[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 61 (Thursday, April 26, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2799-S2807]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




STOP THE STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATE HIKE ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 365, S. 2343.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:
       Motion to proceed to S. 2343, a bill to amend the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 to extend the reduced interest rate for 
     Federal Direct Stafford Loans, and for other purposes.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. I have a cloture motion at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 365, S. 2343, The Stop the Student 
     Loan Interest Rate Hike Act of 2012.
         Harry Reid, Jack Reed, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, 
           Charles E. Schumer, Kay R. Hagan, Jeanne Shaheen, 
           Robert P. Casey, Jr., Kent Conrad, Sherrod Brown, John 
           F. Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, Mary Landrieu, Barbara 
           Boxer, Patty Murray, Bernard Sanders, Barbara A. 
           Mikulski, Richard J. Durbin.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under 
rule XXII be waived, and a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the 
motion to proceed to S. 2343 occur at noon on Tuesday, May 8, 2012.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there are a number of us who wish to speak. 
I will cede to the Senator from Montana, my senior. So if I could ask 
unanimous consent that the Senator from Montana speak, then the Senator 
from Massachusetts, and then--I think the Senator from Louisiana had a 
request for 1 minute. So if we could allow the Senator from Louisiana 
to go first, then the Senator from Montana, and then I would follow, 
and then Senator Reed would follow me. So I ask unanimous consent for 
that order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today, young women from Louisiana, 
California, and the Washington area are my special guests for Take Our 
Daughters and Sons to Work Day. We were joined by over 100 young women 
and men here at the Capitol today with their parents, grandparents, and 
guardians to participate in work in the Senate.
  I want to acknowledge the Ms. Foundation that started the national 
Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day program over 20 years ago. I 
would like to particularly thank Leader Reid and Leader McConnell for 
opening the Senate floor today for these children.
  I ask unanimous consent that the young women's names, as well as the 
names of those family members or guardians joining them, be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Dominique Cravins, from Opelousas, LA, accompanied by her 
     parents, Don and Yvette Cravins; Martine Cruz, from Baton 
     Rouge, LA, accompanied by her mother, Dr. Julie

[[Page S2800]]

     Morial; Amiya Dawson, from Monroe, LA, accompanied by her 
     mother, Kinya Dawson; Katya and Anya Fontana, from New 
     Orleans, LA, accompanied by their mother, Karen Fontana; 
     Mariah Jones, from Natchitoches, LA, accompanied by their 
     grandfather, Victor Jones and Deloris Jones; Anna Reilly, 
     from Baton Rouge, LA, accompanied by her mother, Jennifer 
     Reilly; Lawren Scott, from Baton Rouge, LA, accompanied by 
     her mother, Jacqueline Scott; Sarah Sternberg, from Los 
     Angeles, CA, accompanied by Morton Friedkin; Grace Strottman, 
     from Washington, DC, accompanied by her parents, Kathleen and 
     Matt Strottman; Hailey Trahan, from Lafayette, LA, 
     accompanied by her mother, Angela Trahan, Gladys and Clayton 
     Arceneaux, and Monique Thierry; and, Caroline and Bailey 
     Watts, from Hammond, LA, accompanied by their great aunt, 
     Grace Eldridge and, their grandmother, Maggie Watts.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Please join me in welcoming my exceptional guests and 
their family members or guardians who have accompanied them to the U.S. 
Senate.
  So, again, I thank my Senate colleagues for giving me this 
opportunity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I note the Senator from Massachusetts has 
a very tight schedule and a close timeline to catch a flight overseas. 
I think it appropriate that I defer to the Senator from Massachusetts. 
He has a very tight schedule, and I can wait a little longer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                        Tribute to Mary C. Tarr

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am very grateful to my colleague. I was 
happy to wait, but I am grateful to him. I thank the Senator from 
Montana, my friend Senator Baucus.
  I am privileged to work with a lot of extraordinary staff members 
here in the Senate, as we all are. We often say that none of us is any 
better than our staff allow us to be. It is rare that I have had 
somebody on my team who predated my time in the U.S. Senate. I have 
been here--oh, this is my 28th year now.
  Mary Tarr, who I would like to say a few words about, is my office 
manager, up until today--a veteran staffer of 31 years here in the 
Senate. She is about to retire and looks forward to going into the 
grandmother business over the course of these next years, after three 
decades here.
  I think sometimes people miss or are unaware of the difference that 
an office manager could make in a Senate office. It is hard to quantify 
sometimes. But without any negative inference to the Senate itself in 
drawing this analogy, which is sort of a prison-and-inmates analogy, a 
great manager is a little bit like the character Red in the movie ``The 
Shawshank Redemption.'' In that movie, Red is described as the guy who 
can get stuff, not unlike the sergeant in ``Catch 22.'' There are these 
special people who know how to make things appear out of nowhere and 
make everything work. That is exactly the quality Mary Tarr has brought 
to my office over these years--a mix of relationships, building 
relationships, institutional memory, and a lot of guile at times. And 
she gets things done. So since the summer of 1997 when she came aboard 
in my office, Mary has literally been my ``Red'' in my office.
  Over the course of nearly 15 years, no matter what I needed, no 
matter what the office needed, no matter what we needed to get done, 
she managed to make that happen. I must say I was very lucky, because I 
didn't have the ability to show her any tricks; she taught me the 
tricks. The reason is that she came to me already a master of Senate 
procedure. I was privileged to be the fifth U.S. Senator for whom she 
worked--and for 15 years, I might add. Before me, she split her 
assignments down the middle between Democrats and Republicans. She 
worked for Patty Murray and Brock Adams, and she worked for 
Republicans, including Jim Abnor and Charles Percy. She knew this 
place. She has always loved this place, and she knew pretty much 
everybody who worked here.
  She did all of the things one needs to do to make the trains run on 
time: kept the records, maintained the office accounts, prepared the 
budget, kept the payroll, preaudited expenses, ordered supplies, made 
sure we were in compliance with all the rules, requirements, and 
procedures, and followed them as they changed, as we tie ourselves in 
various knots with various requirements we dump on ourselves. She was 
my liaison with the Senate Sergeant at Arms Office, the Senate 
Disbursing Office, the Senate Service Department, and the Senate 
Computer Center--an extraordinary amount of work. She performed the 
endless tasks that all of us here understand are critical to enabling 
our offices to be able to work--much more complex than obviously the 
average citizen ever sees.
  She wrote the emergency evacuation manual for my staff after 9/11. 
She trained the staff on emergency procedures, and she restructured and 
ran what I think is one of the best intern programs, if not the best 
internship program, in the U.S. Senate, for which the summer interns at 
the end of the summer got to have a terrific intern pool party at her 
home. Office managers all over the Senate constantly consulted her on 
how to run an effective intern program, and she was always ready to 
help because she understood how important it was for young interns to 
have a positive experience. Part of that belief came out of the fact 
that she was only 17 when she came to work full time for the U.S. 
Senate--younger, obviously, than some of the interns who come here and 
work with us.
  When I said she could do the impossible, what I was referring to is 
the fact that she helped me move my office not once but twice, which is 
an enormous undertaking here in the Senate.
  Mary Tarr has worked for the Senate since 1981. In those 31 years, I 
will tell my colleagues she has become a fixture on Capitol Hill, well-
known by everybody, perhaps legendary with some.
  If you needed a room at the last minute to host a function, people 
would call Mary Tarr--from outside of our office, I might add.
  If you needed a desk repaired or a light repaired or air-conditioning 
work done, mention Mary's name and people would say: Right away.
  Printing? My legislative director told me a story about how he went 
to get some printing done, and the folks at the Senate Printing Office 
asked: Did Mary OK this?
  Extra ice cream at the great ice cream party we have in May at the 
Dirksen buffet? She would just say: Go in and ask for the ``Mary 
special,'' and they made it.
  Everybody seemed to know Mary, from the hundreds of former interns 
she mentored over the years, who are now working in government or 
public service, to Bill Gates, who once conveyed a hello from Mary to a 
former colleague in Patty Murray's office.
  Hundreds of American soldiers, I might add, stationed abroad have 
received care packages from Mary, the daughter of a wounded Vietnam 
veteran.
  In my Senate offices, I have a shelf of scrapbooks filled with e-
mails, letters, and photos from soldiers who have received care 
packages, Christmas stockings, Easter baskets, and Halloween candy--all 
of which Mary has organized and shipped year after year. And the words 
of those soldiers underscore just how important Mary has been to them.
  Our former intern, Army 2LT Rory McGovern, wrote:

