[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 58 (Monday, April 23, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2587-S2592]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2011--MOTION TO PROCEED--
                               Continued


                             Postal Reform

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise to discuss the importance of 
addressing the financial challenges now facing the U.S. Postal Service 
and our critical need to ensure that it remains a strong and reliable 
resource for the people of our country.
  The American Postal Service was created over two centuries ago as a 
function of the Federal Government, acknowledged in the U.S. 
Constitution. In those last 220 years, the way we send mail and 
exchange correspondence has changed dramatically. We no longer need a 
stamp or an envelope; we can just shoot an e-mail or sign onto 
Facebook.
  But even with all these changes, the fact remains that no matter who 
you are or where you live, odds are that the post office plays a vital 
role in your daily life. Seniors rely on the Postal Service to receive 
their medications, businesses rely on it to ship and receive goods, and 
countless jobs hinge on its services, both directly and indirectly.
  No matter how far we have come with technology in this digital age, 
there are some things that simply cannot be sent by e-mail. That is why 
reliable timely mail service is something all Americans should be able 
to count on.
  I have heard from numerous people in my State about the negative 
impact the closure of certain post offices or mail processing 
facilities would have on their communities. I have heard from State and 
local leaders about the impact of closing the mail processing 
facilities in Duluth and Bemidji. I have heard from farmers who 
actually get their goods and ship their products through those mail 
processing centers.
  That is why I have worked with Senator Sanders and roughly 25 of my 
colleagues in the Senate, including Senator Durbin--one-fourth of the 
entire Senate--to negotiate changes to this original bill. I thank 
Chairman Lieberman and Senators Collins and Carper for their great 
leadership. I am glad about some of the changes they have made.
  The substitute amendment would, in fact, keep at a minimum 100 mail 
processing plants that are currently scheduled to close, and they would 
remain open for at least 3 years. Overnight delivery standards in 
regional areas will be protected. A large number of rural post offices 
that are being studied for closure will remain open.
  I am a cosponsor of the amendment to the legislation that would 
provide important safeguards before closing mail processing facilities, 
and I have also cosponsored the McCaskill-Merkley amendment that would 
establish a 2-year moratorium on closing rural post offices and 
recognize the concerns of rural residents.
  There is no doubt that changes need to be made to the Postal Service 
to make it more competitive in the digital world. I think a lot of 
those changes are contained in the substitute amendment. We can even 
make it stronger. I strongly believe we can reach a balance that makes 
necessary reforms, while maintaining the quick service on which 
Americans have come to rely.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                               NLRB Rules

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I come to the Senate floor this evening 
to express my strong opposition to the resolution of disapproval filed 
by Senate Republicans that seeks to overturn critical new NLRB rules 
that will protect workers across America. I strongly urge my colleagues 
to oppose it. Some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
frequently complain about how we spend our time on the Senate floor. 
Today, I have to say I am disappointed that we are being forced to 
spend valuable time on this issue.
  Middle-class families across America are continuing to struggle in 
this very tough economy, and it is hard to understand why Senate 
Republicans want to spend time attacking an agency's mission to protect 
workers and employers and is critical to protecting access to the 
middle class for workers and families.
  Thankfully, as we all know, our economy seems to be stepping back 
from the precipice. But for so many workers today paychecks still have 
not caught up, benefits continue to slip away, hours are getting cut, 
and job security is eroding. That is why I was very glad that at the 
end of last year, the NLRB voted to adopt modest commonsense rules that 
would make it easier for workers to fight for fair treatment in the 
workplace and help bring NLRB into the 21st century.
  These new rules aren't going to solve every problem, but they are a 
step in the right direction and will help workers and families across 
the country. The new NLRB rules will strengthen and streamline the 
voting process by reducing unnecessary litigation and intentional 
delays. It will streamline pre- and postelection procedures, and it 
will facilitate the use of electronic communications and document 
filing. Those are all commonsense steps that should not be 
controversial.
  I am extremely disappointed that Senate Republicans want to now 
eliminate these rules and roll back the clock on worker protections. 
The resolution we are going to vote on would eliminate steps to 
standardize and add transparency to the employee election process. It 
would eliminate steps that reduce frivolous litigation and create a 
more cohesive and productive workplace for workers and businesses. It 
will fundamentally weaken NLRB processes and procedures that workers 
and businesses rely on when they are trying to settle disputes.
  It is bad for business, bad for working families, and it should not 
pass. Workers across this country deserve a fair process in the 
workplace. The NLRB rule this resolution would eliminate removes some 
of the unfair and unnecessary roadblocks so many workers face every 
day. I have to say that while we are discussing this issue, I want to 
express my disappointment and anger at the recent report from the 
inspector general about improper and politicized activities by a 
current Republican member of the NLRB board, an individual who 
previously worked for another board member who is a former staffer for 
a Republican Member of the Senate. That report details multiple 
instances of ethics misconduct, including the sharing of confidential 
information with outside parties. I am hopeful that issue will be fully 
investigated. I am deeply worried about the actions some people will 
take to undermine an agency with a mission to protect the rights of 
workers and employers. And honestly, I find it to be a sad statement 
about the nature of our politics today, because the NLRB is doing a lot 
of good work for workers in America and it shouldn't be tarnished with 
this sort of ethics issue.

