[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4567-4578]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               REPEAL BIG OIL TAX SUBSIDIES ACT--RESUMED

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 1968, to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 1969 (to Amendment No. 1968), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance 
     with instructions, Reid amendment No. 1970, to change the 
     enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 1971 (to (the instructions) amendment 
     No. 1970), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 1972 (to amendment No. 1971), of a 
     perfecting nature.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant 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 the debate on S. 2204, a bill 
     to eliminate unnecessary tax subsidies and promote renewable 
     energy and energy conservation.
         Harry Reid, Robert Menendez, Benjamin L. Cardin, Jeff 
           Merkley, Patrick J. Leahy, Michael F. Bennet, John F. 
           Kerry, Al Franken, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen, Bill 
           Nelson, Daniel K. Akaka, Claire McCaskill, Christopher 
           A. Coons, Jack Reed, Richard Blumenthal.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 
2204, a bill to eliminate unnecessary tax subsidies and promote 
renewable energy and energy conservation, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Hatch) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) 
would have voted: ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 63 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Webb
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Hatch
     Kirk
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 
47. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The senior Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, we just had a vote. Imagine for a 
minute we had a government that was spending too much money, and 
imagine for a minute that we needed to spend less money; that we needed 
to change our Tax Code to a Tax Code that was fair, simpler, and didn't 
pick winners and losers. Imagine for a minute this was a crisis, and 
imagine for a minute this crisis was being wielded like a political 2 
by 4 by the majority of the Republicans who serve in the Senate--the 
debt crisis.
  Then imagine for a minute that we had the most profitable 
corporations in the history of the planet and they were booking $30 
billion in profit every quarter; over $130 billion in profits year 
after year, didn't matter whether the economy was bad, good or 
indifferent--amazing profits.
  Then imagine for a minute this government--that doesn't have enough 
money, where the debt is the political talking point of my friends 
across the aisle--tries to do something simple by saying maybe we 
shouldn't be spending money on the most profitable corporations in the 
world. That is what this vote just was.
  How seriously can we take anybody who talks about debt reduction if 
they are not willing to pluck the low-hanging fruit of subsidies to a 
group of folks who, frankly, in Missouri, I guarantee you most people I 
represent would say are the least deserving of extra help from the 
Federal Government right now.
  If we think about it, what we are doing is we are borrowing money to 
prop up, to the tune of billions of dollars a year, already wildly 
profitable corporations that don't have to pay us

[[Page 4568]]

royalties because they get to deduct the royalties they pay other 
countries.
  Seriously, if this was a fairytale I was reading to my grandsons--if 
I was reading this fairytale to Ian or Levy or Isaac--they would say: 
Well, this obviously is fiction because this couldn't be true. But it 
is, and that is what I call the definition of a special interest--that 
oil is so special around here, wields so much power and so much money 
that it turns all the talk about debt reduction into empty rhetoric.
  Last year, the five companies spent $38 billion boosting their share 
prices just through stock buybacks--$38 billion in stock buybacks last 
year. In other words, the five largest oil companies spent in a single 
year on stock buybacks alone what they are claiming they need in 
taxpayer-funded subsidies over the next 10 years.
  According to ExxonMobil's quarterly filings, every time the price of 
oil goes up by $1, they bring in $350 million in annual profit. These 
companies don't need these subsidies.
  I hear people say, Well, if you don't give them the subsidies--which, 
by the way, is chickenfeed to them. What, $6 billion, $8 billion a year 
is nothing if you are banking $30 billion in profits a quarter. I have 
heard people say, If we don't give them this extra help, then they are 
going to quit exploring for oil and the price of gas will go up. That 
is so dumb. They have had these subsidies for 30, 40, 50 years. I think 
most of Americans realize the price of oil has gone up just fine during 
that time. We are paying plenty at the gas pump right now, and they 
have got those subsidies. How is that working out for us? Those 
subsidies are really keeping down the price of gasoline, aren't they?
  The former Shell CEO, John Hofmeister, is on record as saying:

       In the face of sustained high oil prices it is not an 
     issue--for large companies--of needing the subsidies to 
     entice us into looking for and producing more oil . . . my 
     point of view is that with high oil prices such subsidies are 
     unnecessary.