       It always helps to have a piece of home come in the mail.

  Army Private Jacob Adkins:

       I appreciate the fact that someone who I don't even know 
     supports me enough to send a care package. You make me proud 
     to serve.

  From Marine battalion chaplain Capt. Pat Opp:

       Little things go a long way with morale. Send more 
     lemonade--the troops mix it with cold water as the 
     temperature is super hot over here.

  Army MAJ James Maloney, upon receiving clothes, school supplies, and 
personal grooming items to share with a children's and women's clinic 
in Afghanistan, wrote:

       It has done wonders for our interaction with the local 
     population.

  All of that organized--every time--by Mary Tarr.
  One of my favorite e-mails in the scrapbooks comes not from a soldier 
but from a marine's mother, Kathy Lavin, whose son Ryan had received 
one of our care packages. Kathy wrote to tell Mary that she can finally 
get a good night's sleep because of the message she just received from 
Ryan. Ryan wrote:

       It's almost time to take the candle out of the window, mom. 
     I am coming home. I love and miss you.

  So how did Mary Tarr come to send a care package to Ryan? So typical 
of

[[Page S2801]]

Mary, she was in Massachusetts attending the funeral of a friend, and 
while there she went into a shop in Hull to buy gifts for her mother 
and father, Carolyn and Tom Corbe. Mary chose a Marine Corps kite for 
her dad, who received a Purple Heart in Vietnam. Ryan's mother was in 
the shop and asked Mary if she had a marine because of what she was 
buying. Mary told her she was a Marine Corps brat and the kite was for 
her father. She asked if Kathy had a marine. When Kathy told her about 
Ryan, Mary immediately wrote the information down, got his address, and 
then, seeing her job through--like every single one she has ever 
undertaken--she stayed in touch with Ryan until he came home.
  I personally know how important those packages are, and I will tell 
you, one of the things I am proudest of is what Mary has done on behalf 
of her country and certainly those of us who make decisions to send 
people into combat. And I am proud of her.
  She may be retiring, but she has enormous plans ahead of her. She and 
her husband Brian are planning to move to Roswell, GA, where her 
daughter Angela and her husband Daniel live. Mary jokes that Angela and 
Daniel may be the only two Democrats in the whole town of Roswell, so 
the arrival of Mary and Brian will double our party's strength there. 
But Angela is going to have a baby in October, so there is hope even 
for Roswell yet. Her plan is to babysit her new grandson for a few 
years, and then eventually she and Brian are going to retire to 
Florida, where her daughters Chrissy and Lindsay are in college.
  No matter where she goes or how far from Capitol Hill, she is always 
going to be a very special part of the family here, the extended Senate 
family. She has always represented our Senate well. She is extremely 
hard working, honest, bright, conscientious, and knowledgeable. She has 
handled her responsibilities with great dedication. I think she has 
viewed every challenge as an opportunity to prove herself, and she did 
that again and again.
  So, Mr. President, as she departs my staff today, the principles she 
represented in her work and the standards she established are going to 
remain for a long time as a guide to those in our office and here in 
the Senate, and we say thank you to her for all she has done for our 
country, the State of Massachusetts, and for me personally. I wish her 
and Brian and her family the very best as they take on a new chapter in 
their lives.
  Mr. President, again, I thank my colleague from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                        Tribute to Maureen Rice

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from 
Massachusetts for taking so much time to praise a person who clearly 
deserves praise, who has worked so hard for him and for the people of 
Massachusetts and for her country. Clearly, Mary is an incredible lady.
  Mr. President, my ``Mary'' is Maureen. Maureen, too, is someone who 
started working for me when she was very young--17 years old. In 1974, 
1975--I do not know exactly when--I was hiring people, and this young 
girl came to my office. I could tell--this young girl knows the meaning 
of work. She is Catholic, Irish Catholic, and this lady knows the 
meaning of hard work.
  I hired her on the spot. She is my office manager. She is with me 
even to this date. She is tough. She is smart. She organizes. She is 
the glue. She is a super lady.
  We all have our ``Marys.'' We have our ``Maureens.'' And at this 
moment, I want to praise Mary and Maureen but also all those who work 
so hard for us in so many different capacities.


           Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act

  Mr. President, renowned poet and author Maya Angelou wrote:
       History with all its unending pain cannot be outlived, but 
     faced with courage need not be lived again.