  This agency has borne the brunt of political attacks over the last 
year from special interest groups and elected officials trying to score 
political points at the expense of workers and families. Many of these 
attacks have been inaccurate; many have been unfair. Some have used the 
case involving Boeing and workers in my home State

[[Page S2588]]

of Washington to weaken the agency, even while the NLRB work is what 
allowed the two sides to come together and find a solution to that 
challenge. So I think this is wrong and these attacks should end.
  The NLRB election rules are modest, they are commonsense steps toward 
a fairer system for workers and businesses and will help us move toward 
a system that works for everyone, and they will help make sure our 
workers can simply exercise their rights to bargain for fair wages, for 
benefits and equitable treatment under the law. That is what our 
workers expect, it is what they deserve, and it is what the NLRB is 
working to deliver.
  Once again, I urge our colleagues to vote against that resolution of 
disapproval. It is the wrong way to go for workers. It is the wrong way 
to go for businesses and for the middle class.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, let me join in the remarks by the 
Senator from Washington. This National Labor Relations Board rule which 
will be voted on by the Senate tomorrow is one that was needed. The 
rule change was needed and the attempt on the floor, of course, is to 
undo this decision by the National Labor Relations Board.
  If they say justice is denied, look at the current situation when it 
comes to a vote by workers on collective bargaining. If delayed at 
every potential opportunity, and sometimes it happens, workers have to 
wait, on average--average--198 days--that is 6\1/2\ months--to have a 
simple vote deciding if they would be represented by the union. In some 
extreme cases they have been forced to wait 13 years for the right to 
vote on collective bargaining.
  One in five workers who openly advocate for unions during an election 
campaign is fired. As a result of these tactics, 35 percent of workers 
give up and withdraw from the election before a vote is held. The 
proposed NLRB rule changes will remove unnecessary delays to the 
process, cut down on unnecessary litigation, and provide workers a 
meaningful vote in a reasonable period of time. The proposed rules will 
apply the same way to workers attempting to decertify a union as they 
do to workers trying to form a union. So from the business side, if 
they think workers no longer wish to belong to a union, there will be a 
timely vote on that as well. It applies the same way to unions and 
employers.
  This rule is fundamentally fair, and that is why I encourage my 
colleagues to join with me and Senator Murray and many others in voting 
against this effort by Senator Enzi to overturn the proposed National 
Labor Relations Board rule.
  As I said earlier, Madam President, the rule applies the same way to 
unions and employers. But it does not require that elections be held 
within a specific time period and it does not deny companies the 
opportunity to express their opinion about union representation. The 
only real impact of the rule changes will be to better protect workers' 
right to make a determination for themselves through a reasonable fair 
timely election.
  The NLRB rules create a uniform process for resolving pre- and post-
election disputes to provide consistency and remove unnecessary 
obstacles to workers' right to vote.
  NLRB hearing officers will be empowered to dismiss claims that would 
not impact the election. At the pre-election hearing, employers and 
unions can raise their concerns about the petition, but they can't play 
games to stall the election.
  The rules consolidates the pre-election and post-election appeals 
into a single postelection procedure, which saves the parties from 
having to file and brief appeals that may be costly and useless based 
on the outcome of the election.
  The new rules make Board review of the regional directors' decisions 
discretionary. This change will require parties to identify compelling 
reason for Board review, allowing the Board to devote its limited time 
to cases where its review is warranted.
  The new rules apply to both elections seeking to certify a union and 
elections seeking to decertify a union. Further, the new rules do not 
alter in any way an employer's ability to communicate with workers 
during the election period and do not require that elections be held 
within a certain period of time.
  In the view of organized labor, these rules, even in their scaled 
back form, are one of few positive actions taken by Congress or the 
administration in the last year. Unions argue that the old rules are 
subject to manipulation, causing significant pre-election delay and 
leading to petitions being withdrawn prior to an election or avoidance 
of Board processes altogether. If an employer takes advantage of every 
opportunity for delay, the average time before workers vote is 198 
days.
  Business groups are opposed to the new NLRB rules arguing it will 
limit their ability to present their side in an election. Most of their 
points against the rule relate to provisions of the proposed rule that 
were not included in the final rule. Their position also stems from 
general opposition to the NLRB for the now settled Boeing issue, new 
worker rights posting requirements, the President's NLRB recess 
appointments, and other NLRB decisions.


