to ask my fellow Senators to join me in honoring Mr. Dennis Meyers for his induction into the Clay County Days Hall of Fame. The Commonwealth of Kentucky is all the richer because of his tireless spirit and his willingness to work, heal, and serve.

I also ask unanimous consent that an article in praise of Mr. Meyers that appeared in the Bell County-area publication The Manchester Enterprise be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record as follows:

Committee on Energy and Natural Resource
Page: S646

Rules of Preocedure
Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I submit the rules governing the procedure of the for publication in the Congressional Record.

I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Tribute to Sandy Sheehy
Page: S647

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Mrs. Sandy Sheehy of Oregon, OH upon her retirement from the Rossford Public Library after 40 years of public service as a children's librarian.

Mrs. Sheehy was raised in Ida, MI and received her master's degree at Western Michigan University. Shortly after graduating, she began working at the Oregon Branch Library, a branch location of the Toledo-Lucas County Public Library system. Mrs. Sheehy worked for the Toledo-Lucas County Public Library for her first 10 years of service as the children's librarian and then spent the next 30 years as the children's librarian at the Rossford Public Library, where she helped plan and operate children's programs. In addition, she was responsible for purchasing children's books and multimedia collections as well as purchasing other services for the library.

Over the years, Mrs. Sheehy discovered and developed many trends at the library that sparked excitement and interest in children and their parents. Her dedication to her profession is shown by the respect she has earned from her coworkers and from the Rossford community.

Throughout her career, Sandy Sheehy has made many contributions through her civic involvement throughout the Toledo, OH area. Upon her retirement, Mrs. Sheehy plans to spend time with her family and friends and travel with her husband, Mike Sheehy.

I would like to congratulate Mrs. Sandy Sheehy of Oregon, OH on her 40 years of service to the children of Northwest Ohio and recognize her for developing a positive atmosphere of learning for the many children and families she has assisted and inspired during her career.

Tribute to Bishop Paul A. Bowers
Page: S647

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Bishop Paul Alexander Bowers, who has served as the presiding Bishop of Greater Emanuel Apostolic Temple since 1957. Bishop Bowers celebrated his 55th pastoral anniversary on February 1, 2013, in my hometown of Cincinnati, OH.

Bishop Bowers was born and raised in Oxford, PA. After his high school graduation he moved to Columbus, OH, where he attended Aenon Bible College. He graduated in 1951 with a bachelor of theology and later received a bachelor of science from the University of Cincinnati in 1964. Bowers also taught in the Cincinnati public school system for 5 years and retired in 1968 before dedicating his life to ministry.

Bishop Bowers served as chairman of the Ohio District Council of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc., PAW, from 1976 to 1992. During his tenure, he built a 100-bed nursing home, a 1,200 seat worship center with a fully-equipped cafeteria which seats 500 people, and a dormitory that has the capacity to house over 100 people at the ODC Campground in Zanesville, OH.

Bishop Bowers also served as the diocesan of the Carolina State Council, assistant general secretary, general secretary, and assistant presiding Bishop of PAW. In 1992, he was promoted to the Office of the Presiding Bishop, where he served for 6 years. While in this position, Bishop Bowers was responsible for leading a $2.2 million project to renovate PAW's international headquarters located in Indianapolis, IN.

Today, Bishop Bowers serves as the diocesan bishop of the Ohio District Council, where he has had the opportunity to further develop the campground in Zanesville, OH.

Bishop Bowers has made many contributions through his civic involvement throughout the southwestern region of Ohio, but I would like to highlight his outreach in prison ministries and his recent partnership with reentry organizations in Cincinnati, OH.

In August 2011, Bishop Bowers graciously opened the doors of Greater Emanuel Apostolic Temple to host my first reentry summit, following my election to the U.S. Senate. While there, I was greeted by many kind faces and witnessed people come in from off the street to take a moment to pray in the beautiful sanctuary.

Over the years, I have spoken many times about the importance of reducing recidivism in our communities and the need for faith-based leaders to continue their engagement with those reentering society from jails and prisons. I first got involved with prisoner reentry issues through my work on drug prevention and treatment more than 10 years ago, when I came to understand the close connection between substance abuse and recidivism, considering three quarters of those returning from prison have a history of substance abuse.

Faith-based groups are the first line of defense, as well as service, to vulnerable and high-risk populations. Faith leaders can use their influence as an opportunity to direct those in need to proper programming, and I commend the Greater Emanuel congregation for playing an active role in the community and continuing their work to reduce recidivism and change the lives of those in need. Houses of worship serve as beacons of hope to guide the lost and help restore their lives, which is why I believe the ecumenical community can play an important role as a partner in recidivism reduction.

Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Bishop Bowers on his 55th anniversary of pastoral service and recognize him for his continued work on recidivism reduction.

Page: S647

Alaska Marine Highway System
[Begin Insert]

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the 50th anniversary of the Alaska Marine Highway System. Alaskans celebrate this critical and necessary water transportation system which links rural and urban hub communities along the coast of our vast State. Unlike the lower 48, many of our communities are not accessible by road, so in many areas the primary means of travel is by air or sea. Therefore, the Alaska Marine Highway makes up a large part of our highway system and is a route so special it has been designated a National Scenic Byway and an All American Road, the only marine route in the United States with this designation.

My family and I share special memories of taking the ferries to many communities throughout Alaska. The Marine Highway was even part of our trip here to Washington for my first year in the Senate. A ferry ride brings Alaskans together while on their way to visit family, play in basketball tournaments, or bring new cars and boats home from the lower 48.

Although the 50-year anniversary commemorates the formal establishment of the Alaska Division of Marine Transportation in 1963, the Alaska Marine Highway System was begun in 1948, initiated by three men with a dream to provide dependable marine transportation among Alaska's coastal communities. Haines resident Steve Homer joined forces with brothers Ray and Gustav Gelotte to purchase the M/V Chilkoot and set up Chilkoot Motorship Lines. The vessel, formerly a U.S. Navy landing craft, required work to remove its military features and ensure it could pass U.S. Coast Guard inspection, but within a few months of its purchase, it was deemed ready for service as a civilian passenger vessel. The M/V Chilkoot could carry a maximum of only 14 cars and by all accounts had ``poor accommodations'' due to retaining many of its original Navy features. No matter the M/V Chilkoot ferried its first two cars from Haines to Juneau in August of 1948.

As fate would have it, one of those cars belonged to Ernest Gruening, then the Territorial Governor of Alaska. Governor Gruening became an ardent supporter of the new transportation system and with two other commissioners from the Board of Roads authorized the construction of ferry ramps in Juneau, Haines, and Skagway. Thus, service to these three small southeast communities was born.