  I stand here today to once again lend my strong support--I voted for 
it, as a majority of our colleagues did--for the Violence Against Women 
Act.
  Nearly two decades ago, the Congress underwent an exhaustive 
investigation on the extent and severity of domestic violence and 
sexual assault toward women in this country. In hearing after hearing, 
Senators heard from experts, including prosecutors, victim advocates, 
and physicians, and real-life stories of women who were the victims of 
these crimes.
  In response, Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act in 1994. 
This law quite literally changed the culture in our country. It changed 
how we view and address domestic violence and sexual assault. States 
across our country began to enact laws to make stalking a crime and 
strengthened criminal rape statutes. Congress provided States with the 
resources to train law enforcement and coordinate services related to 
domestic violence and sexual assault.
  Despite the progress we have made, our work is not done. One in every 
four women will experience domestic violence during her lifetime. In my 
home State of Montana, 98 people died from domestic violence between 
2000 and 2010. These are not simply statistics, they are our mothers, 
our sisters, our daughters, our friends--they are people close to us.
  Since the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, reporting of 
domestic violence has increased by 51 percent and the rate of nonfatal 
intimate partner violence against women has decreased by 53 percent.
  Congress renewed this critical legislation in the year 2000 and again 
in 2005. Both measures included improvements, and both of those passed 
the Senate unanimously.
  We are here today to reiterate our commitment to addressing violence 
against women, including domestic abuse, sexual assault, dating 
violence, and stalking.
  I was struck recently by the story in the Billings Gazette of Maria 
Martin. Maria was a victim of partner abuse. In the year 2005, the man 
she was dating went into a jealous rage. He held her hostage in her own 
home with a knife to her throat. He also threatened to kill her three 
daughters. Charges were filed, and this man is now serving a 61-year 
prison term.
  Maria went on to earn her master's degree in rehabilitation and 
mental health counseling. She now helps others who find themselves in 
the situation she was in just a few short years ago. Maria told the 
reporter that programs created under the Violence Against Women Act 
provided her with the resources and support to overcome her situation. 
The act helped her to find the courage she needed to see that this 
painful experience did not have to be lived again--with its counseling, 
shelter for abused women, and law enforcement counseling for law 
enforcement so they can be more sensitive to women who are victims of 
domestic violence.
  The bipartisan reauthorization renews grant programs critical to 
Montana, including those that support law enforcement, victim services, 
and prevention programs.
  The bill consolidates 13 programs, many of which overlap, into 4. 
This consolidation reduces administrative costs and adds efficiency. 
Acknowledging the current fiscal realities, the bill, therefore, 
reduces authorization levels by 17 percent overall. It is more 
effective, and it costs less.
  The bill also makes critical changes to address the pervasive 
domestic violence occurring in Indian Country.
  Native Americans represent about 6 percent of Montana's population--
about 6 percent. Yet Native women accounted for over 13 percent of 
victims reporting domestic violence in my State in the year 2008--more 
than two times the percentage.
  According to the Department of Justice, Native women are 2\1/2\ times 
more likely to be a victim of rape or sexual assault compared with non-
Native women. However, it is the Federal courts, not the tribal courts, 
that have jurisdiction over many of these crimes, including misdemeanor 
cases. With Federal prosecutors stretched thin, especially in large 
rural States such as Montana, many cases go uninvestigated and 
criminals walk free to continue their violence with no repercussions.
  Chairman Leahy's bill carefully crafts a measure to extend concurrent 
criminal tribal jurisdiction to address the issue of domestic violence 
and partner abuse occurring in Indian Country. These provisions will 
give tribal courts narrow jurisdiction to prosecute domestic violence 
or dating partner violence occurring on tribal land.

[[Page S2802]]

  The bill, however, provides safeguards to those who might be 
defendants. It provides safeguards to ensure that the defendant 
receives all rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. This includes 
fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, 
fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and sixth 
amendment right to effective assistance of counsel--all guaranteed in 
this statute.
  Fifty law professors from across the country, including the 
University of Montana, wrote to Chairman Leahy in support of these 
provisions and Congress's constitutional authority to extend tribal 
jurisdiction. These provisions will begin to address the violence 
against Native women that ``has reached epidemic proportions.''
  Maya Angelou is right that we cannot erase the past and what happened 
to Maria and others like her. But Maria's courage is proof that we can 
change these circumstances for others--to see that no one has to live 
through this experience.
  Maria said--and I will quote her:

       I am alive today because I am a strong, intelligent woman. 
     I need to stand up, step out, and be in front of this issue 
     for others who can't or are not able to--yet.