                              Immigration

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this Wednesday the Supreme Court will 
hear a challenge to Arizona's controversial immigration law. I thought 
about this law over the weekend in Springfield, IL. There is an annual 
event where a special award is given to those sons and daughters of 
Illinois who have given great service to our State and Nation. Admiral 
Ron Thunman, one of my neighbors in Springfield, was a graduate of 
Springfield High School and enlisted in the Navy. He worked his way up 
to the rank of vice admiral in the U.S. Navy and at one point commanded 
our submarine fleet. To think of this young man from the middle of the 
Midwest ending up in charge of our submarine fleet is a great testament 
to his ability and to the opportunity the Navy gave him to serve his 
country.
  When Admiral Thunman got up to receive his award--this Lincoln 
Award--he said: I stand here humbled by the memory of my father who was 
an illegal immigrant to this country from Norway, who came here jumping 
off a ship as a sailor and lived in the United States illegally until 
the time he was prepared to volunteer to serve our Nation in World War 
II.
  Admiral Thunman tells that story over and over. What a reminder it is 
that the sons and daughters of immigrants to this country, as well as 
those immigrants themselves, literally made America what it is today.
  One hundred one years ago, my mother arrived on a boat from 
Lithuania. Her boat came to Baltimore, MD, and my grandmother took 
herself, her sister, and brother, to East St. Louis, IL, where I grew 
up many years later. That is my story. It is an American story that is 
repeated over and over. Immigrants are part of America. It is the 
diversity of America that gives us our strength.
  Those who hate and loathe immigrants have always been here. Probably 
as soon as the Mayflower landed, they looked over their shoulder and 
said, We hope nobody else is coming. But the fact is people have been 
coming from all over the world, and they still would rather come to 
this country than leave it, which is quite a testament to this Nation. 
Senator Lieberman made that point on the floor the other day.
  This week, the Supreme Court is going to take up an important 
question on immigration--the Arizona law. Under the Arizona law, any 
undocumented immigrant can be arrested and charged with a State crime--
an Arizona crime--solely on the basis of their immigration status. It 
is a crime for an illegal immigrant in Arizona to fail to carry 
documents proving their legal status under this law. Under our 
Constitution, States don't have the right to pass their own laws 
preempting Federal laws on immigration. That is why the Justice 
Department filed the case the Supreme Court will hear this week.
  Let us be clear. It is wrong to criminalize people because of their 
immigration status. That is not the way we treat immigrants in America. 
It is not right to make criminals of people who go to work every day, 
cook our food, clean our hotel rooms, care for our aging parents in 
nursing homes, and care for our children as well. It is not right to 
make criminals of those who worship with us in our churches, 
synagogues, and mosques, and people who

