[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14637-14641]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              NOMINATIONS

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the majority leader was required to 
take the extraordinary step of asking for unanimous consent to secure 
Senate confirmation votes for 17 district court nominations. Before the 
American people elected Barack Obama as our President, district court 
nominees were generally confirmed within a couple of weeks of being 
reported by the Judiciary Committee. This was true of those nominated 
by Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. Deference was 
traditionally afforded to home State Senators and district court 
nominees supported by home State Senators were almost always confirmed 
unanimously.
  However, Senate Republicans have raised the level of partisanship so 
that these Federal trial court nominees have now become wrapped around 
the axle of partisanship. Despite a vacancy crisis that threatens the 
ability of Federal courts to provide justice for the American people, 
Senate Republicans now refuse to allow a vote on any of the 17 pending 
district court nominees, including 12 that have been declared judicial 
emergency vacancies. Senate Republicans' across-the-board obstruction 
of President Obama's judicial nominees that began with their filibuster 
of his very first nominee continues. For the first time I can recall, 
even district court nominees with support from Republican home State 
Senators face months of delay if not outright opposition from the 
Senate Republican leadership and Senate Republicans.
  The long delays and backlog we are seeing on the Federal trial courts 
and Senate Republicans' refusal to vote on so many consensus judicial 
nominees before we recess for the upcoming Presidential election are 
entirely without precedent. The Thurmond rule has never been applied to 
stop votes on consensus district court nominees. In September 2008 we 
reported and confirmed 10 of President Bush's district court nominees 
and left none on the Senate calendar as we headed into that 
Presidential election. In contrast, this year we are still waiting on 
votes for district court nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee 
in April, June, July, and August. All but 1 of these 17 district court 
nominees was reported with significant bipartisan support, all but 3 
nearly unanimously.
  The partisan refusal to allow votes on consensus nominees has become 
standard operating procedure for Senate Republicans. In each of the 
last 2 years, Senate Republicans refused to follow the Senate's 
traditional practice of clearing the calendar of noncontroversial 
nominees. As a result, there were 19 judicial nominees pending without 
a final confirmation vote at the end of 2010 and another 19 left 
without a vote at the end of 2011. Due to this latest refusal to 
consent to vote, Senate Republicans are ensuring that the Senate will 
recess for the election without voting on 21 judicial nominees ready 
for final Senate action. The result is that for the first time in 
decades Federal courts are likely to have more vacancies at the end of 
these 4 years than at the beginning of the President's term. Federal 
judicial vacancies have been at historically high levels for years, 
remaining near or above 80 for nearly the entire first term of the 
President. Judicial vacancies today are more than 2\1/2\ times as high 
as they were at this point in President Bush's first term, with nearly 
1 out of every 11 Federal judgeships currently vacant.
  I urge Senator Toomey, Senator Kirk, Senator Rubio, Senator Coburn, 
Senator Inhofe, Senator Hatch, Senator Lee, Senator Collins, and 
Senator Snowe, all of whom have judicial nominees on the calendar ready 
for a final Senate vote, to reason with their leadership about this 
obstruction. I ask other Republican Senators who know better to weigh 
in with their leadership. This is wrong for the country, damaging to 
the Federal courts, and harmful for the American people looking to our 
courts for justice.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my statement a column by Russell Wheeler entitled ``The 
Case for Confirming District Court Judges'' that appeared in Politico 
on Wednesday and notes the unprecedented and destructive nature of this 
obstruction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I have served in the Senate for 37 years, and I have never 
seen so many judicial nominees, reported with bipartisan support, be 
denied a simple up-or-down vote for 4 months, 5 months, 6 months, even 
11 months. And if there was any doubt that Senate Republicans insist on 
being the party of no, their current decision to deny votes on these 
highly qualified, noncontroversial district court nominees--while we 
are in the middle of a judicial vacancy crisis--shows what they stand 
for. They care more about opposing this President than helping the 
American people.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From Politico, Sept. 18, 2012]

             The Case for Confirming District Court Judges

                          (By Russell Wheeler)

       The accepted wisdom on Congress is that the presidential 
     campaign is likely to crowd