  I urge my colleagues to support me in making sure that this act 
follows through in negotiations with the House and that we get this 
reauthorization passed that is so important to so many people in our 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, after months of working to ensure that the 
subsidized student loan interest rate does not double this summer, I 
think we finally have reached a consensus--middle-income families in 
America cannot afford a huge increase, a doubling in the interest rate 
on student loans.
  Those who were previously opposed or indifferent to our proposal now 
are in favor of stopping the doubling of the rate. The most prominent, 
of course, is the former Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, who 
said: ``I fully support the effort to extend the low interest rate on 
student loans.'' I think that is the consensus. It was hard fought. I 
submitted the legislation to keep the rate at 3.4 percent originally in 
January. Now we have reached that consensus.
  But the debate has now shifted to how do we pay for it. What I have 
proposed, and am joined by many colleagues, is to close a loophole that 
has allowed a self-selected few to avoid paying their fair share of 
payroll taxes.
  The alternative proposed on the other side goes to critical health 
care benefits for lower and middle-income families. It seems to me 
entirely unfair to try to provide help to middle-income families by 
taking away their access to health care. For families who are 
struggling, education and health care are not something that can be 
traded one for the other.
  Congress should not raise the interest rate on these loans. We have 
reached that agreement. It is a de facto tax on middle-income families. 
We have put forward a plan that will avoid the doubling of the interest 
rate on student loans and will pay for it in a responsible way. We are 
offering a short-term solution to a long-term problem. But we have to 
begin. We have to do it quickly. If we do not act before July 1, the 
interest rate on these loans will double for every loan granted 
thereafter.
  Our proposal is to close a loophole that the General Accounting 
Service has identified as glaring and, frankly, not substantiated by 
any need. This loophole involves Subchapter S corporations or S-corps. 
Immediately, when we say S-corps, we think it must be the local 
manufacturer or the hardware store and how can we go ahead and impose 
any further taxes, any further costs on these job creators.
  This is not the situation. What is happening is that a very clever 
and bright group of people have figured out a way to use the S-corp to 
avoid payroll taxes. It is a small subset of corporations that are 
doing this, and our proposal is targeted. It is targeted only to those 
S-corps that derive 75 percent or more of their gross revenue from the 
services of three or fewer shareholders or where the S-corp is a 
partner in a professional service business.
  Essentially, this is a small group of people who derive 75 percent or 
more of their gross revenues from providing professional services. It 
is lawyers, accountants, lobbyists, and folks such as that. The 
proposal only applies to S-corps or partnerships in the field, where 
virtually all the earnings are attributable to the performance of 
services. This is not the local manufacturer, not the local hardware 
store, not the local dry cleaner or gas station. These are people who 
perform essentially professional services.
  They are avoiding their payroll taxes, and we do not think that 
should be the case. Furthermore, this proposal exempts S-corp 
shareholders, partners, and partnerships with modified adjusted gross 
incomes below $250,000 for joint filers and $200,000 for individuals. 
So it is targeted within this small subgroup of S-corps to an even 
smaller group, those who are making $250,000 and above as joint filers 
or $200,000 and above as sole filers.
  This proposal prevents professional service income from being mis-
char-acterized to avoid employment taxes. However, legitimate passive 
income--if the S-corp is earning income from rents, from dividends, 
from interest, and certain other gains, those will be essentially 
treated as such and will continue to be exempt from payroll taxes.
  All we have done is close a glaring loophole, done it in a way in 
which we do not impact anyone making under $200,000, anyone, frankly, 
who is involved in a corporation whose principal activities are not 
professional services. I think this is a responsible way to do it. This 
is a way that can, in fact, respond to the need to responsibly fund 
this provision for maintaining the student loan interest rate.
  The GAO found that in 2003 and 2004 tax years, individuals used this 
loophole to underreport over $23 billion in wage income. The median 
unreported amount was $20,127. For most students, that would cover 
tuition. Let me say this again. What the GAO found was that using this 
device as an S-corp, people were able to transform what normally would 
be $20,000 in payroll wages or salaries that would be subject to 
payroll taxes into a distribution of an S-corp, avoiding payroll taxes.
  This is a loophole. There is no other word for it. We are closing it, 
and we are closing it in a way that is responsible and that will have 
virtually no impact on the businesses on Main Street USA. In fact, I 
think if we tried to explain to anyone running the local store that 
there are some folks out there who were using S-corps to avoid their 
payroll taxes, they would be, if not shocked, they would, at least, 
raise objections to that practice, frankly.
  So closing this loophole will fully offset the $5.9 billion cost of 
this 1-year extension on the interest rate and would make the Tax Code 
more fair. It is a win-win proposition. In fact, according to Citizens 
for Tax Justice, in their words, closing this loophole will actually 
help most small businesses, which are currently subsidizing the 
minority who abuse it to avoid payroll taxes. So I think this is not 
only the right thing to do in terms of the policy of not doubling the 
interest rate on student loans, this is an appropriate way to do it, an 
appropriate way to pay for it.
  Even Governor Romney recognizes that at times S-corps have to pay 
their fair share. This is a quote from the Boston Herald of January 6, 
2008.

       ``When Mitt Romney became Governor in 2003, Subchapter S 
     corporations that were owned by Massachusetts business trusts 
     were taxed at 5.3 percent. By the time Romney left office, 
     the tax rate on these corporations had climbed to 9.8 
     percent, with Romney declaring the tax increase to be merely 
     `closing loopholes.' ''

  We are urging that the Governor be consistent both in support for 
avoiding the increase in the student interest rate and closing 
loopholes in Subchapter S corporations. Both parties must work to find 
a way to do this. The good news is there is now consensus that it must 
be done. I am prepared, and I hope my colleagues are prepared to work 
for a way to pay for it which is fair, which does not take from one 
middle-class program to offset another middle-class program. We should 
work together to get this done as soon as we return.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

[[Page S2803]]

                       Tribute to Angela Elsbury

  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I have obviously been very fortunate 
to have the opportunity to give remarks from my desk on the floor of 
the Senate several times since the people of Missouri sent me in 2006. 
I do not think I have ever had a speech that I was going to give that 
was easier and harder than this speech--easy in that I am talking about 
someone I love; hard because this person I love is going on to a 
different place and a brighter future and I am going to miss her 
terribly.
  This person's name is Angela Elsbury, and she has a job that people 
outside Congress do not fully appreciate. She is called the scheduler. 
But for anybody who does this work, they appreciate that somehow that 
title just does not do it justice. I do not know what the right title 
would be. I can think of several: In charge of my life, hand holder, 
the nicest person who has to say no, multitasker, mother to the entire 
office, disciplinarian, jokester.
  There are so many things a good scheduler does that make our lives 
work. Angela came to this work having worked for the Governor in 
Missouri in a similar capacity. She actually joined my campaign and was 
one of the first ones through the door. She came from a place that, 
frankly, had not had a lot of people who were elbow to elbow with 
Governors and Senators. She came from a small town called Madison, MO. 
I think there are maybe just north of 500 people who live in Madison.
  So not only did she begin the campaign and do a lot at the beginning 
of the campaign keeping us organized and allowing the schedule to work, 
she came to Washington and has done remarkable work. Her work is so 
remarkable that everybody kind of thought it was easy. That is the mark 
of a very good scheduler because it is the hardest job--the hardest 
job--in the office.
  Not only does she have to put up with the frustration of me when the 
hours are long and the meetings are back to back and there is not time 
to get a breath, she has to put up with everyone in Missouri who cannot 
understand why I cannot be in five places at one time and why it is not 
possible for me to vote one hour and be in Rolla, MO, the next hour. 
She does all that with incredible grace and intellect and a smile on 
her face. She is just a very special person.
  The thing about these jobs is there are days I get worried about our 
democracy, and then I look at the resumes of the young people, whether 
it is the great pages who serve us morning, noon, and night in the 
Chamber or whether it is the amazing people whom I work with in my 
office. These are people who could go other places in the private 
sector and make a lot of money. They choose to come here. They are 
drawn here. They are drawn to their government. They are drawn to 
public service.
  So, as a result, I mean, what do I love about my job? Let me count 
the ways. But one of the things I love most is being surrounded by 
patriotic, intellectual Americans who want to do the right thing and do 
not care that they have to still live like they are in college, who do 
not care that the idea of buying a car is a fantasy because it is just 
too expensive, who do not care that they have to have an hour commute 
in order to get housing they can afford. They want to be a part of it.
  I am surrounded by a team like that, but in the driver's seat, kind 
of making the car go where it needs to go, and making sure it does not 
get broken down on the side of the road has been Angela. I am not sure 
exactly how this car is going to navigate without her. I have a feeling 
we are going to have a few bumps. There may be an out and out 
collision. There may be some scrapes and some wailing and some 
hollering about people who are upset or it does not work.
  I do know this, that we always say somebody's shoes are hard to fill. 
These shoes will be very hard to fill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to give this speech in full.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Taxes

  Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the impending tax hike which, 
if allowed to occur, will raise taxes on practically all Americans come 
Jan 1, 2013. That is only eight months from now. Earlier in February, 
The Washington Post called the approximately $500 billion tax hike 
Taxmageddon, and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke described it as 
a massive fiscal cliff when testifying before Congress.
  This tax hike will affect virtually every single federal income tax 
payer. We must not allow this to happen. America is slowly recovering 
from one of the greatest recessions in modern history. We remain in a 
precarious economic situation, with a fragile recovery. It is beyond 
irresponsible for President Obama to sit idly by and allow this 
scheduled $500 billion tax hike to occur.
  Congress needs to act now in order to prevent this tax hike on 
America.
  First we need to focus on tax extenders.
  Tax Extenders are temporary tax provisions affecting everything from 
individuals and businesses to charitable giving, energy, and even 
disaster relief. My colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, and I held 
a hearing in late January to discuss these tax provisions and the fact 
that Congress year after year continues to extend these provisions 
without a thorough review of each provision.
  Some of these provisions are worthy of being extended, such as the 
Research and Development tax credit. I have introduced legislation with 
the Chairman, my friend from Montana, to make this provision permanent. 
But when it comes to tax extenders, we need to have a real debate, one 
where the Senate decides which provisions must be extended and which 
should be allowed to expire.
  Second, we need to address the Alternative Minimum Tax, or AMT.
  The AMT was initially drafted to provide some type of guarantee that 
higher-income taxpayers, who owed little or no taxes under the regular 
income tax due to tax preferences, would still pay some taxes. Yet over 
time, this tax has grown into a monster potentially ensnaring more and 
more middle income families every year.
  To avoid the consequences of the AMT on the middle class, year after 
year Congress has patched the AMT. We have indexed the AMT for 
inflation so that middle income families do not get caught up paying 
this tax. Not only must we patch the AMT for 2012, we must eliminate 
the AMT in the long term.
  Third, we must focus on death tax reform.
  Taxing people's assets upon their death is just plain wrong. The 
death tax affects thousands of small businesses owners every year. This 
year alone, it is estimated that 3,600 estates will be affected. In 10 
years, approximately 83,200 estates will be hit with this tax according 
to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
  The President likes to talk about how his policies will help small 
businesses. Well, if current law expires, the number of small business 
owners who will face the death tax will rise by 900 percent. The number 
of farmers who will face the death tax will rise by 2,200 percent. 
That's right--two thousand two hundred percent.
  Many individuals work their entire lives to build a business, and 
they reasonably want to pass that business along to their families. 
Instead of being rewarded for their work, and the work of their 
families, this is what they face come January 1, 2013. Uncle Sam will 
take over 50 percent of their assets--55 percent to be exact.
  The survivors of the deceased will be forced to sell land or assets 
of the business to meet this liability. Let me be clear. Nobody should 
be forced to sell a single asset in order to meet this arbitrary tax 
due date. Company assets should not have to be sold to pay taxes. The 
market should determine when things are bought and sold. That is the 
best measurement--when a willing Buyer meets a willing Seller and they 
agree on a price and a time when a company should be sold.
  Currently, the law states that there is an exemption equivalent of $5 
million and a tax rate of 35 percent on the remaining estate. In 2013 
the exemption equivalent will drop to $1 million and the top tax rate 
will be the full 55 percent.
  That's a 57 percent increase.
  The truth is that we ought to repeal the death tax in its entirety. 
The whole

[[Page S2804]]