[[Page S2589]]

send their children to the same schools as our children.
  Here is the reality. This approach that Arizona law suggests will not 
help combat illegal immigration. Law enforcement doesn't have the time 
or resources to prosecute and incarcerate millions of people. Making 
undocumented immigrants into criminals will simply drive them farther 
into the shadows. The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police took a 
look at the new Arizona law and came out in opposition to it. They said 
it makes it more difficult for them to maintain order and enforce law 
in Arizona. Immigrants, because of this law, the chiefs of police have 
said, will be much less likely to cooperate, and they need their 
cooperation to continue to fight crime.
  There is another troubling aspect of the Arizona immigration law. 
According to experts, the law encourages racial profiling. I chair the 
Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil 
Rights, and Human Rights. Last week, at a hearing on racial profiling, 
we had the first hearing on the subject since 9/11/2001. One of the 
subjects we examined at the hearing is the state of Federal, State, and 
local measures in recent years under the guise of combating illegal 
immigration that have subjected Hispanic Americans to an increase in 
racial profiling. The Arizona immigration law is a prime example, and 
let me explain why.
  Arizona's law requires police officers to check the immigration 
status of any individual if they have ``reasonable suspicion'' the 
person is undocumented. What is the basis for reasonable suspicion? 
Arizona's guidance on the law tells police officers to consider factors 
such as how someone is dressed and their ability to communicate in 
English.
  Two former Arizona attorneys general, joined by 42 other former State 
attorneys general, filed a brief in the Arizona case and they said 
``application of the law requires racial profiling.''
  One of the witnesses in our hearing was Ron Davis, chief of police at 
East Palo Alto, CA. Chief Davis, along with 16 other current and former 
chief law enforcement officers, the Major Cities Chiefs of Police 
Association, and the Police Executive Research Forum, filed a brief in 
the Arizona case. Here is what the brief filed by the chiefs of police 
in the Arizona case before the Supreme Court said:

       The statutory standard of ``reasonable suspicion'' of 
     unlawful presence in the United States will as a practical 
     matter produce a focus on minorities, and specifically 
     Latinos.

  Let me be clear: I believe--and I think most Americans share this 
belief--the vast majority of law enforcement officers in America 
perform their jobs admirably and courageously. When they wake up in the 
morning and put that badge on, they literally put their lives on the 
line for you, for me, and for all of us in America. Unfortunately, the 
inappropriate actions of a few, who engage in racial profiling, create 
mistrust and suspicion, and that hurts all police officers. The 
evidence clearly demonstrates that racial profiling doesn't solve 
crimes, it doesn't work, and that is what Chief of Police Ron Davis 
told us as well. That is why so many law enforcement leaders strongly 
oppose racial profiling and the Arizona immigration law.
  Instead of measures that harm law enforcement and promote racial 
profiling, such as the Arizona immigration law, we need to support 
practical solutions to fix America's broken immigration system. And if 
I could say one word in defense of Arizona, it is the fact that our 
failure--Congress's failure, Washington's failure--to deal with 
immigration has brought on this effort by many States and localities. 
We have our own responsibility.
  Let me tell you where I think we should start. We should start our 
reform on immigration with the DREAM Act. Eleven years ago, I 
introduced this bill, legislation that allows a select group of 
immigrant students with great potential to contribute to America. The 
DREAM Act would give these students a chance to earn legal status, and 
ultimately citizenship, if they came to the United States as children 
or have been long-term U.S. residents with good moral character, have 
graduated from high school and have completed 2 years of college or 
military service in good standing.
  Russell Pearce, the author of the Arizona immigration law, had this 
to say about the DREAM Act, and I quote:

       The DREAM Act is one of the greatest legislative threats to 
     America's sovereignty, national security and economic future.

  Well, I see it differently, and so do people such as GEN Colin Powell 
and former Defense Secretary Robert Gates. They support the DREAM Act 
because it would make America a stronger Nation, giving these talented 
immigrants a chance to serve our military and to improve and contribute 
to our economy. Tens of thousands of highly qualified, well-educated 
young people would enlist in the armed services if the DREAM Act 
becomes law. Studies have found DREAM Act participants would contribute 
literally trillions of dollars to the U.S. economy during their working 
lives.
  The best way to understand the need for the DREAM Act is to meet the 
Dreamers. Today I want to introduce you to a Dreamer from Arizona. Here 
she is. Her name is Dulce Matuz. She was brought to the United States 
by her parents from Mexico as a young child. At Carl Hayden High School 
in Phoenix, AZ, Dulce became a dedicated member of the school's 
robotics club where she found her true love--engineering.
  She went on to graduate from Arizona State University, and we see her 
standing here with the mascot. She earned a bachelor's degree in 
electrical engineering. As a senior, Dulce received an internship to 
work on the NASA space station. But after she graduated, reality set 
in. Because Dulce is undocumented--one of the Dreamers--she can't work 
as an engineer in America. She can't become licensed in any State. She 
has no country.
  In 2008, Dulce cofounded the Arizona DREAM Act Coalition, an 
organization of more than 200 DREAM Act students in predicaments like 
hers. She continues to volunteer at the high school she attended. 
Today, Dulce is 27 years old. Last week, this amazing young woman was 
named one of the hundred most influential people in the world by Time 
magazine.
  Time published a profile of Dulce written by the actress Eva 
Longoria. Here is what the profile said:

       Dulce represents the finest of her generation, an 
     undocumented Latina confronted with legal barriers to 
     pursuing her engineering dream. She chose to fight for the 
     right to contribute to the country she has called home since 
     she was very young. Dulce takes on powerful opponents with 
     grace and conviction, saying, ``We are Americans, and 
     Americans don't give up.''

  Dulce is right. Americans don't give up. We have been fighting for 
the DREAM Act now for 11 years. We are not going to give up until it is 
signed into law by a President of the United States. I am honored that 
this President, President Barack Obama, when he was a Senator was a 
cosponsor of my legislation. I know where his heart is when it comes to 
the DREAM Act.
  Unlike the Arizona immigration law, the DREAM Act is a practical 
solution to a serious problem with our broken immigration system. I 
hope the Supreme Court will strike down the Arizona immigration law, 
and I again beg my colleagues to support the DREAM Act. It is the right 
thing to do, and it will make America a stronger nation.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 
as if in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       GI Bill Consumer Awareness

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, late last month I brought to 
Washington 55 or so college presidents from Ohio--presidents of 2-year 
and 4-year private and public colleges and universities--to discuss a 
whole host of issues. One subject that always comes up when you talk 
about young people, when you talk about college, when you talk about 
universities, is access to higher education, that far too many of our 
young people simply can't afford to go to college.
  My wife, a graduate of Kent State some 30 years ago, was privileged 
in those days even though nobody in her family had ever gone to 
college. Her dad carried a union card, was a utility worker in 
Ashtabula, OH, working as a

[[Page S2590]]