[[Page 14638]]

     out most real work until after Nov. 6, when all its focus 
     abruptly changes to the fiscal cliff.
       There is, though, one important noncontroversial matter 
     that the Senate should take up now--as have previous Senates 
     at this time: confirming district judges.
       A government that can't do its mundane business is surely 
     unlikely to be able to deal with more controversial problems. 
     History shows that the Senate should be able to confirm a 
     respectable number of long-standing district court 
     nominations before Election Day--certainly before 
     adjournment. If it cannot, this may signal that the past four 
     years of delayed and confrontational nominations have not 
     been an aberration but represent the new normal of district 
     court confirmations.
       Sixty-one of the nation's 673 lifetime appointment district 
     court judgeships are vacant. President Barack Obama has 
     submitted nominees to fill 24 of the vacancies. Seventeen of 
     the 24 have cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and are 
     awaiting final action by the full Senate.
       As of Sept. 10, the Senate had confirmed 126 of Obama's 
     district nominees--81 percent. In comparison, President 
     George W. Bush had a 97 percent district confirmation success 
     rate in his first four years, and President Bill Clinton an 
     87 percent rate.
       If the Senate confirms 10 of the 17 Obama nominees, this 
     would lift his four-year success rate to equal Clinton's. 
     Confirming all 17 would lift it to 91 percent.
       Rates aside, however, even if all 17 were confirmed, Obama 
     would have made roughly 20 fewer district appointees than 
     Clinton or Bush. Obama has submitted fewer nominees.
       Extended vacancies often mean long delays, especially in 
     civil cases. They often mean full caseloads for judges in 
     their 70s and beyond--despite statutory promises that, at 
     that age, judges who have put in substantial service are 
     entitled to scale back.
       Filling judicial vacancies is part of the business of 
     government, and like much of that business, it is more 
     mundane than dramatic. Federal district caseloads consist 
     largely of commercial disputes and federal crimes like 
     immigration law violations--issues important to litigants and 
     collectively important to all of us. They are part of how our 
     society resolves disputes and help set the framework for 
     commercial and social intercourse.
       But you might say, judges can't get confirmed this close to 
     a presidential election because opposition senators are 
     hoping their guy will soon be in the White House and make his 
     own nominations to those vacancies.
       That may be true now for court of appeals nominees -- you 
     have to go back to the first Bush administration to find a 
     circuit confirmation after July of a presidential election 
     year -- but not for district courts. There's plenty of 
     precedent for late-election year confirmations.
       In 1980, 1984 and 1992--when Presidents Jimmy Carter, 
     Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were up for reelection--
     the Senate each time confirmed roughly 10 district court 
     nominees between the political conventions and election day. 
     That number dropped to zero in 1996 under Clinton but shot up 
     to six in 2004 under Bush.
       In years when the incumbent president wasn't on the ballot, 
     the Senate also confirmed district judges, including 10 in 
     September 2008--even as Obama's victory seemed increasingly 
     likely.
       There's plenty of recent precedent for confirming at least 
     the 17 pending Obama nominees. But the past four years of 
     district confirmations haven't followed precedent.
       Not only is the confirmation rate lower, at least for now, 
     but time from nomination to confirmation has spiked. Eight 
     percent of Clinton's district confirmations in the first four 
     years took more than 180 days, as did 27 percent of Bush's. 
     But it's now up to 67 percent for Obama.
       The increase in time has been matched by an increase in 
     contentiousness. All of Clinton's district appointees were 
     confirmed by voice vote -- even those who merited more 
     attention, like the subsequently impeached and convicted 
     Thomas Porteous of New Orleans. All but four of Bush's 
     appointees were approved by either voice or unanimous vote. 
     Of the four, one got 20 ``no'' votes and one got 46.
       Most of Obama's appointees have also been confirmed with 
     no, or token, opposition--even those who waited a long time. 
     But 11 received more than 20 ``no'' votes. It's hard to 
     believe, however, that the quality of Obama appointees 
     plunged so decisively compared with those of his immediate 
     predecessors.
       So district confirmations--especially in double digits--in 
     the next several months may be iffy, and those who do get 
     confirmed will have waited considerably longer than late-year 
     confirmations in previous administrations.
       We've come to accept, or at least recognize, as the new 
     normal that only six or seven out of every 10 circuit 
     nominees will get Senate approval. Are the district courts 
     next?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  VAWA