  This is the CEO of Shell. He is admitting on the record that these 
subsidies are unnecessary. At the time the Shell CEO said that, the 
price of oil was trading between $95 and $98 a barrel. Currently, it is 
at $105 a barrel. Contrary to the claims that some are making, 
eliminating these subsidies will not raise gas prices.
  Last year, the companies spent $70 million to lobby to keep their 
subsidies. They get about $30 in tax breaks for every $1 they spend in 
lobbying. No wonder they spent that much on lobbying.
  I want to take people at their word, and I want to take people 
seriously about debt reduction. I have cosponsored spending caps with 
my Republican colleagues. I have worked hard on reforming the way we 
spend money around here, whether it is contracting or earmarks. But 
with all due respect, I don't know how the American people can take 
anyone seriously about debt reduction if they are not willing to cut 
off from the spigot the most wealthy, profitable corporations in the 
history of the world.
  How will we ever be able to look our grandchildren in the eye and 
say, You know, we took care of your future by making sure that our 
government was fiscally balanced. How can we ever do that if we can't 
do this as an easy first step? Can you imagine how paralyzed this place 
will be when we start talking about the kinds of cuts that hurt people 
who need them? And by the way, they are willing to make those. Talk 
about fairness. Think about this for a minute, economic fairness.
  The Ryan budget would want to hold onto more tax breaks for 
multimillionaires--in fact, do more tax breaks for multimillionaires--
while they say to seniors, You know, we think it is time for you to 
wrestle with insurance companies for your health care. I know what it 
is like to wrestle with insurance companies for health care. Every 
American does. My mom doesn't have to. She is on Medicare. It gives her 
peace of mind.
  If you look at what our friends are proposing in terms of fairness 
and you look at the vote we just had, in Missouri we would say that dog 
don't hunt. It doesn't work.
  I hope in good faith that my Republican colleagues will quit thinking 
we need to continue to write checks to the wealthiest corporations in 
the history of the planet. I think Missourians--when I fill up my gas 
tank over the next 2 weeks as I travel around Missouri, I am going to 
stop people at the gas station and say, Do you think the royalties 
ExxonMobil pays to another country should be deducted from what they 
owe us? Think about that. It is ludicrous in this financial environment 
that we are in, in the U.S. Government. There are real people hurting 
out there, and we need to treat them fairly. We can start by pushing 
Big Oil away from the taxpayer trough, and I hope my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle will reconsider and that we will get a chance 
to vote on this again and that they can show the American people we all 
get it.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Rhode Island.


                          Affordable Care Act

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the 
changes the affordable care act is making to the way care is delivered 
in our health care system. This is a topic that has not received much 
public attention. Instead, the public debate has largely focused on 
contentious flashpoints such as the individual mandate or preposterous 
false claims about death panels or rationing or socialized medicine.
  While these contentious debates have raged on, there has been a 
quiet, steady, and important effort made by the health care industry, 
by State and local leaders, and by the Obama administration to improve 
our model of health care delivery. Progress made on these efforts is 
steadily transforming the care that is delivered under our health care 
system, from care that is disorganized and fragmented and often riddled 
with error, to care that is coordinated, efficient, and the high 
quality Americans deserve. By improving the quality of care and our 
health outcomes, these delivery system reforms promise to significantly 
reduce health care costs. Care gets better, costs go down, a true win-
win.
  I came to the floor today to release a report on health care delivery 
system reform and on the administration's progress implementing these 
provisions of the affordable care act. I undertook this project with 
the support and assistance of Chairman Harkin and Senator Mikulski, 
both strong advocates and experienced legislators on the types of 
reforms that are highlighted in the report.
  The report makes the case for the reforms our country urgently needs 
in order to tackle our health care cost problem. My report defines five 
priority areas of health care delivery system reform: payment reform, 
quality improvement, primary and preventive care, administrative costs, 
and health information infrastructure. It outlines the potential cost 
savings in each area.
  It also highlights successes across the country from leading private 
health providers such as Geisinger Health Systems in Pennsylvania, 
Intermountain Healthcare in Utah, and the Marshfield Clinic in 
Wisconsin, to the State of Vermont's Blueprint for Health, to several 
examples in my home State of Rhode Island, which has shown great 
leadership. We have much to learn from these efforts, and the 
affordable care act gives us the tools to support this type of reform 
across the country.
  The problem is our health care delivery system remains clumsy and 
wasteful. We spend more than 18 percent of America's gross domestic 
product on our health care system every year. To put that into context, 
the highest any other industrialized country spends is approximately 12 
percent of gross domestic product on health care. Eighteen percent 
United States of America; least efficient other industrialized country 
in the world, 12 percent. Huge room for improvement. In a nutshell, we 
overspend and underachieve.
  The President's Council of Economic Advisers estimated that over $700 
billion a year can be saved without compromising health outcomes. The 
Institutes of Medicine put the savings from