maintenance worker in a local powerplant. She was able to go to school 
because in those days college was more accessible--Pell grants, some 
loans, tuition was significantly lower--and she was able to be the 
first in her family to go to college, and she went to Kent State 
University. Today it is much harder. Tuition is far too high. Pell 
grants haven't kept up with the cost of education the way they might 
have 30 years ago.
  One of the options we have, the subsidized Stafford loan, which is 
available to students based on need and is often the main pathway to 
college for a number of them, is under stress, if you will. If we do 
nothing, if Congress doesn't do anything, the interest on these 
critical loans will double for borrowers beginning July 1, 2012. So the 
interest rates will actually double on those students if Congress does 
nothing. The interest rate right now is 3.4 percent. That is why they 
are called subsidized Stafford loans.
  We know that investing in our young people this way, giving them an 
opportunity to go to college, which they couldn't otherwise, could make 
such a difference in their lives. A number of people don't want to go 
to college. That is fine. Those who want to go should have that 
opportunity.
  Student debt in this country has reached about $870 billion, 
exceeding credit cards and auto loans. As more and more students 
continue to enroll in higher education, balances are expected to 
continue climbing. This means fewer of our young adults will be able to 
buy a home, start a business, or continue on to graduate school. 
Already, students graduate from 4-year colleges and universities in 
Ohio with, on average, about $27,000 in student loan debt. If the 
interest rates double, it will add another $2,000 in debt for the 
average borrower and as much as an additional $5,000 for the neediest 
borrower on subsidized Stafford student loans. A number in this 
institution in the Senate on the Democratic side are trying to convince 
our colleagues how important it is that we stop this interest rate from 
doubling. We must act before July 1.
  Just as we have an obligation to keep college affordable for middle-
class Americans and working-class Americans, we have as great an 
obligation to keep college accessible to American veterans. This year 
more than 500,000 servicemembers and veterans are expected to take 
advantage of the post-9/11 GI bill, a bill we passed out of the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee to ensure that all veterans could afford 
the rising cost of college. The VA is expected to spend some $11 
billion in education benefits and other GI bill benefits this year 
alone.
  We know in the 1940s and 1950s what the first GI bill did--signed 
near the end of World War II--how it created a whole generation of 
prosperity and a strong middle class. We know that the GI Bill of 
Rights, which the House and Senate passed I believe 3 years ago, has 
begun to help large numbers of veterans again. Unfortunately, 
servicemembers and veterans are often aggressively recruited by some 
educational institutions that use misleading information. For instance, 
if you visit the Web site gibill.com, it directs a veteran to enter his 
or her personal and contact information to obtain information about the 
GI bill's educational benefits. It looks just like a government Web 
site, but it is not. It turns around and sells that veteran's 
information, often to for-profit colleges.
  Earlier today, I was welcomed at a VFW post in Cleveland by Jason 
Plezko, the commander of that post. I met with Brad Sonenstein, a U.S. 
Air Force veteran now studying at Kent State, and Joshua Rider, the 
assistant director of the Center for Adult and Veteran Services at Kent 
State University. Brad explained how he was inundated with offers and 
letters when he was exploring how to utilize his well-earned GI 
benefits. Those offers overwhelmingly came from for-profit colleges. He 
said they were more interested in their own bottom line than helping 
those who served in the front lines. That is simply not right.
  No one is in a better position to make a decision as to what is best 
for them as a veteran than the veteran herself or the veteran himself. 
We can play a role in assisting them. The GI Bill Consumer Awareness 
Act provides veterans with more and better information about their 
benefits, calls for improved education counseling, and gives colleges 
new resources to hire people such as Joshua Rider to help returning 
veterans. It requires all institutions of higher education to disclose 
critical information, such as the average student loan debt, the 
transferability of credits, and accurate job-placement data. We do that 
at our State universities. We do that at most of our not-for-profit 
private schools. We do that at our 2-year community colleges.
  Those using the GI bill tend to be older than the average student 
population. They choose to serve our Nation, often right out of high 
school rather than going straight to college. Because of this many have 
families and careers and other challenges their classmates don't have. 
Giving our veterans the tools to make the best possible decisions 
benefits all of them. That is the importance of the GI Bill Consumer 
Awareness Act.
  I particularly thank Senator Murray, chair of the Veterans' 
Committee, for her work on this legislation. This body should pass it 
immediately.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                       Surface Transportation Act

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I would like to first express my 
appreciation to the Senator from Ohio for his work on these education 
issues, particularly the importance of the Stafford loan and avoiding 
the interest rate jump that is scheduled to take place. And I would 
point out that had we passed the so-called Buffett rule bill so that 
Americans who earn well over $1 million a year would actually all pay a 
fair share of taxes, that would have created somewhere between $47 
billion and $163 billion in revenues, and that would readily pay for 
keeping the student loan rate down. So I hope we can find another way 
to do it, but that would have been one good way.
  The reason I am on the floor this evening is because I was at 
Wickford Junction in Rhode Island earlier today, where a new commuter 
rail station has been built, largely through the energy and effort of 
my senior Senator, Jack Reed, over many years. Secretary LaHood, the 
U.S. Secretary of Transportation, came to be present at that event, and 
that reminded me, of course, of the highway bill, which is probably the 
biggest jobs bill we could pass here in Congress.
  We tend to talk a good game on jobs. Recently, we even referred to a 
bill as a JOBS bill. It had kind of a trick: It was actually called 
Jumpstart Our Business Startups, J-O-B-S. They made an acronym so that 
it sounded like a jobs bill when what it really did was to allow people 
to market stocks without the usual safeguards that protect investors 
and consumers.
  So we do a lot to try to convince people we are working on jobs here 
in Congress, but the one bill that indisputably is really going to be 
helpful to the American economy to provide jobs would be the highway 
bill that the Senate passed--2.9 billion jobs protected or created. In 
my State of Rhode Island, it is 9,000 jobs, and I promise you we could 
use those 9,000 jobs in Rhode Island right now. The bill passed the 
Senate with flying colors, with every kind of credit you could 
associate with a piece of legislation. It passed 74 to 22. A 75th 
Senator indicated that he would have supported it but he was called out 
of town for a funeral. And obviously, with a 74-to-22 lopsided vote, 
his vote was not necessary. But, in effect, 75 Senators are on record 
supporting that bill, which in this Senate, as everybody knows, is a 
considerable landslide of a majority.
  Now, 2.9 million jobs is a serious thing in this economy, with 9,000 
in Rhode Island that we desperately need. And the bill left not only 
with the support of a unanimous Environment and Public Works committee, 
where it came from originally--and I commend both Senator Boxer and 
Senator Inhofe, the chair and the ranking member, for pulling that 
together. As people who watch the Senate know, Senator Boxer and 
Senator Inhofe come from rather different political persuasions, and 
yet they were able to agree on this and bring a bill out of committee 
unanimously.
  It then came to the floor and went forward. We had 5 weeks of floor 
debate. We added 40 amendments either