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to again raise my concerns 
about and the desire to see action in the House to pass the Senate bill 
reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. We need to continue this 
critical funding for survivors of domestic violence.
  In the discussions on the Senate floor, we have heard about the 
protections offered in the Senate bill that have not been included in 
the bill the House has pending. They are protections that would help 
women on college campuses, women on tribal lands, gay and lesbian 
victims, and immigrants. However, it is really important for us to 
remember not just those provisions but all of the other ways the 
Violence Against Women Act has benefited not just the victims of 
domestic violence but really all of us because domestic violence isn't 
just a women's issue. It affects all of us. It affects our entire 
economy. It affects our families. The Centers for Disease Control 
estimates that the direct health care costs associated with domestic 
violence are about $4.1 billion every single year. We know this is a 
conservative estimate because so many of the victims never come 
forward.
  The protections offered by the Violence Against Women Act have proven 
to be absolutely essential in preventing abuse. Last week was the 18th 
anniversary of the original passage of VAWA, so this is a good time to 
reflect on the progress we have made.
  Over the past 18 years, the reporting of incidents of domestic 
violence has increased by 51 percent. At the same time, according to 
the FBI, the number of women who have been killed by an intimate 
partner has decreased by 34 percent. So clearly it is having some 
effect. Researchers at the North Carolina School of Public Health 
estimate that VAWA saved $12.6 billion in its first 7 years alone. So 
even if one doesn't support the legislation because it does good work 
for families, this is a bill that is also a good investment.
  This is about telling the victims of violence that we stand with them 
because having safe, healthy citizens benefits all of us. We all do 
better when fewer women are going to the emergency room, are missing 
work or giving up their children in order to protect those children 
from violence at home. We are all in this together.
  I have had a chance as we have had this debate in the Senate to visit 
a number of crisis centers in New Hampshire--centers that benefit 
directly from the funding in the Violence Against Women Act. Recently I 
visited the city of Keene's Monadnock Center for Violence Prevention 
and had a chance to speak with one of the caseworkers there and with 
two of the survivors. Those two women told me what it was like as they 
were trying to figure out how to leave their abusers. I asked them: 
What would have happened if this center wasn't here? Both of them said 
they had nowhere else to go. One of the women said: My husband would 
have killed me. That was how desperate she was.
  While I was there, I also had a chance to meet some of the children 
who were staying at the center. I wish to take a minute to talk about 
how important this is for them, the children who were witnesses of 
domestic violence or who, as the result of that violence, are victims 
themselves.
  Centers all over New Hampshire and the United States have advocacy 
programs that are funded by VAWA that offer support groups for 
children. Children are particularly vulnerable and ill-equipped to deal 
with the trauma of domestic violence. This is trauma that affects them 
for their entire lives.
  A study by the World Health Organization found that children raised 
in households where domestic violence occurred are more likely to have 
behavioral problems, to drop out of school early, to experience 
juvenile delinquency. It is not surprising.
  A child who witnesses domestic violence between parents is more 
likely to view violence as an acceptable method

[[Page 14639]]

of conflict resolution. Boys who witness domestic violence are more 
likely to become abusers, and girls who witness domestic violence are 
more likely to become victims of domestic violence as adults. One 
advocate at the Bridges Crisis Center in Nashua, NH, works to prevent 
this cycle by providing safety planning for children. She teaches them 
they can live a life that is free of violence. This free preventive 
care for children is made possible by a grant from VAWA. Our children 
deserve this. This is why we need to reauthorize the Violence Against 
Women Act. This is about women who are in danger, about children and 
families who are at risk.
  One of the stories I found particularly touching when I was at 
Bridges was about a young boy named Brian. The caseworker told me that 
Brian was really nervous about going back to school. He was supposed to 
bring with him a story about something fun he had done over the summer, 
but he had been in the shelter at Bridges with his mother and it really 
hadn't been a very fun summer. So the child advocate organized a 
barbeque in the park across the street, and everybody from the center 
came and joined in that barbeque and gave him a happy memory that he 
could take with him to the first day of school. This is the kind of 
healing we need more of. We can help this continue by reauthorizing the 
Violence Against Women Act.
  I hope that as Senators go home for the next 6 weeks, as we go back 
to our States and travel around and hear from people in our States the 
issues they are concerned about, we won't forget about the task we have 
at hand when we come back. We need to reauthorize the Violence Against 
Women Act. We need to get the House to join with us in passing the 
Senate bill so we can include those expanded protections that are 
needed so much by women and families across this country. I know the 
Presiding Officer joins with me in recognizing that we still have time 
to get this done this year.
  Thank you, Mr. President. 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 (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Social Security

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I wish to spend a few minutes talking 
about an issue that I believe has not gotten the attention it deserves, 
especially in the midst of the contentious Presidential campaign we are 
witnessing, and that is the need to discuss a program which is probably 
the most successful social program in the modern history of the United 
States, a program that provides dignity and security to well over 50 
million Americans, and that is Social Security.
  Just this afternoon, 29 Senators sent a letter to all of our 
colleagues that says:

       We will oppose including Social Security cuts for future or 
     current beneficiaries in any deficit reduction package.