In 1988 Steve Homer wrote a letter about his experience starting the Alaska Marine Highway System. In that letter he wrote that his initial idea of bringing a landing craft to Southeast Alaska was spawned in 1944 when he commanded such a craft in World War II. He said he signed partnership papers to form Chilkoot Motorship Lines in 1949 and that the total required equity capital was $9,177 in 1948 dollars. A few years later the business ran into financial difficulties, and the Alaska Territorial Government offered to purchase it. Ownership transferred to the territory in 1951.

By 1957 the M/V Chilkoot was too small to meet demand and was replaced by the M/V Chilkat. The M/V Chilkat could carry 59 passengers and 15 vehicles. It began daily service between Juneau, Haines, and Skagway in April of that year.

Two years later, on January 3, 1959, Alaska became the 49th State and the M/V Chilkat became the first State-owned ferry. That same year, the First Alaska Legislature approved the Alaska Ferry Transportation Act, and voters approved bond issues totaling $18 million to expand the ferry fleet. These bonds enabled the State to commission four new vessels and build docks throughout southeast Alaska and the Kenai Peninsula. In 1963, with the establishment of the Division of Marine Transportation, the Alaska Marine Highway System was officially launched.

Over the past 50 years the Alaska Marine Highway has grown to include 11 vessels which serve 35 communities. From the southern terminus in Bellingham, WA, the system stretches more than 3,500 miles to Dutch Harbor, AK. It makes port calls in Prince Rupert, BC, and throughout Alaska's Inside Passage. It travels across the Gulf of Alaska to Prince William Sound and along the Aleutian Chain, all to carry the Nation's commerce to distant destinations and Alaska's passengers to home ports. Through this scenic highway, Alaskans share their incredible natural beauty with visitors from around the world and connect with each other through a transportation system which has served safely and reliably for 50 years.

Thank you for allowing me to celebrate this milestone 50th anniversary of the unique Alaska treasure known as the Alaska Marine Highway System.

[End Insert]

Observing Elizabeth Peratrovich Day
S648

[Begin Insert]

Mr. President, every year on February 16, Alaskans take time to remember and celebrate Elizabeth Peratrovich, a Tlingit woman who demonstrated courage in her convictions--a courage which changed the course of civil rights treatment for Alaska Natives.

Almost 25 years ago, the Alaska State Legislature designated this date as Elizabeth Peratrovich Day to commemorate the signing of the Alaska Anti-Discrimination Act of 1945 and to honor Ms. Peratrovich.

Elizabeth Wanamaker was born on July 4, 1911. Her family traveled extensively on missionary trips throughout southeast Alaska, providing Elizabeth with broad educational experiences and connecting her with people throughout the region--an extraordinary opportunity for a Native girl of that era.

After leaving the State to attend Western College in Bellingham, WA, she returned to Alaska with her new husband, Roy Peratrovich, who was half Tlingit, to work in the canneries in Klawock. Both were educated and interested in Native issues, and Roy joined the Alaska Native Brotherhood, ANB, and Elizabeth joined the Alaska Native Sisterhood, ANS. Both ANB and ANS were working to gain land claims and civil rights for Alaska's Native people. Their interests turned to activism, and Elizabeth and Roy began to get more involved in their community. Roy was elected as mayor of Klawock.

Eventually, the couple decided to move to Alaska's territorial capital, Juneau, in search of more opportunities and a better education for their children. Their dreams quickly dissolved when they discovered Natives were not welcome in many places in Juneau. There were signs reading ``No dogs, No Natives or Filipinos and others that simply said ``No Natives Allowed. They found separate drinking fountains and separate entryways in public buildings for non-Whites. They learned they could only purchase property in Native neighborhoods, could only be seated in a segregated portion of the local theater, and could only send their children to missionary schools--not the public schools for which they paid a school tax.

In 1941, Elizabeth and Roy wrote a joint letter to Territorial Governor Ernest Gruening about their concerns. Many legislators were entrenched with the idea that Alaska Natives were second class citizens and despite the fact they paid taxes and bore arms in defense of the Nation, they were not endowed with the same rights as others.

However, 1945 brought some hope. Antidiscrimination legislation had passed the Alaska State House but was stalled in the Senate. One senator made a speech stating that Natives had only recently emerged from savagery and they were not fit for society. He argued they had not had the experience of 5,000 years of civilization.

With great courage and composure, Elizabeth Peratrovich stood during public testimony and confronted the senator who had just belittled her and her people. Not only was she a Native addressing the mostly White senate, she was also the first woman ever to address the body.

Elizabeth Peratrovich opened her testimony with, ``I would not have expected that I, who am barely out of savagery, would have to remind gentlemen with five thousand years of recorded civilization behind them of our Bill of Rights.''

The senate gallery and floor exploded in applause. The opposition that had been so absolute and emphatic shrank to a mere whisper.

On February 8, 1945, a bill to end discrimination in Alaska passed the senate by a vote of 11 to 5. The bill was signed into law on February 16--the day we celebrate Elizabeth Peratrovich Day.

Elizabeth Peratrovich was instrumental in making Alaska the first organized government under the U.S. flag to condemn discrimination. Today in Alaska, we celebrate Elizabeth

Peratrovich Day and affirm our beliefs in equality.

Thank you for allowing me to embrace the memory of one woman who fought for equality for all, Alaskan Elizabeth Peratrovich.

[End Insert]

Remembering Kevin Tonn
Page: S649

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Kevin Tonn, a loving son, devoted friend, and respected law enforcement official. Officer Tonn lost his life serving the Galt Police Department on January 15, 2013. He was 35 years old.

Kevin Tonn was raised in the Sacramento region. He graduated from Roseville High School and the Roseville Police Explorers program before serving in the U.S. Army as a military police officer at Fort Drum and later as a firefighter in New York. In January 2009, he returned home to California and graduated from the Sacramento County Sheriff's Academy.

For the past 3 1/2 years, Officer Kevin Tonn was a member of the Galt Police Department, where he was known for his hard work, sense of humor, and dedication to the community and its people. In his short time with the department, he was promoted to the K-9 unit, where he proudly served with his devoted German Shepherd partner, Yaro.

Officer Kevin Tonn, like all those who serve in law enforcement, put his life on the line to protect and serve his community. His commitment to public safety and to the citizens he served will never be forgotten.

On behalf of the people of California, whom he served so well, I send my gratitude and deep sympathy to his friends and family, including his beloved parents Will and Mary Ann Tonn. We are forever indebted to Officer Tonn for his courage, service, and sacrifice.

Honoring Gordon H. Mansfield
Page: S649

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Sanders and myself, as the ranking member and chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I wish to pay tribute to Gordon H. Mansfield, a great American hero, a distinguished public servant, and a boundless advocate and friend of veterans, who died on January 29, 2013, concluding a life of exceptional service to America.

On February 4, 1968, Gordon, then a young Army captain, was leading troops in battle in Quang Tri province, Vietnam, during the Tet Offensive when he was shot twice in the spine by the enemy.