[[Page S2591]]

by vote or agreement. It was very bipartisan, it was very transparent, 
and we ended up with that 75-to-22 expression of support by the Senate 
for that bill.
  There was a rather different story on the House side. They knew the 
March 31 deadline was approaching--it had been a matter of law for a 
long time--and they blew the deadline. They had no bill going into it. 
They tried several times to come up with something, and they couldn't 
do a thing. They had no bill at all.
  So without a bill, one would hope they could have passed the Senate 
bill. They certainly had the votes. All they had to do was call it up 
and pass it. Democrats and Republicans would have voted for it, and we 
would be getting those jobs out there right now. Instead, they had no 
bill, and they chose to pass an extension. The extension is actually 
pretty harmful. They actually passed two, and they are both harmful.
  The first short-term extension--I spoke to my DOT director in Rhode 
Island. He was at Wickford Junction as well, and we have done a couple 
of other events in the past week or so to try to bring attention to 
this. He has a list of roughly 95 or 96 projects they want to get done 
in Rhode Island in the summer building season, the highway construction 
season. He estimates that probably 40 of those jobs are going to fall 
off the list because they don't know what their long-term funding is, 
and they can't commit to those jobs until this gets settled. So these 
short-term extensions are very harmful. They cost jobs. They are job 
killers. Yet the House has passed two of them.
  To make it even more complicated, they threw on the last one--a 
requirement that the Keystone Pipeline be bulldozed through all the 
regulatory and environmental reviews that are necessary. Say what you 
want about the Keystone Pipeline, it is a completely contentious, 
controversial issue here in Congress. They did not make an effort to 
resolve it on the House side. This was not something where they brought 
people together, came to a resolution on the Keystone Pipeline, and 
then added it to the bill. No. They just took their Republican version 
of it without any effort to be bipartisan and stuffed it into the 
highway extension.
  So they have missed the chance to pass really good bipartisan 
legislation out of the Senate, they have passed a job-killing extension 
that is very harmful to folks doing highway work around the country, 
and they have complicated it further by throwing a controversial issue 
on top.
  If you are serious about jobs--and I know we talk a lot about it in 
the Senate--if you are serious about jobs, we should stop that nonsense 
and take up the Senate bill and pass it in the House and get everybody 
to work. In the absence of that, we need to make sure that we move to 
conference very quickly, that we appoint conferees, and that we get 
going.
  This is important to Rhode Island. As I said, we desperately need 
these highway jobs. So I am going to continue, along with many of my 
colleagues, coming to the Senate floor to put the pressure on to do 
something that is very simple: pass a highway bill. This is not 
complicated. We have been doing it since Eisenhower was President, and 
the fact that we can't do it now says a lot about the capacity for 
governance of the House of Representatives under this Speaker.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                         Postal Service Reform