  Let's be very clear. Our country does have a serious deficit problem. 
Our deficit this year is about $1 trillion, and our national debt is 
$16 trillion. That is a serious problem. However, let's be equally 
clear in understanding that Social Security has not contributed one 
nickel to the Federal deficit. So despite what we are going to hear 
tonight on cable television or some of the speeches my colleagues will 
give, let me reiterate: Social Security has not contributed one nickel 
to our Federal deficit.
  In fact, the Social Security trust fund today, according to the 
Social Security Administration, has a $2.7 trillion surplus--let me 
repeat that: a $2.7 trillion surplus--and can pay out 100 percent of 
all benefits owed to every eligible American for the next 21 years.
  Although many Americans now take Social Security for granted, we 
should never underestimate the incredibly positive impact Social 
Security has had on our Nation. In fact, one could well argue that 
Social Security has been the Nation's most successful social program--
certainly in the modern history of this country.
  In the 77 years since Social Security was signed into law, it has 
been enormously successful in reducing poverty for senior citizens. 
Before the advent of Social Security, back in the 1920s, early 1930s, 
about half of the senior citizens in this country lived in poverty, 
some in dismal poverty. Today, while the number is too high, the number 
of seniors living in poverty is less than 10 percent. We have gone from 
50 percent to less than 10 percent. That, to my mind, is a real success 
story and something of which this Nation should be incredibly proud.
  Today Social Security not only provides retirement benefits for 34 
million Americans but also enables millions of people with disabilities 
and widows, widowers, and children to live in dignity and security. I 
hear in Vermont very often--and I expect the Presiding Officer hears in 
New Hampshire--about young people who have been able to go to college, 
live with some sense of security, despite the death of a parent, 
precisely because of Social Security.
  Yet, despite all of these success stories, today Social Security is 
on the chopping block. Millions of Americans, when asked in polls, make 
it very clear--including people all across the political spectrum--
saying: No, we should not cut Social Security. Millions of people 
understand that Social Security--and this is simply an extraordinary 
record--has been there in good times and in bad times. And in 77 years, 
not one American, no matter what the state of the economy, has not 
received all of the benefits to which he or she is entitled. It is an 
insurance program that has worked, and worked extraordinarily well.
  What we are looking at right now are attacks on Social Security 
coming from Mitt Romney, from Paul Ryan, and from virtually every 
Republican in Congress, who are calling for major cuts in Social 
Security. Many of them, including Romney and Ryan, also want to begin 
the process of privatizing Social Security and turning it over to Wall 
Street, putting the retirement dreams of millions of Americans at risk. 
They are also pushing to increase the retirement age to 68 or 69, 
forcing older Americans who have worked their entire lives--sometimes 
in physically demanding jobs in construction; maybe they worked in 
restaurants being waitresses their whole lives and now some folks want 
these people to still be working at the age of 68 or 69.
  While virtually every Republican in Congress is pushing to cut Social 
Security benefits, there are also some Democrats who are considering 
cutting Social Security as part of some deficit reduction grand 
bargain. I strongly disagree with that approach, and I hope President 
Obama will make it clear, as he did 4 years ago, that he also disagrees 
with that approach.
  Let me quote what President Obama said 4 years ago when he was 
Senator Obama running for the White House. This is what he said:

       John McCain's campaign has suggested that the best answer 
     for the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut 
     cost of living adjustments or raise the retirement age. Let 
     me be clear: I will not do either.