Without the use of his legs, he made sure all his men were safe and all other wounded troops were evacuated before he allowed himself to be medevac'd. Gordon received the Distinguished Service Cross for his actions on that day--a day that marked a new beginning, not an end, to his service to our Nation.

The wounds Gordon suffered required him to use a wheelchair for mobility for the remainder of his life, but after 5 years of rehabilitation and thanks to his amazing determination, he graduated from law school and started a new chapter in his life.

Vermont Essay Winners
Page: S649

Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record winning essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the Third Annual ``What is the State of the Union?'' Essay contest conducted by my office.

The essays follow.

Caroline Braun, Champlain Valley Union High School (Winner)

There is no simple cure for the abundant issues plaguing our nation. Not only are we recovering from a recession, but we also are confronting challenges related to climate change, healthcare, and education. While our efforts to address these issues are noble, our failure to solve them reflects a more concerning societal problem.

On December 14, 2012, twenty children and six faculty members were fatally shot in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Not only did this devastating tragedy leave close friends, family, and the local community in shock, but also the nation. Though it is remarkable that our country embraced the friends and families of those killed, we only seem to value such a strong sense of community after a crisis. The dramatic increase in violence in the past decade raises new questions about our current societal values and priorities: have we forgotten what's truly important in this new age? While we enjoy the many luxuries that accompany technology and contemporary life, has the lure of modern convenience eclipsed our fundamental human need to take care of and support each other, our families, and our communities?

Perhaps it is time we recalibrate who we are and who we want to be as a country so that the fundamental values on which our country was founded can once again flourish. How can one pursue happiness without access to basic healthcare, food, or the ability to spend time with the ones we love? Certainly when our forefathers declared our right to bear arms, their intent was not for corporations and special interest groups to profit from its citizens being armed with assault weapons intended for war. Instead of unbridled greed and big business dominating our economy, it is imperative we support small businesses so they can thrive once again. Environmentally, we have yet to replace our dependence on oil with renewable energy resources and reduce our effects on climate change. And while we all agree educating our children is a requisite investment in our future, teachers continue to earn, on average, 12 percent less than other workers with similar education and work experience.

As a world leader and role model for democracy and peace, we need initiatives that not only connect people and communities, but also ones that will act as catalysts for change. Increasing awareness of issues related to social justice will spark larger movements for societal change; whether it is reducing community violence, practicing business ethics, implementing renewable energy sources, advocating for mental health care, or investing in our teachers and schools. Instead of businesses and special interest groups being the sole influence on policies and the direction of our country, now is the time, once again, for all citizens to be heard, cared for, and respected. Although as a nation we have made and continue to make advances that were inconceivable just a century ago, our penchant for the new shouldn't trump our commitment to older values and fundamental human rights.

Emily Ellsworth, Colchester High School (2nd Place)

Social mobility is essential to the development of the American character. The ability to overcome class distinctions and succeed economically through hard work equates to opportunity. Yet current U.S. taxation policies are harming the middle-class and widening the gaps of income inequality, thus narrowing the window of opportunity for Americans. Federally enforced legislation such as the Bush Tax Cuts and the income tax on capital gains provide a disproportionate amount of benefits to the wealthiest Americans. This leaves a majority of citizens possessing less means to increase their income, obtain education for higher paying occupations and provisions for the next generation.

It is necessary to consider the purchasing function and the insurance function of wealth. The quality of a child's education and neighborhood is dependent upon the volume of wealth the parent has access to. Children also receive a very different set of choices and opportunities upon entering the adult world depending on their family's economic status. To combat the further detriment to future generations, taxes must be raised in areas which will inflict minimal harm, and produce the most beneficial results. America is experiencing the largest disproportion of wealth since 1928, and current taxation policy not only aids in widening the income gap, but harms the accumulation of government tax revenue.

The sale of stocks and bonds are called ``capital gains.'' Until the 1990's, the capital gains tax was at 28%. Today its current level is 15% which enables less revenue gained from any individuals whose main source of income comes from stocks and bonds, such as wealthy businessmen. In 2006, for instance, Warren Buffett paid 17.7 percent in taxes on the $46 million he booked that year, while his secretary paid 30 percent of her $60,000 salary to the government. Simple practices such as restoring tax rates to past levels are essential to the aid of our country's recovery and to improve the state of the Union.

Gena Chiola, Mount Abraham Union High School (3rd Place)

Today, we face problems concerning the environment, war and conflict, as well as lack of resources. In these times, more than ever before, the solution to these problems lies in global communication. If we put our heads together, and help each other, we can create a plan to reduce climate change. If we increase our efforts to work out conflicts between countries, through effective communication, less people will lose their lives through unnecessary wars. Sharing of resources can occur when we effectively communicate between countries, which will reduce poverty worldwide. All it takes is effective global communication to resolve global issues.

One major global problem is conflict between nations. There will always be conflicts between people, it is part of being human, but how we deal with these conflicts is what makes the difference. Today, approximately 60 countries are involved in a war. Millions of people die each year from these conflicts. This fighting and killing is indeed a form of communication, but it is not effective in solving world problems. We accomplish nothing by killing people. We need to stop thinking of ourselves as being separated by national boundaries and focus on how to break down these walls. By communicating and working towards the same common goal, we will improve the planet. If we think globally, we will have more of a chance of communicating globally, and resolving conflicts through peaceful means, rather than war.

Enter Climate Change conundrum. Climate Change is the increased temperature of the atmosphere due to human carbon emissions. Our use of gasoline to run cars, and oil to heat our homes contributes to the heating of the climate. We are slowly destroying our environment, and creating an increasingly dangerous habitat for all living thing. It is no question that this is a dangerous issue that needs addressing. And in order to address it, we must work together. Bill Mckibben, of Vermont, helps us do this. He organized 350.org, which is a global campaign to solve climate change. The mission of 350.org is ``building a global grassroots movement to solve the climate crisis.'' He organizes global rallies and projects to bring the world together in the face of this crisis. He helps us communicate as a world to get the job done, since it can be done no other way.

Earth's lack of resources needs to be addressed and solved through global communication. 25,000 people die from hunger every day. Other poverty induced diseases, like AIDs, cause millions of deaths worldwide. However, by globally communicating, we can reduce poverty. Global communication can help us redistribute the resources. Some places are brimming over with resources, such as fresh food, water, and technology while others suffer. The U.S.A. has an abundance of resources. If we use global communication to be at peace with one another, we can share what we have, so that less people suffer. If the United States were to share resources with poverty stricken countries of Africa, people in Africa would have happier lives, while people in the United States would still have enough to live comfortably. This can all be achieved through effective global communication.