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, after our work on this important bill 
to reform the Postal Service is complete, we will be turning to another 
important bill, one that has a long history of bipartisan support. That 
bill, the Violence Against Women Act, is a law that has literally 
changed the way we think about violence against women in the United 
States.
  The Violence Against Women Act is one of the great legislative 
success stories of this generation. Since it was first passed in 1994--
and I will tell you that then-Senator Biden was involved in drafting 
that legislation and led that effort, he and someone we miss very 
dearly in Minnesota, Paul Wellstone. He and his wife Sheila were also 
involved in getting this important bill passed. Since that time, annual 
domestic violence rates have fallen by 50 percent as communities 
nationwide have stopped looking at these issues as family issues and 
started treating domestic violence and sexual assault as the serious 
crimes they are.
  Before I came to the Senate I spent 8 years as chief prosecutor for 
Minnesota's largest county, Hennepin County. During that time, both 
prevention and the prosecution of domestic violence were one of my top 
priorities. We were very proud of the Domestic Violence Service Center, 
which was cutting edge in the Nation, a one-stop shop where people 
could go when they were victims of domestic violence, a place for their 
kids; shelters, prosecutors would be able to charge out complaints, 
police would be there for protective orders. It was a way to help 
people who were at the point where they thought no one was there for 
them, for women to be able to come in and find one place that was safe 
for them.
  As we all know, there is still a lot of work to be done. According to 
a recent survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical 
violence, or stalking. Approximately one in four women has experienced 
severe physical violence by an intimate partner at some point in their 
lifetime, and 45 percent of the women killed in the United States every 
year are killed by an intimate partner. Every year close to 17,000 
people lose their lives to domestic violence.
  These statistics mean domestic violence and sexual assault and 
stalking are still problems in America. As far as we have come, we can 
still do better. That is why it is such a good thing that we passed the 
Violence Against Women Act reauthorization out of our Judiciary 
Committee and the bill now has the support of 61 Senators, including 8 
Republicans. I am hopeful we will be able to pass this bill quickly 
after we take it up later this week. It has taken too long.
  Combating domestic violence and sexual assault is an issue on which 
we should all be able to agree. Many of the provisions in the 
reauthorization bill make important changes to the current law. The 
bill consolidates duplicative programs and streamlines others. It 
provides greater flexibility in the use of grant money by adding more 
``purpose areas'' to the list of allowable uses. It has new training 
requirements for people providing legal assistance to victims, and it 
takes important steps to address the disproportionately high domestic 
violence rates in the Native American communities.
  The bill also fills some gaps in the system. I am pleased to say it 
includes legislation I introduced with Senator Hutchison to address 
high-tech stalking, cases where the stalker uses technology such as the 
Internet, video surveillance, and bugging to stalk their victims. 
Sadly, we are seeing more of this. This bill will give law enforcement 
better tools for cracking down on stalkers.
  Just as with physical stalking, high-tech stalking may foreshadow 
more serious behavior down the road. It is an issue to take seriously, 
and we in law enforcement must be as sophisticated as those who are 
breaking the law. That is why we need to update this law.
  We also should not lose sight of the fact that the VAWA 
reauthorization has strong support from law enforcement. The Fraternal 
Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the 
National Sheriffs' Association, and the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police support this bill.
  Recent events in my State have shown me and the entire population of 
Minnesota in the worst possible way just how closely domestic violence 
is linked with the safety of our law enforcement officers. I don't 
think people always think about that. They realize when police officers 
are out driving on the road, drunk drivers are out driving on the 
road--that it is risky. Because the police are constantly on the road. 
What they don't realize is one of the leading causes of death of 
officers is domestic violence-related incidents.
  A couple of months ago I attended the funeral of Shawn Schneider, a 
young police officer from Lake City, MN. Officer Schneider died 
responding to a domestic violence call--a 17-year-old girl who was 
being abused by her boyfriend. When Officer Schneider arrived at the 
scene, he was shot in the

[[Page S2592]]

head. The girl survived, but Officer Schneider literally gave his life 
to save another. I attended that funeral, and I will never forget the 
heartbreaking scene of his two young sons walking down the church aisle 
with the little girl, his daughter, in a blue dress covered with stars. 
I think it reminds all of us that domestic violence just doesn't hurt 
the immediate victim, it hurts entire families, entire communities.
  This has never been a partisan bill. It is crucial to pass this bill. 
We have made a lot of progress over the years, and we have been able to 
work across the aisle to build on VAWA's success. That is something 
that means a lot to me, and it certainly means a lot to the millions of 
people who are victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault every 
single year.
  I urge my colleagues to support our efforts to bring this bill to the 
floor quickly. We can pass it this week. We can provide desperately 
needed help to victims of domestic assault, domestic violence, and 
other such crimes.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon 
disposition of S. 1789 but no earlier than Wednesday, April 25, the 
Senate adopt the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 312, S. 1925.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________