  End of quote of Senator Barack Obama on September 6, 2008. What then-
Senator Obama said in 2008 was exactly right, and I hope that now, in 
2012, we will hear the President reiterate that position.
  One of the most talked about ideas, when we hear discussions about 
cutting Social Security--and nobody outside of the beltway has a clue 
about what this means. I can tell you, I have been to many meetings in 
Vermont, and I have asked Vermonters: Do you know what the chained CPI 
is? And nobody has a clue. But one of the most talked about ways to cut 
Social Security is moving toward a so-called chained CPI, which changes 
how cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security benefits and 
veterans benefits are calculated.
  So what it does right now: There is a formula by which the government 
determines what kind of COLA--cost-of-living adjustment--seniors and 
veterans will get. It is a complicated formula. But what these guys 
want to do

[[Page 14640]]

is cut back, readjust that formula so that the benefits will be less.
  People who support this concept of a chained CPI, such as Alan 
Simpson, Erskine Bowles, and Wall Street billionaire Pete Peterson--and 
Peterson is one of the guys, a billionaire on Wall Street, putting in 
huge amounts of money in order to cut Social Security and other 
important programs--they believe Social Security COLAs and COLAs for 
veterans benefits are too generous, and they want to cut those COLA 
benefits.
  Well, I will tell you something. When I talk to seniors in the State 
of Vermont and I say there are people in Washington who think their 
COLA benefits are too generous, usually they laugh. The reason they 
laugh is that for 2 out of the last 3 years, they have not received any 
COLA whatsoever--nothing--while at the same time their prescription 
drug costs and their health care costs have been soaring. And they look 
at me and say: What? Are these people crazy? If we have not gotten a 
COLA in 2 out of the last 3 years, while our expenses have risen, how 
do they think that COLA formula is now too generous?
  Let's also be very clear that when we talk about this chained CPI, 
this means not only cuts for seniors, it means cuts for veterans, and 
that is an issue we have not talked about very much.
  So let me talk about what the chained CPI means. It means--and they 
want to implement this, by the way, very shortly. Romney and Ryan are 
talking about changing Medicare, as we know, over a 10-year period, and 
I think that is a disastrous idea. But what these guys now are talking 
about are immediate cuts in the COLA, starting as soon as they can pass 
that legislation.
  What it would mean is that for a senior citizen who is 65 years of 
age today, by the time that senior reaches 75, there would be a $560-a-
year cut compared to what they otherwise would have gotten. Some folks 
here on Capitol Hill may not think $560 is a lot, but if you are 
struggling on $14,000 or $15,000 a year, that is quite a hit. And once 
that 65-year-old, in 20 years, reaches 85, that cut will be 
approximately $1,000 a year.
  Now, I have a problem; in a nation that has the most unequal 
distribution of wealth and income, where the rich are getting richer 
and their effective tax rate is the lowest in decades, some folks 
around here, pushed by Wall Street billionaires, by the way, say: Hey, 
we have a great idea on how we could deal with deficit reduction: Let's 
tell a senior living on $15,000 a year, Social Security, that we are 
going to cut them by $1,000 in 20 years. I think really that is morally 
grotesque, and it is also bad economics.
  But this chained CPI would not only impact seniors, it would also 
impact 3 million veterans. Three million veterans would be impacted by 
this chained CPI. For example, a veteran who put his life on the line 
to defend this country and who was severely wounded in action and who 
has a 100-percent service-connected disability is currently eligible to 
receive about $32,000 a year from the VA. Under the chained CPI, this 
disabled veteran, who started receiving VA disability benefits at age 
30, would see his benefits cut by more than $1,300 a year at age 45, 
$1,800 a year at age 55, and $2,260 a year at age 65.
  In other words, moving toward a chained CPI would be a disgraceful 
effort to balance the budget on some of the most vulnerable people in 
this country, including people who have suffered severe wounds and 
disabilities in defending this country. Those are not the people upon 
whom you balance the budget.
  Madam President, I will conclude by reminding the American people 
that when Bill Clinton left office in January 2001, this country had a 
$236 billion surplus, and the projections were that that surplus was 
going to grow every single year. But some of the same people in 
Congress right now, including Congressman Paul Ryan, who is running for 