Global communication is the answer. If we all put our hearts and heads together, and forget our differences, we can change the world for the better, which is always the ultimate goal. Whether it's to prevent wars, bring the temperature of the atmosphere down, or to redistribute resources, it's undebatable that communication is what we need. Let us come together, and work together and never forget the importance of global communication.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mckibben, B. 350.org. January, 2013, http://www.350.org/en/mission

Poverty.com. January, 2013, http://poverty.com/

Wars in the World, January 2013, http://www.warsintheworld.com/?page=static1258254223

Statistic Brain, World Poverty Statistics. January, 2013 http://www.statisticbrain.com/worldpoverty-statistics/

Henson, Robert. The Rough Guide to Climate Change: page 1-10. New York, USA: Rough Guides Ltd, September 2006.

In 1981, he joined the staff of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and he later became its executive director. His passion for public service led him to become the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. And in 2001, he joined the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, first as Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Legislative Affairs, then as Deputy Secretary, and briefly, in 2007, as Acting Secretary.

At VA, Gordon brought his unique perspective on the needs of paralyzed veterans to the day-to-day management of the Department. He spoke out regularly on the need to improve access for paralyzed veterans to VA services; to ensure that disabled veterans were properly compensated for their services; and to provide opportunity for every paralyzed veteran to live a full, barrier-free, and productive life.

In 2009, Gordon retired from VA, but he did not conclude his service to veterans and their families. He became a member of the board of directors of the Wounded Warrior Project, serving a new generation of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. He also joined the board of directors of the Disabled Veterans' Life Memorial Foundation.

Gordon's lifetime contributions to our country and its citizens were well recognized. In addition to the Distinguished Service Cross, his military decorations included the Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts, the Combat Infantry Badge, and the Presidential Unit Citation. He was inducted into the Army Ranger Hall of Fame in 2007 and the U.S. Army Officer Candidate School Hall of Fame in 1997.

He received the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service, the Presidential Distinguished Service Award, the Robert Dole Service to Our Nation Award, the Disabled American Veterans Outstanding Disabled Veteran of the Year Award, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America Outstanding Service to Veterans Award.

We offer his wife Linda; his children, Gordon and Leon; and his entire family our deepest condolences. They, and all Americans, have lost a remarkable leader, a courageous hero, and a role model to all individuals with disabilities. He will be sorely missed.

Tribute To Jim Willis &
Page: S650

Mr. President, on March 1, 2013, one of Oregon's most dedicated leaders will retire. I want to take a few minutes to pay tribute to a public servant and one of Oregon's foremost advocates for veterans, Jim Willis.

Jim has worked selflessly to better the State and the nation. For 48 years, he has been helping others, from his two enlistments in the U.S. Air Force, including a tour of wartime service in South Vietnam, to a career with the Oregon State Police, to his time with the American Legion, and finally his leadership at the Oregon Department of Veterans Affairs, ODVA.

After his service in Vietnam, Jim knew what it felt like to return home to a country where veterans were not always welcomed and at times forgotten. He understood the words of George Washington when he said, ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, is directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation.''

This is why Jim championed funding for the Oregon Veterans' Home, pressed for veteran health care funding under the Federal VA system, increased financing limits on veterans' home loans, supported the construction of the Oregon Medal of Honor Memorial and Afghan-Iraqi Freedom Memorial, and initiated the construction of a second veterans home in Lebanon, Oregon.

I cannot say enough about the distinguished efforts Jim has made over the last 23 years at ODVA on behalf of servicemembers and their families. With his direction, our heroes knew there were trained service officers in their county ready to assist them with benefits, home loans, and countless other issues. The trained professionals and the team he built at ODVA were always willing to help a veteran in a time of need. As President of the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs, Jim coordinated these efforts nationally to assure veterans received what they worked so hard for.

I am grateful to have had Jim as a partner in several endeavors at the Federal level, including the effort to put a halt to pension poachers who were stealing money and benefits from veterans under the guise of veterans' assistance.

Even in retirement, Jim will continue to find ways to give back to the community. He will continue to serve on the American Legion National Cemetery Committee, on the Veteran of Foreign Wars National Resolutions Committee, and as Vice President of the Oregon World War II Memorial Foundation.

I could not be prouder of Jim and his life's work. He embodies the best of Oregon and the best of a grateful nation. As our servicemembers continue to come home and reintegrate into society, I am confident the benefits and services they have earned will be available to them because of Jim and people like him. His dedication to veterans will continue to have a lasting impact on ODVA for years to come.

Mr. President, I know Senator Merkley will be speaking after me to express his gratitude for Jim's many years of hard work. I'm proud to join my fellow Oregonians in recognizing the great service of Jim Willis and wishing him the best as he begins this new chapter in his life.

Mr. President, I rise today to echo what my colleague Senator Wyden said in recognition of Jim Willis, a native Oregonian and one of Oregon's greatest champions for veterans and their families.

As an airman during the Vietnam War, and as an officer for the Oregon State Police, Jim has dedicated his life to serving and protecting the citizens of the United States and the State of Oregon.

Jim saw his work as fulfilling a sacred obligation: we all have the responsibility to honor and care for our veterans. For the past decade, under Jim's leadership, the Oregon Department of Veterans' Affairs, ODVA, has stayed true to its mission and recognized and honored Oregon's veterans and their families by providing the highest quality programs, services and benefits.

Jim's dedication to providing quality programs and resources to all veterans and their families has lead ODVA--a relatively small agency--to accomplish a lot during his service. His decision to retire comes on the heels of some major accomplishments over the last few years, including beginning construction of a new veterans' home and the completion of a community center, both to serve Oregon's elderly veterans. Jim's legacy will be the impact that these projects will have on the lives of Oregon's veterans and their families.

With his service to the American Legion National Cemetery Committee and Veterans of Foreign Wars, and his current tenure as President of the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs, Jim works from a national platform to promote and advocate for veterans benefits. For Jim, every day is Veterans Day.

It has been a pleasure to work with Jim, both as a member of the Oregon State Legislature and as a U.S. Senator.

Jim will be retiring to his home in Albany, where he will spend time with his family. He plans to ``continue to be concerned for my fellow veterans as long as I am able to assist in serving them in the future,'' and in that regard will continue to be active in the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and with the committee overseeing Oregon's World War II Memorial, currently under construction on the grounds of the Oregon Capitol.

Oregon is proud of and grateful for all of the hard work and leadership displayed by Jim Willis over his long and decorated career. I am especially proud of his many achievements and I thank him for his many years of outstanding public service. We wish him a happy and healthy retirement, and thank him for his continued dedication to Oregon's veterans.