[[Page 4569]]

these kinds of reforms at $765 billion a year. The New England Health 
Care Institute projected $850 billion in savings annually, and the 
Lewin Group and former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill have 
estimated the savings at $1 trillion a year. Whichever is accurate, 
this is clearly an enormous opportunity and it is right before us. We 
can achieve better results for American patients and families, and 
spend less to do it.
  As I said, the solutions fall into five priority areas: payment 
reform, primary and preventive care, measuring and reporting quality, 
administrative simplification, and health information infrastructure. 
These solutions do not cut benefits; they do not increase premiums. 
Instead, they realign incentives to reduce or get rid of overpriced or 
unnecessary services, inefficiently delivered care, excessive 
administrative costs, and missed prevention opportunities.
  In this report, we outline actual savings and care improvements that 
can be found in each priority area. For example, payment reform refers 
to the new payment reform models that pay doctors more for getting 
better results, as opposed to ordering more procedures.
  In 2010, Blue Shield of California collaborated with Hill Physicians 
Medical Group and Catholic Healthcare West, California's largest 
hospital chain, on a pilot program for the California Public Employees 
Retirement System. The pilot program focused on improved coordination 
of care by sharing clinical and case management information across 
medical facilities and among physicians.
  In its first year, the Blue Shield pilot program reported impressive 
results: Readmissions were reduced by 15 percent; hospital days were 
reduced by 15 percent; inpatient stays of 20 or more days were reduced 
by 50 percent, cut in half--all saving millions of dollars.
  In primary and preventive care--as a country, we don't devote nearly 
enough resources to primary care and prevention. Only 6 percent to 8 
percent of health care spending goes to primary care, to your regular 
doctor appointments. That is less than the percentage that goes in 
private insurance to insurance company overhead.
  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to give 
an example: When colorectal cancer is found early and treated, the 5-
year survival rate is 90 percent. But screening rates for colorectal 
cancer are low. The National Health Interview Survey found that in 
2005, only half the population aged 50 and older received recommended 
screening for colon cancer. The American Cancer Society has found that 
increased colorectal screening in the pre-Medicare population could 
save lives and reduce subsequent Medicare treatment costs by $15 
billion over 11 years.
  On measuring and reporting quality, we don't do this anywhere near 
well enough. Nearly 1 in every 20 hospitalized patients in the United 
States gets a hospital-acquired infection. This is very expensive and 
it is preventable. A hospital-acquired infection should be a never 
event. Yet it costs our health care system approximately $2.5 billion a 
year in harmful costs we could avoid.
  Administrative simplification. The proportion of the U.S. health care 
dollar that is lost to administration has always been high relative to 
our peer countries. The cost of administration by insurance companies 
is not only high itself, but it creates a shadow cost imposed on 
providers who have to fight back against the insurance company claims 
denial apparatus, and that cost is probably even higher.
  A study published in Health Affairs documented that physicians spent 
on average 142 hours annually interacting with health plans, totaling 
nearly 7 percent of total health care costs. That is just the 
physician's time. That doesn't count all the nonphysician office staff 
dedicated to administration and chasing the insurance companies.
  Last, health and information technology. Health information 
technology is the essential underlying framework for health care 
delivery system reform. It is the foundation on which other delivery 
system reforms can be built. In 2000, the Institute of Medicine 
estimated the number of deaths resulting from medical error as high as 
98,000 American deaths annually. The most common cause of those 
preventable injuries and deaths in hospitals was medication errors, 
which can be reduced dramatically through the adoption of computerized 
physician order entry systems--health information technology.
  The reform areas my report discusses synchronize with one another, 
and there is a growing national movement of providers and payers and 
States that recognize their critical importance. Focusing on quality 
rather than quantity and focusing on efficiency rather than volume will 
better serve not only their patients but their bottom line.
  The report I am releasing today looks at 45 provisions in the 
affordable care act that promote these delivery system reforms. From 
the discussion one would not know that virtually one-third of the 
affordable care act was about these delivery system reforms because 
they have been noncontroversial, but they are in there and they are 
important.
  The report also assesses the administration's progress in 
implementing them. We found that the administration has already 
implemented 25 provisions fully and made significant progress on two 
others. The complexity and sheer number of reforms included in the law 
make this accomplishment in a relatively short period of time 
noteworthy.
  In addition to the hurdles presented by our fragmented health care 
system, there has been resistance in Congress to the administration's 
implementation efforts that has also created barriers. For the 20 
delivery system provisions that have not yet been implemented, lack of 
congressional funding is a significant factor in delaying their forward 
progress.
  In these reform provisions, the affordable care act is supporting and 
building upon the efforts undertaken by the private sector by 
realigning incentives in the health care system to support private 
sector efforts. A broad array of pilot and demonstration programs has 
been launched, from which best practices will be deployed nationwide. 
The process to get to a more sustainable path will be one of, as CBO 
Director Elmendorf said, ``experimentation and learning. It will be a 
process of innovation.''
  The affordable care act improves the conditions that allow that 
innovation to take place, and it has the mechanisms needed to propagate 
those reforms widely throughout the system as quickly as possible once 
they are proven effective.
  American ingenuity can overcome our toughest challenges, not through 
command and control but through dynamic, flexible, and persistent 
experimentation, learning, and innovation. We are at a fork in the road 
on our health care future. One path we could travel is to protect the 
dysfunctional status quo and cut benefits to pay for the waste. That is 
the way a lot of my colleagues want to go.
  The other way is to shift incentives so that we innovate toward 
better, safer health care--which costs less. We as Americans need to 
trust that the path of innovation and experimentation is the right one 
and not give up on these efforts.
  Last year, George Halvorson, who is the CEO of Kaiser Permanente and 
knows a little something about health care, said it this way:

       There are people right now who want to cut benefits and 
     ration care and have that be the avenue to cost reduction in 
     this country and that is wrong. It's so wrong it's almost 
     criminal.

  He continued:

       It's an inept way of thinking about health care.

  The affordable care act has the tools that enable providers to focus 
on quality rather than quantity, efficiency rather than volume, and 
patients rather than their bottom line, to avoid the inept way of 
thinking about health care.
  As I close, let me say that throughout the process of writing this 
report I found one thing to be glaringly absent; that is, a cost 
savings goal set by the administration for us to reach toward on these 
delivery system reform provisions.

[[Page 4570]]

  In 1961, President Kennedy declared that within 10 years the United 
States would put a man on the Moon and return him safely. This message 
was clear, it was direct, and it created accountability. As a result, a 
vast mobilization of private and public resources occurred to 
collaborate in innovative ways to achieve the President's purpose.
  While the issue facing our country in health care is different, the 
urgency and the need to mobilize the public and private sectors toward 
improving quality and reducing cost is the same. So I challenge the 
administration to set a cost-savings target for delivery system reform. 
A cost-savings target will focus, guide, and spur the administration's 
efforts in a manner that vague intentions to bend the health care cost 
curve will never do. It also will provide a measurable goal by which we 
can evaluate our progress.
  A clear and public goal will help make this vision of our health care 
system a reality. It will drive forward progress, and it will generate 
momentum to achieve that goal.
  I urge the administration: Set a goal you are prepared to be 
accountable to meet.
  When President Kennedy announced in September of 1962 that America 
would strive to put a man on the Moon, he said:

       We choose to go to the moon in this decade . . . not 
     because [it is] easy, but because [it is] hard, because that 
     goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our 
     energies and skills, because that challenge is one we are 
     willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one 
     which we intend to win.