thing must go. And I am working hard to make that a reality. 
Unfortunately, with the current composition of the Senate, that is 
going to be an uphill climb. Yet at a minimum we must extend the 
current provisions and keep a tax hike from occurring on these job 
creators.
  Fourth and most importantly, we must extend the tax relief signed 
into law by President Bush and extended by President Obama.
  This may be the most crucial piece of legislation Congress passes 
this year, if not during the entire 112th Congress. If we allow these 
cuts to expire as scheduled at the end of the year, almost every 
federal income tax payer in America will see an increase in their 
rates. Some will see a rate increase of 9 percent, while others will 
see a rate increase of 87 percent.
  Let's take the average American family of four earning $50,000. This 
family will owe an additional tax of $2,183.
  Democrats insist that that is fair.
  That is just more people paying more of their fair share.
  But to whom? And for what?
  What this means in reality is that instead of taxpayers using their 
$2,183 to pay for their children's education, save for retirement, buy 
a new home, or invest in a new business, they will be forking that 
$2,183 over to the federal government. And after winding its way 
through the federal bureaucracy, some pittance of that $2,183 will be 
spent on a federal program that too often has zero demonstrated 
success.
  Let's not sugarcoat this.
  In the supposed interest of fairness, families will have an 
additional $2,183 taken from their wallets in order to serve bigger 
government.
  That is the impact on families and businesses of President Obama's 
redistributionist agenda.
  Looking at this problem more broadly, economists estimate that if 
these current policies are allowed to expire, the economy could 
contract by approximately 3 percentage points. That would be a large 
hit to an economy that is still weak and recovering from the fiscal 
crisis of 2008. Adding another fiscal crisis by not extending these tax 
policies definitely won't help and will likely do further damage.
  Preventing this tax hike is what we must focus on. Congress should 
have a laser focus on preventing this looming disaster.
  Yet at a time when we should be working to prevent a massive tax 
increase, President Obama and his Democrat allies are spinning their 
wheels trying to raise taxes on politically unpopular groups.
  These tax hikes are already scheduled to go into effect. Congress 
doesn't have to do anything and everyone will pay more in taxes come 
2013.
  That's not a good sign given that some people have called this a do-
nothing Senate.
  I am sure that some people are tired of the mantra among 
conservatives that Democrats want to raise your taxes and Republican's 
don't.
  But we say it because it is true.
  At liberal think tanks, their employees go to work every morning and 
think about how they can raise taxes.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle, knowing that their 
constituents already feel overtaxed, spend countless hours devising 
ways to raise taxes in a way that only hits politically unpopular 
groups.
  And the President is devoting his entire reelection campaign toward 
tax hiking in the interest of fairness.
  Here in the Senate, we have already voted twice on my colleague from 
New Jersey's proposal to raise taxes on oil and gas companies.
  First we had hearings in the Senate Finance Committee last year. As I 
said then, that was nothing more than a dog and pony show. Then 
leadership brought the bill directly to the floor skipping the process 
of a markup.
  Last week we voted for the silly Buffett Tax.
  This is not serious tax policy. The Buffett Tax is a statutory 
talking point. And not a very good one at that.
  First, the President said it was about deficit reduction.
  When we pointed out to him that it raised only $47 billion in revenue 
over 10-years, a drop in the bucket given the President's trillions in 
deficit spending, the White House shifted gears.
  Now it was about fairness.
  But when we pointed out that his redistributionist scheme, if 
redirected to a lower tax bracket, would only yield an $11 per family 
tax rebate, he criticized Republicans for demonizing him as a class 
warrior.
  The President needs to come clean about what the Buffett tax really 
is.
  It is nothing less than a second and even more damaging AMT, one that 
would force many small business owners and job creators to pay a 
minimum of 30 percent of their income in tax.
  As the Wall Street Journal said on April 10, ``The U.S. already has a 
Buffett rule. The Alternative Minimum Tax that first became law in 1969 
. . . The surest prediction in politics is that any tax that starts by 
hitting the rich ends up hitting the middle class because that is where 
the real money is.''
  And what is really rich about the Buffett rule, is that Mr. Buffett 
would be able to avoid his own Buffett tax.
  So what is the President doing? Why, with Taxmageddon around the 
corner, are President Obama and his liberal allies dithering with these 
harmful tax increases?
  The answer is politics.
  President Obama has read the polls. He knows he's in trouble. His 
approval rating is declining and he does not have a single positive 
accomplishment to run on for a second term.
  The $800 billion stimulus? A failed policy that hasn't kept the 
employment rate under 8 percent.
  Obamacare? Rejected soundly by the American people as evidenced by 
the 2010 midterm elections, it might now be rejected by the Supreme 
Court as one of the biggest unconstitutional boondoggles in our 
nation's history.
  What else does he have?
  Absolutely nothing.
  His fawning admirers might not know it yet, but Mitt Romney is in the 
catbird seat.
  President Obama long ago lost independents. So he is appealing to all 
he has left, core left wing supporters, one step from an Occupy Wall 
Street encampment, who love class warfare.
  Before the Buffett rule, Democrats proposed six different pieces of 
legislation that in one form or another raise taxes on millionaires.
  Here they are.
  And every one of these bills was focused on raising taxes to pay for 
more government spending.
  Let's not pretend that all of these redistributionist tax plans 
comprise serious policy.
  And let's not forget that every minute Democrats spend goofing around 
with these plans, is a minute that we do not spend preventing the 
largest tax increase in American history.
  Mr. President, Senate Democrats are fiddling while Rome burns. They 
have failed to address the deficit. Spending surged 24 percent under 
President Obama when he took office. All of the tax hikes he and his 
allies have proposed do little, if anything, to pay down his deficits 
and debt.
  It is time for the Senate leadership to get serious and to focus on 
making the lives of middle class families easier, not more difficult. 
The policies from the other side do nothing of the sort. If anything 
they make them more difficult.
  Taxmageddon is coming. The only good news is that Congress can 
prevent it and extend tax relief for the middle class.
  That is where my focus will be for the next 8 months, and I hope that 
my colleagues will join me in securing the benefits of tax relief for 
all Americans.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                              The Economy

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I came to the floor today to talk about 
the actions we took here this week in the Senate to make sure the 
postal service has a good chance to return to solvency and be relevant 
in the 21st century and continue to provide a valuable role in 
providing 7 to 8 million jobs in the United States of America. But I 
think I will put that on hold for a moment and recall the words of a 
former President, Harry Truman, who left office not very popular, but 
in retrospect is regarded as one of the best Presidents of the last 
century. Harry Truman used to say, the only thing new in the world is 
the history we forgot or never learned.
  I want to go back to a few years in our history and reflect on the 
words of

[[Page S2805]]

the preceding speaker and ask, what can we learn from history? Well, 
one of the things we can learn from is the last time we actually had a 
balanced budget in this country, and we had three of them in the last 3 
years of the Clinton administration. He became President in the middle 
of a recession and left our country with the strongest economy of any 
Nation on Earth, with the most productive workforce, the most revered 
Nation on Earth. He turned the reins over to a new President, George W. 
Bush, and gave to him balanced budgets and a strong economy. Eight 
years later, we had accumulated more debt in those 8 years--from 2001 
to 2009--I think than we had in the previous 208 years combined.
  President Bush then turned over to President-elect Obama a $1 
trillion deficit and an economy that was in free fall, with the worst 
recession since the Great Depression. That is where President Obama and 
Vice President Biden--a former colleague and Senator from Delaware--
started off in January of 2009. Keep in mind, the last 6 months of 
2008, this country lost 2\1/2\ million jobs. The first 6 months of 
2009, this country lost 2\1/2\ million jobs. That is sort of like where 
they took the handoff.
  I am not trying, and have never attempted, to characterize the 
comments made by my colleague a few minutes ago, but I think a little 
history is not a bad thing. Interestingly enough, the balanced budget 
agreement was negotiated by President Clinton's Chief of Staff Erskine 
Bowles. That is a name we have heard a lot of in the past year and a 
half, because he was asked by this President to do a similar kind of 
thing, to try to negotiate a deficit reduction deal, along with a 
former Republican Senator from Wyoming, Alan Simpson. The two were 
asked to head up a commission, with 16 other very smart people. And 11 
out of the 18, after working at this for a year, came back and said, 
here is what we think you should do to take a good $4 trillion or $5 
trillion out of the deficit over the next 10 years.
  The deficit commission, headed by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, 
simply recommended we do that by working on the spending side and on 
the revenue side. For every $3 of deficit reduction on the spending 
side, they said there would be $1 of new revenues--not by raising taxes 
but actually by lowering somewhat the personal income tax rate, the 
corporate income tax rate, and broadening the base of the income which 
can be taxed.
  That was seen by a lot of people as being a grand compromise. 
Democrats agreed to compromise on entitlement program reform in an 
effort to make sure we have Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid 50, 
60, 70, or 100 years from now; and Republicans agreed to compromise on 
tax reform that actually lowers the rate but allows us to generate new 
revenue--$1 of new revenue for every $3 of spending reductions to 
achieve deficit reduction.
  I think that is a smart plan. Other people have come forward with 
their plans since, but I think that is the smartest deficit reduction 
plan, and I think it is a good jobs bill. I hope by the end of the 
year, when the smoke clears and the elections are over, we will come 
back to that and use that as maybe our north star to get us back to 
fiscal responsibility in this Nation.
  That is not why I came here tonight, but I thought maybe it was 
appropriate, on the heels of my friend and colleague, to set the record 
straight a little bit.