Report on the State of the Union Delivered to a Joint Session of Congress on February 12, 2013
Page: S651

To The Congress of the United States:

Page: S655

The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated:

A communication from the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, transmitting the Agency's proposed fiscal year 2014 budget; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Hexythiazox; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 9376-9) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 5, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Glycine max Herbicide-resistant Acetolactate Synthase; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance'' (FRL No. 9376-4) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 5, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Thiacloprid; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 9374-9) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 5, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

A communication from the Acting Congressional Review Coordinator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Texas (Splenetic) Fever in Cattle'' (Docket No. APHIS-2012-0069) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

A communication from the Congressional Review Coordinator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Importation of Fresh Bananas From the Philippines into the Continental United States'' ((RIN0579-AD61) (Docket No. APHIS-2011-0028)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

A communication from the Director of Regulations and Policy Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Criteria Used to Order Administrative Detention of Food for Human or Animal Consumption'' ((RIN0910-AG67) (Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0197)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 8, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

A communication from the President of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013; to the Committee on Appropriations.

A joint communication from the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence), transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to maintaining the EP-3E Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic System II and the Special Projects Aircraft platform in a manner that meets the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance requirements of the Commanders of the Combatant Commands; to the Committee on Armed Services.

A communication from the Acting Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), transmitting a report on the approved retirement of Lieutenant General Michael D. Barbero, United States Army, and his advancement to the grade of lieutenant general on the retired list; to the Committee on Armed Services.

A communication from the Acting Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to persons undermining democratic processes or institutions in Zimbabwe that was declared in Executive Order 13288 of March 6, 2003; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

A communication from the General Counsel of the National Credit Union Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Designation of Low-Income Status; Acceptance of Secondary Capital Accounts by Low-Income Designated Credit Unions'' (RIN3133-AE09) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2013; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

A communication from the Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013; to the Committee on the Budget.

A communication from the Director of Insular Affairs, Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``First Five-Year Review of the Compact of Free Association, As Amended, Between the Governments of the United States and the Republic of the Marshall Islands''; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

A communication from the Director of Insular Affairs, Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``First Five-Year Review of the Compact of Free Association, As Amended, Between the Governments of the United States and the Federated States of Micronesia''; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

A communication from the Acting General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Annual Charges for Use of Government Lands'' (Docket No. RM11-6-000) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 4, 2013; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

A communication from the Director, Office of Surface Mining, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Montana Regulatory Program'' (Docket No. MT-032-FOR) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 6, 2013; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

A communication from the Director, Office of Surface Mining, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Utah Regulatory Program'' (Docket No. UT-047-FOR) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 6, 2013; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

A communication from the Director, Office of Surface Mining, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Tennessee Abandoned Mine Land Program'' (Docket No. TN-001-FOR) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 6, 2013; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

A communication from the Director, Office of Surface Mining, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Wyoming Regulatory Program'' (Docket No. WY-040-FOR) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 8, 2013; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Amendments to Maryland's Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (FRL No. 9777-2) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 5, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey and New York Ozone Attainment Demonstrations'' (FRL No. 9778-5) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 5, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

A communication from the Chair of the Medicaid and CHIP Payment Access Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Overview of Medicaid and CHIP''; to the Committee on Finance.

A communication from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Recovery Auditing in the Medicare and Medicaid Program''; to the Committee on Finance.

A joint communication from the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General, transmitting, pursuant to law, an annual report relative to the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program for fiscal year 2012; to the Committee on Finance.

A communication from the Program Manager, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Medicare, Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Programs; Transparency Reports and Reporting of Physician Ownership or Investment Interests'' (RIN0938-AR33) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 8, 2013; to the Committee on Finance.

A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Update of Weighted Average Interest Rates, Yield Curves, and Segment Rates'' (Notice 2013-6) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 8, 2013; to the Committee on Finance.

A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Reconsideration of Tax-Exempt AFR'' (Notice 2013-4) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 8, 2013; to the Committee on Finance.

A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Noncompensatory Partnership Options'' ((RIN1545-BA53) (TD 9612)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2013; to the Committee on Finance.

A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, an addendum to a certification, transmittal number: DDTC 13-016, of the proposed sale or export of defense articles and/or defense services to a Middle East country regarding any possible affects such a sale might have relating to Israel's Qualitative Military Edge over military threats to Israel; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, an addendum to a certification, transmittal number: DDTC 13-002, of the proposed sale or export of defense articles and/or defense services to a Middle East country regarding any possible affects such a sale might have relating to Israel's Qualitative Military Edge over military threats to Israel; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

A communication from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Legislative Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the interdiction of aircraft engaged in illicit drug trafficking; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

A communication from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Legislative Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to Technical Collection for the New START Treaty (OSS-2013-0163); to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

A communication from the Program Manager, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Foreign Quarantine; Import Regulations for Infectious Biological Agents, Infectious Substances, and Vectors'' (RIN0920-AA37) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 4, 2013; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

A communication from the Program Manager, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of User Fees for Filovirus Testing of Nonhuman Primate Liver Samples'' (RIN0920-AA47) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

A communication from the Director of the Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, Mine Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Pattern of Violations'' (RIN1219-AB73) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 1, 2013; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

A communication from the Director of the Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation Division, Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``The Family and Medical Leave Act'' (RIN1215-AB76, RIN1235-AA03) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2013; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

A communication from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Federal Agency Drug-Free Workplace Programs''; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

A communication from the Chairman of the Merit Systems Protection Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Managing Public Employees in the Public Interest: Employee Perspectives on Merit Principles in Federal Workplaces''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

A communication from the Secretary of the Army, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to reservations made for internment at Arlington National Cemetery; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

A communication from the Director of the Regulation Policy and Management Office of the General Counsel, Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Disclosures to Participate in State Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs'' (RIN2900-AO45) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 8, 2013; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Page: S657

The following executive report of a nomination was submitted:

By for the.


 * Charles Timothy Hagel, of Nebraska, to be Secretary of Defense.

Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.

Page: S657

The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

By (for himself,, , and ):

A bill to ensure effective control over the Congressional budget process; to the.

By (for himself,, , and ):

A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to restore integrity to and strengthen payment limitation rules for commodity payments and benefits; to the.

By :

A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to establish a new counseling program; to the.

By (for himself and ):

A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to invest in innovation for education; to the.

By (for himself and ):

A bill to transfer certain facilities, easements, and rights-of-way to Fort Sumner Irrigation District, New Mexico; to the.

By (for himself and ):

A bill to designate the Valles Caldera National Preserve as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes; to the.

By (for himself,, and ):

A bill to enhance civil penalties under the Federal securities laws, and for other purposes; to the.

By (for himself,, , , and ):

A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the definition of homeless veteran for purposes of benefits under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes; to the.

By (for herself and ):

A bill to increase the participation of historically underrepresented demographic groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education and industry; to the.

By (for herself and ):

A bill to extend the low-interest refinancing provisions under the Local Development Business Loan Program of the Small Business Administration; to the.

Page: S657

The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

By :

A resolution to constitute the majority party's membership on certain committees for the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, or until their successors are chosen; considered and agreed to.