Vice President, who are so concerned about the deficit, who want to cut 
Social Security, end Medicare as we know it, make devastating cuts in 
Medicaid and education--these very same people voted to go to war in 
Iraq and Afghanistan and not pay one nickel for those wars but put them 
on the credit card and increase the deficit. These same people who now 
want to go after wounded veterans gave huge tax breaks to the 
wealthiest people in this country, adding to the deficit. They passed a 
Medicare Part D prescription drug program and forgot to pay for that as 
well. So, to my mind, I have a real problem with folks who went to war 
without paying for it, gave tax breaks to billionaires without paying 
for it, passed a Medicare Part D prescription drug program without 
paying for it, and now they say we have to cut Social Security, 
Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the needs of working families and 
low-income people. I think that is absolute hypocrisy.
  So our charge is that instead of listening to the Wall Street 
billionaires who want to move to deficit reduction on the backs of the 
elderly, the children, the sick, the poor, wounded veterans, there are 
better ways to do deficit reduction. I hope that as a Congress we will 
come together and say that when the wealthiest people are doing 
phenomenally well, yes, they are going to have to pay more in taxes. 
When a quarter of the corporations in this country pay nothing in 
taxes, yes, they are going to have to pay their fair share of taxes. 
When we are losing $100 billion a year because of tax havens in the 
Cayman Islands and elsewhere, we are going to have to deal with that 
issue before we cut programs on which elderly people and veterans and 
children depend.
  So we have a lot of work in front of us, but the bottom line is that 
I will do everything I can to make sure we do not balance the budget on 
the backs of the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor. That is 
immoral, and it is also bad economic policy.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record the letter signed by 29 Members of the Senate opposing cuts in 
Social Security.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                                   Washington, DC.
       Dear Colleague: We are writing to inform you that we will 
     oppose including Social Security cuts for future or current 
     beneficiaries in any deficit reduction package.
       Under long-standing Federal law, Social Security is not 
     part of the Federal budget and cannot contribute to the 
     federal deficit. This reflects Social Security's structure as 
     an independent, self-financed insurance program, in which 
     worker contributions, not general taxes, finance benefits. In 
     our view, it is essential that Social Security's status as a 
     separate entity be fully maintained.
       Contrary to some claims, Social Security is not the cause 
     of our nation's deficit problem. Not only does the program 
     operate independently, but it is prohibited from borrowing. 
     Social Security must pay all benefits from its own trust 
     fund. If there are insufficient funds to pay out full 
     benefits, benefits are automatically reduced to the level 
     supported by the program's own revenues. Social Security 
     cannot drive up the deficit by tapping general revenues to 
     pay benefits.
       Even though Social Security operates in a fiscally 
     responsible manner, some still advocate deep benefit cuts and 
     seem convinced that Social Security hands out lavish welfare 
     checks. But Social Security is not welfare. Seniors earned 
     their benefits by working hard and paying into the system. 
     Meanwhile, the average monthly Social Security benefit is 
     only about $1,200, quite low by international standards.
       For all these reasons, we believe it would be a serious 
     mistake to cut Social Security benefits for current or future 
     beneficiaries as part of a deficit reduction package. To be 
     sure, Social Security has its own long-term challenges that 
     will need to be addressed in the decades ahead. But the 
     budget and Social Security are separate, and should be 
     considered separately.
       Thank you for your consideration of our views.
           Sincerely,
         Bernard Sanders; Harry Reid; Charles E. Schumer; Sheldon 
           Whitehouse; Sherrod Brown; Patrick Leahy; Debbie 
           Stabenow; Al Franken; Jeff Merkley; Barbara Mikulski; 
           Jack Reed; Mark Begich; Ron Wyden; Ben Cardin; Richard 
           Blumenthal; Tom Harkin; Frank R. Lautenberg; Patty 
           Murray; Barbara Boxer; Daniel K. Akaka; John D. 
           Rockefeller IV; Tom Udall; Carl Levin; Joe Manchin III; 
           Maria Cantwell; Tim Johnson; Daniel K. Inouye; Robert 
           Menendez; Kirsten Gillibrand.