                         Postal Service Reform

  Ironically, yesterday 62 Senators voted for postal reform 
legislation. I appreciate the support of the Presiding Officer and 
other colleagues, Democrat and Republican. But that legislation was 
almost immediately attacked by some of our Republican friends over in 
the House of Representatives. Our Presiding Officer knows I am not a 
real partisan guy; never have been, not while I was Governor or in the 
many roles I have been privileged to play in Delaware. But our bill was 
attacked almost immediately by our Republican friends over in the House 
because it doesn't do this or doesn't do that or whatever the sin might 
be.
  Ironically, we asked, where is your bill? How about let's compare our 
bill to your bill. They haven't passed a bill. Yet they feel at liberty 
to take all kinds of shots--and I don't think they are entirely fair 
shots--at our bill. I had a conversation this afternoon with the chair 
of the relevant committee in the House and urged him to make sure they 
actually move a bill and not just criticize what we have done.
  There are provisions in our bill I am frankly not happy with, and I 
am sure there will be provisions in whatever bill the House passes he 
won't be comfortable with. But at the end of the day, they have to move 
a bill. They have to say this is what we are for, because we have said 
this is what we want to have as our negotiating point in conference 
going forward. So we need the House to do the same thing, sooner rather 
than later. I am encouraged to hear the House is going to take 
something up by the middle of May. If they can do it before that, God 
bless them.
  I want to take 5, 6, or 7 minutes to talk a little about what we are 
trying to do with respect to postal reform. We are trying to rightsize 
the enterprise, much as the auto industry rightsized itself 3 or 4 
years ago coming out of bankruptcy. We are trying to modernize the 
postal industry and we are also trying to help the postal service--
encourage the postal service--to find new ways to use their existing 
business model--where in every community in America there are 33,000 
post offices going to every front door and mailbox in America 5 or 6 
days a week--to make more money and raise their revenues, some of the 
ways they can do that.
  Our legislation focuses on that, rightsizing the enterprise given the 
reduction in mail, the diversion of mail to the electronic media 
because of Facebook, Twitter, the Internet, or all of the above. We 
communicate differently than we used to. We have to help them rightsize 
their enterprise and modernize and find new ways to generate revenues. 
That is the heart and soul of what we want to do.

  How do we do that? As it turns out, by luck, the postal service over 
the years has overpaid its obligation to the Federal Employees 
Retirement System by a lot, it turns out by about $11 billion. There is 
no argument; they have overpaid the money. The postal service is owed 
that money by the Federal Employees Retirement System. The postal 
service wishes to take that money and use that money in two ways: one, 
to incentivize about 100,000 postal employees who are eligible to 
retire, to retire; not fire them, not lay them off, but say, look, if 
you will retire, here is another $25,000 or if you are close to 
retirement, here is some credit, but we want you to retire.
  Second, the postal service has more mail processing centers than they 
need. A couple of years ago they had maybe 600 or so. Today they have a 
few less than 500. They want to get down to about 325 over the next 
year or two. That would be almost cutting in half the number of mail 
processing centers around the country. They do not need them, given the 
volume of mail today. They need mail processing centers, but not as 
many as they have.
  When the postal service closes another 150 or so mail processing 
centers, some people will not be able to work at those mail processing 
centers, but the postal service is saying, we will find you other jobs. 
You can be a letter carrier or work in another part of the postal 
service. You will not get fired. But we want to encourage those 
eligible to retire to retire.
  The Service also wants to take most of that Federal Employees 
Retirement System money to pay down their debt to the Treasury. Right 
now, they have gone on a $15 billion line of credit. The postal service 
wants to take most of their Federal Employees Retirement System 
reimbursement and pay off that debt.
  Another thing they wish to do, that a lot of folks around here are 
real concerned about, is to close some post offices. There is the fear 
that maybe as many as 3,000 or 4,000 post offices. In rural places 
around the country, maybe the post office is the center of the town. 
Folks are concerned their post office will be closed and people will be 
left without postal service. As it turns out, that will not be the 
case.
  What the postal service is going to do under our bill is to say to 
communities across the country, we want to offer you a menu of options. 
We want to offer you a menu of options for different communities, and 
among that menu of options we want to offer to those communities are 
these:

[[Page S2806]]

  No. 1, we are not going to close your post office. We will keep your 
post office open, but in a place where we are paying the people 
$50,000, $60,000, $70,000 a year to run a post office that sells 
$15,000 worth of stamps, that doesn't make sense. So if the postmaster 
is eligible to retire, we want to incentivize that postmaster to 
retire. Let him go off and get his pension, get his benefits, and he 
could still come back to work on a part-time basis, maybe 2 or 4 or 6 
hours a day, and run the post office in that community. If that is what 
the community wants, that is what they would get.
  Some communities might prefer to put the post office in the 
supermarket or the local drugstore or a convenience store, where it is 
open not just a few hours a day but open 24/7, maybe. That would be an 
option for the community. Some communities may have a townhall and some 
other State and local businesses that could collocate those with the 
post office and put them all under one roof and everybody would save 
some money. So they could share some space.
  Another option for some places, maybe Minnesota--we have rural letter 
carriers in the southern part of Delaware--we could offer people the 
opportunity for rural mail delivery. They wouldn't have to come in to 
town to collect their mail in a post office. It would be delivered to 
wherever they live. The idea is to say to folks in communities that 
might be adversely affected, you pick from among this menu of options, 
figure out what works for you. Even vote by mail and pick their 
favorite choice.
  So rightsizing the enterprise, reducing the head count, reducing the 
number of mail processing centers further by another third, and, 
finally, ways to provide more cost-effective mail service in 
communities across the country, though not the heart and soul of what 
we are trying to do, they are very important.
  Let me mention one or two others, if I could. The postal service pays 
twice for health care for their retirees. I will say that again. The 
postal service pays twice for the health care of their retirees. They 
pay under Medicare and they pay under the Federal Employees Health 
Benefit Plan. Twice. The employees don't get the full benefit of that 
money, the postal service certainly doesn't get the full benefit of 
that money. Most companies in this country--big companies and small 
ones--when their employees retire, a lot of times will continue to 
provide health care benefits for them until the age of 65. Then at age 
65, the company will say to the retiree, we want you to get your 
primary Medicare, your primary source of health care, and we will 
provide a wraparound, your Medigap program, to fill in the gaps for 
you. That is how a lot of companies do it. My wife retired from DuPont. 
When she turns 65--in about another 30 years, well, maybe a little 
sooner than that--Medicare will be her primary source of health care 
and the company will provide a wraparound for Medigap. What the post 
office wishes to do is have a similar type of opportunity. In the end, 
I think the retirees will benefit, the postal service will benefit, and 
the taxpayers, I think, arguably would benefit. Those are a couple of 
things that are in our legislation.
  Did we pass a perfect bill? By no means. By no means. As I said 
earlier, there are some things in the bill I don't like. And I hope we 
can make the bill better in conference. In order to get to conference 
with the House, the House has to pass a bill. It is not enough for the 
House to criticize what we have done. We say, what have you done? As it 
turns out, so far, not much--at least in terms of passing a bill and 
being able to appoint conferees and see what we can work out here. My 
hope is they will do that.
  My hope is they will do that sooner rather than later, so we can stop 
saying, well, the postal service lost $45 million today. They did that 
yesterday and they are going to do it tomorrow. That is not 
sustainable. That is not sustainable. They need to be put in a position 
where they can be successful. We can help them get there. And to the 
extent the postal service becomes vibrant and solvent, they can support 
the 7 or 8 million jobs that are tied to and interconnected with the 
postal service.
  With that, Mr. President, I bid you adieu, and I suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Tribute to Rudolfo Anaya