By (for himself,, and ):

A resolution establishing the Committee to Reduce Government Waste; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

Page: S657

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Massachusetts was added as a cosponsor of S. 22, a bill to establish background check procedures for gun shows.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Massachusetts was added as a cosponsor of S. 33, a bill to prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Massachusetts was added as a cosponsor of S. 34, a bill to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Florida was added as a cosponsor of S. 58, a bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to ensure that voters in elections for Federal office do not wait in long lines in order to vote.

At the request of, the names of the Senator from California , the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Massachusetts  were added as cosponsors of S. 84, a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Nebraska was added as a cosponsor of S. 91, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify eligibility for the child tax credit.

At the request of, the names of the Senator from California , the Senator from Connecticut , the Senator from Alaska , the Senator from New York , the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Oregon  were added as cosponsors of S. 119, a bill to prohibit the application of certain restrictive eligibility requirements to foreign nongovernmental organizations with respect to the provision of assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Massachusetts was added as a cosponsor of S. 148, a bill to safeguard America's schools by using community policing strategies to prevent school violence and improve student and school safety.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Massachusetts was added as a cosponsor of S. 150, a bill to regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Massachusetts was added as a cosponsor of S. 168, a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit discrimination in the payment of wages on account of sex, race, or national origin, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Massachusetts was added as a cosponsor of S. 174, a bill to appropriately restrict sales of ammunition.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from New Mexico was added as a cosponsor of S. 217, a bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require the Secretary of Education to collect information from coeducational elementary schools and secondary schools on such schools' athletic programs, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Minnesota was added as a cosponsor of S. 223, a bill to amend section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to modify the visa waiver program, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the names of the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. HELLER) were added as cosponsors of S. 234, a bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to permit certain retired members of the uniformed services who have a service-connected disability to receive both disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs for their disability and either retired pay by reason of their years of military service or Combat-Related Special Compensation, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin was withdrawn as a cosponsor of S. 263, a bill to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to modify the discretionary spending limits to take into account savings resulting from the reduction in the number of Federal employees.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Florida was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 21 proposed to S. 47, a bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.

Page: S658

S. 281 &
By (for himself,, , and ):

A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to restore integrity to and strengthen payment limitation rules for commodity payments and benefits; to the.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the farm bill and then specifically about reforming payment limits for farm programs.

As one looks back to the fall of 2011 and the failure of what was referred to as the ``supercommittee,'' we saw many committees continue on with business as usual afterwards. However, one committee's members took it upon themselves to continue efforts to tackle spending and propose meaningful cuts--the Senate Agriculture Committee.

For that matter, the House Agriculture Committee worked towards that end as well. I commend Chairman Stabenow and then Ranking Member Roberts for corralling the many ideas of the members of the committee to write a bill that cut $23 billion.

We were able to work in committee to get the bill done. We were able to work in a bipartisan manner to get the bill across the Senate floor. It is how legislation is supposed to be considered and debated in the Senate.

One of the measures in last year's farm bill was my proposal reforming payment limitations in the farm program.

Adopting reforms to payment limitations contributed to the $23 billion in savings. Beyond just being a part of saving money, these reforms help ensure farm payments go to those who they were originally intended--small and medium-size farmers.

In addition, the reforms include closing off loopholes so nonfarmers can't game the system. I will come back to my proposed reforms in a minute after I say just a few words about the overall farm bill picture.

As we all know, Congress was not able to complete work on the farm bill last year. But that is not for a lack of desire by either the Senate nor the House Agriculture Committees. There remains a desire to get a 5-year bill passed.

Supporters of the farm bill need to take a hard look at what challenges were presented last year to getting the bill done. We need to forge ahead knowing some tough decisions need to be made.

For the Senate, we need to consider whether it is realistic that we only reduce $4 billion out of the nearly $800 billion nutrition title. More can and should be done. The nutrition title comprised by far and away the largest expenditure in the bill.

There are more reforms we can make to programs such as food stamps, and they are reforms that cut down on waste, fraud, and abuse in the program but also safeguard assistance for people who need it.

There are other programs we need to take a fresh look at. Should we accept the status quo on the sugar program? How do we handle dairy policy? What policy can we implement in the commodity program that won't distort planting decisions but maintains an effective safety net?

These are some of the many issues we need to debate again and decide. I, for one, hope we are able to start soon and work together to get a 5-year bill completed this year. Our farmers and rural communities deserve to have certainty.

When we do move forward on drafting a new farm bill, I will again be pushing for the reforms to payment limitations. That is why today I am introducing the Farm Program Integrity Act of 2013 with Senators Johnson of South Dakota, Senator Enzi, and Senator Brown.

The proposed legislation strikes a needed balance of recognizing the need for a farm safety net while making sure we have a defensible and responsible safety net.

In case there is any doubt, we do need a farm program safety net. For those who argue we do not need a safety net for our farmers, I argue they do not understand the danger of a nation which does not produce its own food.

Take Germany and Japan during World War II, for instance. There came a point where their soldiers had difficulty fighting because they didn't have food to eat. So today their respective governments maintain vigorous support for their farmers.

It is a matter of social cohesion as well. Without a secure source of food, we jeopardize our very way of life. Look around the world where there is hunger and you see rioting, stealing, and other acts of violence. We need our farmers to keep producing our food.

For all the advances in modern agriculture, farmers are still subject to conditions out of their control. Just look at the drought that still grips much of the U.S.

Without an adequate safety net, some farmers would be left with no ability to make it the following year. That would mean potentially less food being produced for an ever-increasing world population. That is a scary prospect.

While farmers need a safety net, there does come a point where a farmer gets big enough and financially secure so that he can weather tough times without much assistance from the government.

Somehow, though, over the years there has developed this perverse scenario where big farmers are receiving the lion's share of farm program payments. We now have the largest 10 percent of farmers receiving nearly 70 percent of farm payments.

There is nothing wrong with a farmer growing his operation, but the taxpayer should not be subsidizing large farming operations to grow even larger. By having reasonable caps on the amount of farm program payments any one farmer can receive, it helps ensure the program meets the intent of assisting small and medium-size farmers through tough times.

My proposed caps on payments will also help encourage the next generation of rural Americans to take up farming.

I am approached time and again about how to help young people get into farming. When large farmers are able to use farm program payments to drive up the cost of land and rental rates, our farm programs end up hurting those they are meant to help.

It is simply good policy to have a hard cap on the amount a farmer can receive in farm program payments. We will keep in place a much needed safety net for the farmers who need it most. And it will help reduce the negative impact farm payments have on land prices.

Our bill sets the overall cap at $250,000 for a married couple. In my State, many people would say this is still too high.

But I recognize that agriculture can look different around the country, and so this is a compromise.

Just as important to setting a hard cap on payments is closing off loopholes that have allowed nonfarmers to game the farm program.

The bill being introduced today will do this by cutting off the ability of these nonfarmers from abusing what is referred to as the ``actively engaged'' test.