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the 
amendment

[[Page 14641]]

I have filed to the House continuing resolution, House Joint Resolution 
117, which we are currently considering.
  I understand that House and Senate leadership came to an agreement 
that seeks to keep the government running for the next 6 months and I 
want to applaud their willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion to 
reach an agreement that avoids a government shutdown. Still, after the 
House passed this funding bill, I was greatly concerned that emergency 
funding for Colorado and other states impacted by natural disasters 
this year was left out.
  In my state, these funds are essential to protecting and restoring 
critical watersheds that were damaged by the most devastating wildfires 
in Colorado's history--which if left unaddressed present serious 
flooding, landslide and other risks that threaten the lives of 
residents in our state.
  My amendment would provide the U.S. Department of Agriculture $27.9 
million in emergency funding to mitigate watershed damage through the 
Emergency Watershed Protection Program, or EWP, in areas that have been 
presidentially declared disaster areas as authorized under the Stafford 
Act.
  As of September 18, 2012, the USDA estimated $126.7 million in 
funding needs for EWP projects in 15 States. Of that total, $27.9 
million is needed to mitigate the aftermath of presidentially declared 
disaster areas in Louisiana, Florida, Oklahoma and Colorado, as 
authorized under the Stafford Act. Currently, Stafford Act funds for 
EWP have been depleted and as I have noted the House Continuing 
Resolution provided no emergency funds for EWP. Mr. President, the need 
for this amendment to provide emergency funding is critical and let me 
tell you why.
  The two most devastating Colorado fires this season, High Park and 
Waldo Canyon, burned more than 100,000 acres and led to the 
catastrophic loss of property and regrettably loss of life. Now as 
Coloradans pick up the pieces, the burned and barren areas present an 
additional threat.
  Without site rehabilitation and restoration, the watersheds that 
provide municipal and agricultural water supplies are at risk from 
landslides, flooding and erosion, which could result in serious 
infrastructure damage, water supply disruptions and even loss of life.
  Coloradans unfortunately have already experienced some of these 
effects. For example, in the Poudre River, which drains part of the 
area burned by the High Park fire, the ash and runoff from the fire 
caused the water flowing into drinking water filtration plants to turn 
black. This forced the downstream city of Fort Collins to shut off 
their water intakes for over 100 days and further downstream the city 
of Greeley was forced to shut off their water intakes for 36 days and 
use only a small fraction of their normal intake for an additional 38 
days.
  How much more of an emergency need do we have to show when our most 
basic resource--drinking water--is threatened?
  I will give you one more example. After the devastating Waldo Canyon 
Fire that burned several homes in Colorado Springs and surrounding 
areas, the flood potential in the burned areas is now 20 times higher 
than before the fire. So now folks in the burned area and others 
downstream could see a 100-year flood from the same amount of rainfall 
that would have caused a 5-year rainfall before the wildfires occurred. 
Already property owners in the Colorado Springs vicinity have received 
at least four flash-flood warnings since the fire. The need for 
stabilizing this ground and restoring the burned areas on both federal 
and private land is critical to public safety, public health and the 
prevention of another disaster.
  This is why I have filed an amendment to provide additional emergency 
funds to the Emergency Watershed Protection Program. This program 
provides funding and technical support to restore and stabilize soil in 
critical watersheds in the aftermath of severe wild fires and other 
natural disasters, such as floods and hurricanes--which are also 
important to many members from our coastal states.
  I understand that there will not be an opportunity to amend the 
pending bill as a result of an agreement made with the House to avoid a 
government shutdown, so I will not attempt to call up my amendment. 
But, I want to ensure that my colleagues here understand the gravity of 
the situation faced by those who supply safe drinking water to the 
people of Colorado, by those who store water in our reservoirs to 
irrigate, and by those who fear a rainfall could devastate their 
livelihoods again after already experiencing significant loss from 
wildfire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. REID. Madam President, discussions continue about processing the 
business we need to address before we leave. As I have said repeatedly, 
we need to do just a couple things before we break for the elections. 
We need to pass the CR. We need to vote on proceeding to the 
sportsmen's package.
  To help move the CR, we have been told that the Republicans now have 
decided they are willing to vote sometime on the Paul bill on foreign 
aid and also the Iran containment resolution. As I said yesterday, we 
are willing to do that.
  In the worst case, under the rules, the cloture vote on the CR would 
occur tomorrow night--at 1 a.m. on Saturday. Once we invoke cloture on 
the continuing resolution, the 30 hours postcloture would run out at 
about 7:30 or 8 o'clock in the morning Sunday, and we would vote then 
to pass the CR, which would be immediately followed by a vote on the 
sportsmen's package.
  I am happy to continue these discussions. We are working to see if we 
can schedule these votes to occur at a time that is more convenient to 
Senators. I hope we can have more to report on that tomorrow. It 
appears at this stage there is no agreement on having any votes 
tomorrow, so we may have to finish our work tomorrow, beginning 
tomorrow night, very late.
  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. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________