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, it is good to see the 
Presiding Officer in the chair today and to know that Alaska is well 
represented having the Senator from Alaska in the chair and presiding 
over the Senate. I very much appreciate that.
  I come to the floor to commend one of New Mexico's most celebrated 
authors, Rudolfo Anaya. This year marks the 40th anniversary of 
Professor Anaya's acclaimed novel ``Bless Me, Ultima.''
  This beloved book is an iconic part of Chicano literary history. It 
has been read by thousands of high school and college students, as well 
as the general public. It tells the story of a young boy growing up in 
a small New Mexico town during World War II. ``Bless Me, Ultima'' is a 
classic portrait of Chicano culture in a particular time and place, but 
it also resonates with universal themes: the search for identity, the 
conflict between good and evil.
  Literature expands our horizons. It increases our understanding. As 
President Kennedy said, ``Art establishes the basic human truths which 
must serve as the touchstone of our judgment.''
  For 40 years, Rudolfo Anaya's work has explored the human condition. 
The University of New Mexico organized a reading marathon to 
commemorate the publication of ``Bless Me, Ultima,'' and I was pleased 
to take part.
  Rudolfo Anaya was born in 1937 in the small New Mexico village of 
Pastura. He grew up in Santa Rosa and in Albuquerque. When he was only 
16, he suffered a terrible accident. His injuries required years of 
rehabilitation. He has commented on that painful time in his young life 
and how those events affected his sensibilities as a writer.
  He obtained his B.A. and M.A. from the University of New Mexico. 
``Bless me, Ultima,'' in 1972, was his debut novel. It was the 
beginning of a remarkable literary career. He is also the author of 
``Tortuga,'' ``Zia Summer,'' and ``Albuquerque,'' among many other 
works. He was a professor of English at the University of New Mexico 
from 1974 until his retirement in 1993. Professor Anaya was awarded the 
National Medal of Arts in 2001. He received the award for his 
``exceptional contribution to contemporary American literature that has 
brought national recognition to Chicano traditions, and for his efforts 
to promote Hispanic writers.''
  Rudolfo Anaya has been a prolific writer and a dedicated teacher. He 
has made a lasting contribution to American arts and letters. I am 
pleased to congratulate him on the 40th anniversary of ``Bless Me, 
Ultima,'' and I wish him the very best in his future endeavors.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Violence Against Women Act

  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the importance of the 
passage of the Violence Against Women Act. As a husband and as a father 
of three young daughters, this issue is especially personal to me. This 
piece of legislation provides extremely valuable Federal resources to 
help victims of domestic and sexual violence rebuild their lives. 
Whether it comes in the form of an emergency shelter, legal assistance, 
a crisis hotline or advocacy, this bill provides the assistance that 
victims need, especially in the most vulnerable time.
  Domestic violence, spousal abuse, and sexual assaults represent 
enormous public policy challenges. Because of

[[Page S2807]]

the very personal nature of these crimes, it can be extremely difficult 
for victims to come forward to get the help they need, let alone call 
out those who have committed these heinous crimes. But since this bill 
was first enacted, the annual incidence of domestic violence continues 
to drop. Additionally, domestic violence reporting has dramatically 
increased and victims are receiving lifesaving assistance to help them 
move forward with their lives.
  In my home State of Colorado, we continue to make great progress 
reducing the number of domestic and sexual assaults that occur, but we 
must continue to do more.
  In 2010, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control 
published a report which estimated that 451,000 women in Colorado were 
victims of rape in their lifetime. It also estimated that 897,000 
Colorado women were victims of sexual violence other than rape in their 
lifetime. That same report said 505,000 men had been victims of sexual 
violence in their lifetime. These statistics are staggering in my view, 
and they make the case for why we had to pass this bill and continue to 
strengthen the programs that provide lifesaving services.
  The Violence Against Women Act also includes invaluable programs to 
coordinate community efforts to respond to incidents of domestic and 
sexual violence by training police officers, judges, and other members 
of the criminal justice system. The legal system in our country is 
already stretched so thin. The resources provided by this bill will 
help law enforcement and court officials track down and bring to 
justice those who commit these crimes.
  In my opinion, we can't do enough to get these criminals off the 
streets. For instance, we need to ensure that we support protection and 
prevention services such as training judges and police officers on how 
to identify and respond to abusive situations. We can significantly 
decrease domestic violence fatalities and the number of displaced 
families if we have better trained officers in our legal system and 
health and human services arena.
  Finally, I wish to thank Chairman Leahy for his tireless efforts to 
move this critical piece of legislation forward, as well as Senators 
Murray and Klobuchar for their continued leadership on behalf of women 
and children all across the Nation. With a big bipartisan vote today in 
the Senate, we came together to make sure the Violence Against Women 
Act was passed.
  With that, I yield the floor and 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.

                          ____________________