In essence, the law says one has to be actively engaged in farming to qualify for farm payments. However, this has been exploited by people who have virtually nothing to do with the farming operation yet receive payments from the farm program.

Our Nation has over $16 trillion in debt. We cannot afford to simply look the other way and let people abuse the farm program.

The Farm Program Integrity Act of 2013 is the same in purpose as what it states in the name. This is about increasing the integrity of the program.

My colleagues here in the Senate agreed with me last year as we included these pivotal reforms in the farm bill. I am confident these reforms will garner similar approval in the 113th Congress.

I mentioned earlier how we need to assess some of the challenging areas of farm policy as we look to pass a 5-year farm bill, and some tough decisions need to be made.

However, my proposed reforms regarding payment limits do not pose a tough decision. They are common sense and necessary reforms.

Mr. President, I rise today to join with my friend and colleague from Iowa, Chuck Grassley, in introducing the Farm Program Integrity Act of 2013, which would establish commonsense, meaningful farm program payment limitations. I am pleased that Senator Sherrod Brown and Senator Mike Enzi are also joining us in this effort. At a time when our country faces significant budgetary constraints, it is important that we look for bipartisan and commonsense approaches to restructuring programs in such a way that improves their effectiveness while also reducing the deficit. Our legislation will do that, and our approach has already garnered widespread support.

The current structure of our farm support program has, in a number of ways, failed rural America. In 2008, the largest 12.4 percent of farms received 62.4 percent of farm program payments, according to the United States Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service, USDA ERS. With such a disproportionate share of the program going to the largest, most capitalized operations, the small and medium-sized family farmers are squeezed out of the business. The farm bill is intended to provide programs that function as a safety net for farmers, but it has instead become a cash cow for the few large producers. We must maintain a safety net for producers, but the system must be targeted to family farmers instead of large agribusinesses.

The 2008 farm bill took some important steps to strengthen the integrity of our farm support system. The bill established an income threshold for program eligibility in which payments are limited to producers with less than $500,000 in non-farm Adjusted Gross Income, AGI, and $750,000 in on-farm AGI, for a total limit of $1.25 million AGI. Additionally, the law eliminated the triple-entity loophole and required that payments go to a specific individual through direct attribution. These were important first steps. However, there is much more we must do to restore integrity to our farm programs.

Under the current law, we have a system of support for producers in the form of direct and counter-cyclical payments. Direct payments are capped at $40,000 and counter-cyclical payments are capped at $65,000; additionally, there is no cap on marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments, and thus, there is effectively no total limitation. This is unacceptable. Without a cap on payments, the Federal Government is subsidizing producers to get bigger, which in turn makes it more difficult for the smaller family farmers, and particularly young and beginning producers, to survive.

Last June, we took some meaningful steps in the Senate to address the structure of our farm support system. Senators from both sides of the aisle came together to pass the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act, S. 3240, commonly referred to as the farm bill, with broad support. The bill, as passed out of the Senate Agriculture Committee, contained a hard cap of $50,000 on payments under the new Agriculture Risk Coverage, ARC, program, a program developed to replace the antiquated direct and counter-cyclical programs.

The committee-reported bill also contained important language to close loopholes that have allowed ``paper-partners,'' or individuals not directly engaged in the farming operation, to receive farm program payments. The bill created an important new standard for determining who qualifies as a farm manager. In addition to the language incorporated into the underlying bill, Senator Grassley and I also offered an amendment during floor consideration to cap marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments at $75,000. Our amendment passed overwhelmingly with 75 votes.

The House Agriculture Committee marked up and reported its own version of the farm bill reauthorization. Unfortunately, the House leadership refused to bring the bill to the floor before the end of 2012. As a result, Congress was left in the position of having to pass an extension of the 2008 farm bill, and push off work on a full reauthorization, including the important reforms we included in the Senate-passed bill, until the 113th Congress.

The legislation we are offering today combines the cap on farm program payments and language to close loopholes from the Senate-passed bill. As Congress proceeds with reauthorizing our farm programs, I will continue pushing to ensure that we finally provide for meaningful payment limitations and target assistance to small and medium-sized family farms.

As the most important industry in South Dakota, agriculture is the economic engine that drives our rural communities. Without viable family farmers and ranchers, our small towns and Main Street businesses would face significant financial hardships. I have worked with Senator Grassley on this issue for a number of years, and I'm proud to once again join with him today to continue this important fight.

S. 286
By (for himself,, and ):

A bill to enhance civil penalties under the Federal securities laws, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Strengthening Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act or the SEC Penalties Act with my colleague, Senator GRASSLEY. I am pleased that Senator LEAHY has joined us in introducing the bill this year.

The SEC Penalties Act will enhance the ability of securities regulators to protect investors and demand greater accountability from market players. Unfortunately, even after the financial crisis that crippled the economy, some on Wall Street continue to pursue profits at all costs, making the calculated decision to do wrong and move on. Without the consequence of meaningful penalties to impact decision-making, I fear we will continue to witness a disturbing culture of misconduct by some on Wall Street.

The current regime for securities law violations limits by statute the amount of penalties the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, can fine an institution or individual. During hearings I held in 2011 in the Securities, Insurance, and Investment Banking Subcommittee, I found out how this limitation significantly ties the hands of the SEC in performing its enforcement duties. At that time, the agency had been criticized by a Federal judge for not obtaining a larger settlement against Citigroup, a major player in the financial crisis that ended up settling with the SEC in an amount that was a fraction of the cost the bank had inflicted on investors and the profits the bank had ultimately pocketed. The SEC explained that the low settlement amount was because it was statutorily prohibited from levying a larger penalty.

The bill we are introducing seeks to substantially update and strengthen the SEC's civil penalties statute. This legislation should cause potential and current offenders to think twice before engaging in misconduct by increasing the statutory limits on civil monetary penalties, directly linking the size of these penalties to the scope of harm and associated investor losses, and substantially raising the financial stakes for repeat offenders of our nation's securities laws.

Specifically, our bill would increase the per violation cap for the most egregious securities laws violations to $1 million per offense for individuals and $10 million per offense for entities. This will help ensure that the SEC's most severe, or ``tier three,'' penalties will help deter people from engaging in the most serious offenses, rather than have such wrongdoing be viewed as just the cost of doing business. Under existing law, the SEC can only penalize individual securities law violators a maximum of $150,000 per offense and institutions $725,000 per offense.

Our bill also would allow penalties equal to three times the economic gain of the violator. It provides a new calculation method that includes the amount of associated investor losses as part of the penalty determination. This should allow the SEC to address situations where the actual economic gain to the violator is relatively small compared to the extent of the wrongdoing or the harm caused to investors.

The SEC Penalties Act also addresses the disconcerting trend of repeat offenders on Wall Street. Our bill includes two statutory changes to substantially improve the ability of the SEC's enforcement program to ratchet up penalties for recidivists.

One provision would allow the SEC to triple the applicable penalty cap for recidivists who, within the preceding five years, have been criminally convicted of securities fraud or been the subject of a judgment or order imposing monetary, equitable, or administrative relief in any action alleging SEC fraud.

The other provision would allow the SEC to seek a civil penalty if an individual or entity has violated an existing federal court injunction or bar imposed by the SEC. Many believe this approach would be more efficient, effective, and flexible than the current civil contempt remedy.

Finally, under the SEC Penalties Act, the penalty relief available in administrative proceedings would be the same as it is in district court.

The nearly one-half of all U.S. households that own securities deserve a strong cop on the beat that has the tools it needs to go after fraudsters and the difficult cases arising from our increasingly complex financial markets. The SEC Penalties Act will help by giving the SEC more tools to demand meaningful accountability from Wall Street and protect investors, which in turn will improve transparency and increase confidence in our financial system. I urge my colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation.

S. 289
By (for herself and ):

A bill to extend the low-interest refinancing provisions under the Local Development Business Loan Program of the Small Business Administration; to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the importance of small businesses in the United States. It cannot be stated enough that small businesses are the economic engines of our country. Small businesses also represent the essence of the American Dream. They are creators of new jobs and innovative technologies. In fact, over the last 15 years, businesses employing less than 500 people have created 93 percent of all new jobs and employed 58.6 million workers. Businesses employing less than 20 people alone employed 21.3 million workers. In my home state of Louisiana, small businesses make up about 98 percent of businesses. As Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I remain focused on the needs of these small businesses. That is why I am here today to introduce a bill that I believe will help spur job creation among small businesses.

As you know, right now our country is only slowly recovering from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. This economic downturn disproportionately affected small businesses and, in turn, stifled their ability to generate growth for the country. Sadly, since November 2008, 80 percent of the job losses have come from small businesses. An estimated 2.16 million jobs were lost in the private sector from November 2008 through February 2009--nearly 40 percent from businesses with less than 50 employees. Ten jobs lost here and five jobs there add up. These are the job losses that hurt our economy, our communities and our families.

With this in mind, I was proud to lead Congressional efforts to enact the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, Public Law 111-240. President Obama signed this legislation into law on September 27, 2010. This legislation focused on the three ``C's'' important to small businesses: Capital, Contracting, and Counseling. Today I would like to focus on Capital and more specifically, on the Small Business Administration's 504 Loan Refinancing Program, which unfortunately expired in September 2012.

The 504 loan program is a long-term financing tool for economic development that provides small businesses with long-term, fixed-rate loans to help them acquire major fixed assets and real estate for expansion or modernization. The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 allowed small businesses to use the 504 loan program to refinance certain qualifying existing debt for 2 years. While loan volumes were relatively low in the program's first year, the SBA made a number of program modifications to encourage and allow more small businesses to take advantage of the long terms and low interest rates offered by the program. In fiscal year 2012, the program's second and final year, the SBA approved over 2,400 refinancings for over $2.2 billion to small businesses.

Unfortunately, on September 27, 2012, the program expired just as it was gaining traction in the small business community. Over the past year, in my conversations with small business owners and in testimonies given in roundtables and hearings before the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have consistently heard the need to extend this portion of the 504 loan program. The bill that I am introducing today would extend for 5 years the provision allowing small business owners to use Small Business Administration, SBA, 504 loans to refinance existing commercial mortgages. Extending the 504 refinancing program is a commonsense way to help small businesses and create jobs. By allowing small businesses to refinance qualified commercial real estate debt, this program lowers their monthly mortgage payments at no cost to taxpayers. At a time when we are still facing high unemployment, this extension is one of many things that we should be doing to put more capital in the hands of America's job creators.

I would like to reiterate that this is not a new proposal, and it has consistently received bipartisan support. In total, last year I filed this extension either as a bill or an amendment four times. The 504 refinance provision extension was originally introduced as S. 2364 by Senators SNOWE, LANDRIEU, ISAKSON, and SHAHEEN. Title II of the SUCCESS Act, which I introduced during the 112th Congress, also included the refinance provision. On July 12, 2012, the Senate voted on the SUCCESS Act as part of Senate Amendment 2521 to S. 2237, the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act of 2012. Although the amendment came up short of the 60 votes needed to end debate, the SUCCESS Act amendment received a strong 57 bipartisan votes, including five of my Republican colleagues. Finally, I included the provision in a substitute amendment that I cosponsored to the JOBS Act of 2012 and offered the 504 refinancing language as an amendment to the Veterans Jobs Bill. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together in support of this common-sense, cost effective program.

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

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Page: S661

Senate Resolution 29 — To Constitute the Majority Party's Membership on Certain Committees for the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, or until Their Successors Are Chosen
of Nevada submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

Senate Resolution 30 — Establishing the Committee to Reduce Government Waste
Page: S661

(for himself,, and ) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration:

Page: S662

Mr. President, the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship will meet on February 13, 2013, at 4:00 p.m. in room 432 of the Russell Senate Office building to conduct its organizational meeting.

Page: S662

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 12, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 12, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

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 February 12, 2013, at 9:45 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

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 February 12, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on February 12, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Proposals to Reduce Gun Violence: Protecting Our Communities While Respecting the Second Amendment.''

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 12, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Page: S662

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Joel Cohen, a Brookings fellow from the Department of Homeland Security, be granted floor privileges through December 31, 2013.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Majority Party Committee Membership
Page: S662

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to S. Res. 29.

The clerk will report the resolution by title.

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

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Authorizing Appointment of Escort Committee
Page: S662

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Presiding Officer of the Senate be authorized to appoint a committee on the part of the Senate to join a like committee on the part of the House to escort President Obama into the House Chamber for the joint session to be held tonight at 9 p.m.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Orders for Recess and for Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Page: S662

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess until 8:30 p.m. tonight and proceed as a body to the Hall of the House of Representatives for the joint session of Congress provided under the provisions of H. Con. Res. 11; and that upon dissolution of the joint session, the Senate adjourn until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, February 13, 2013; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the second 30 minutes.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, we will gather in the Senate Chamber at 8:20 p.m. this evening to proceed as a body to the House for the State of the Union.

Page: S662

Mr. President, we hope to begin debate on the nomination of Senator Hagel to be Secretary of Defense tomorrow.

Page: S662

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it recess under the previous order.

Joint Session of the Two Houses — Address by the President of the United States
Page: S662

The Senate will proceed to the Hall of the House of Representatives to receive a message from the President of the United States.

Adjournment until 10 a.m. Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Page: S662

At the conclusion of the joint session of the two Houses; and in accordance with the order previously entered, at 10:24 p.m., the Senate adjourned until Wednesday,, at 10 a.m.

= Resources =