  We need to face the challenge posed by the rising health care costs 
in our system. We need to recognize we cannot postpone finding a 
solution. We can win this challenge, we can drive our system toward a 
sustainable path of higher quality care and improved outcomes, and we 
can do so by setting clear goals and supporting the measures in the 
affordable care act that propel us in that direction.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to speak for a moment to the 
issue that was raised by my colleague from Missouri. Senator Claire 
McCaskill came to the Senate floor to take note of the vote that had 
just been issued, the rollcall that was just finished on a measure 
offered by Senator Menendez from New Jersey. It was pretty 
straightforward.
  Here is what it said: The Federal tax subsidies of $2 billion a year 
to the biggest oil companies in America should end right now. The money 
in those subsidies should be used to develop other forms of energy--
good for our future, clean for our environment, lessening our 
dependence on foreign oil--and the balance should be put into reduction 
of our deficit. Two billion dollars a year is going to the four biggest 
oil companies in America.
  How are they doing? We all know how they are doing. Last year, again, 
they broke all records in the history of American business, reporting 
profits of $137 billion. The notion that we would take away $2 billion 
from these oil companies and put it into deficit reduction and energy 
research that could be good for our future seems like a given. In fact, 
it seems so easy that when we had a vote earlier this week to bring up 
this measure, over 90 Senators voted yes; let's go to it.
  What happened on this vote today? We needed 60 votes, which sadly has 
become the norm in this Chamber. We needed 60 out of 100 Senators to 
say stop the fat-cat subsidies to the oil companies. We couldn't get 
it. We got exactly two Republican Senators to vote with us--two. It is 
a sad reality that many of the same Senators who wax eloquent on the 
Senate floor about our deficit and what to do about it, when it comes 
to a simple, straightforward vote to stop this wasteful, unwarranted 
subsidy to the most profitable companies on Earth, could not bring 
themselves to say no to Big Oil.
  Meanwhile, families and businesses all across Chicago, IL, and 
America are paying more and more at the pump. Last Sunday I saw my 
first one--hang on, America; you are going to see one too--$5.03 a 
gallon. It was downtown Chicago at a BP station. Hang on tight, there 
is more to come from these oil companies that will then turn around and 
report the biggest profits ever in American business history.
  We pay at the pump and we pay with our taxes. What is left? Here was 
our chance to stand up and do something. We know $4 billion is not 
going to change the oil industry, and it is not going to change 
Washington. But at least it was a statement about where we stand when 
comes to age-old indefensible tax subsidies to the biggest and most 
profitable companies in America. We couldn't bring ourselves to do it.
  I agree with Senator McCaskill. These folks who get up and wail and 
cry about the deficit--call up this rollcall and ask them where in the 
heck they were when we had one chance to do something positive.
  It is not the biggest disappointment of the week. There are two 
others that trump it. I have to tell you, it is hard for me to believe 
that again we were unable to get a bipartisan group together to start 
the conversation about post office reform in America. It is the most 
honored Federal agency.
  When people are asked across America, what agency of government do 
they have a positive feeling about, it is the post office. They make 
jokes about it--we all do--but we know in our heart of hearts it is the 
best Postal Service in the world. We can still take an envelope and for 
less than 50 cents put it in a box and be confident that in a matter of 
a couple of days or three it is going to be delivered in the lower 48.
  There are not many countries on Earth that even get close to making 
that claim for less than 50 cents. It is so good that the so-called 
package express folks who were trying to make this a private sector 
undertaking use the post office. They use the post office because of 
the efficiency of their delivery for the last mile of delivery.
  So we have a problem. Fewer people are using first-class mail. They 
are using e-mail, bill payer. Revenues are down. Postal employees are 
down to around 600,000. Those who are retired are around 450,000. We 
need to bank money for retirees in the future. We are facing the need 
to make some hard choices about the Postal Service.
  The Postmaster General came to my office about 5 months ago now. We 
sat down with Mr. Donahoe and said: Before you make harsh decisions 
about the Postal Service, closing post offices, reducing the mail 
deliveries and the like--before people's jobs are on the chopping block 
or at least in question, give Congress a chance to at least come up 
with a better approach.
  Historically, that was a challenge Congress always accepted because 
we knew when it is something that big and important as the Postal 
Service, which is enshrined in our Constitution, it is our job. We are 
supposed to do that work.
  So I asked him to postpone, if he would, until May 15, any closures 
of facilities so the House and the Senate could have a chance to act. I 
have been waiting. It has been hard to get into the Senate calendar. 
This week was our chance. Senator Harry Reid said we are going to bring 
it up because it is an important debate. We need to get together.
  We called the bill on the Senate floor to move to this debate on the 
post office. To their credit, the independent Democratic chairman of 
the jurisdictional committee, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, and 
the Republican ranking member, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, both 
voted to move to this measure.
  I felt good about the fact that they were working together, along 
with Tom Carper of Delaware and others, in a bipartisan effort to make 
this post office what we need it to be. I have confidence in Senators 
Lieberman and Collins because they have done historic work in the past 
when it came to reforming our intelligence agencies after 9/11; the two 
of them did it. I credit them, many times publicly, for their 
bipartisan cooperation. Here we had another chance: We are going to 
bring postal reform to the floor, and we failed to get 60 votes.

[[Page 4571]]

  Unfortunately, we could not get more than five from the other side of 
the aisle to even engage in the debate on Postal Service reform. Now we 
will be gone for 2 weeks. When we return, it will be a lot closer to 
April 15 and a lot more challenging for us to get anything done. Those 
two disappointments--that we could not seize $4 billion in savings for 
the deficit in oil company subsidies and that we wouldn't accept our 
responsibility to deal with postal service reform--I am afraid that has 
been matched and trumped by what is going on in the House of 
Representatives.
  Think about this: Two weeks ago we passed a bipartisan bill on the 
floor of the Senate for the Federal Transportation bill. When it comes 
to our economy and its future, it is hard to think of anything more 
important than investing in highways, mass transit, airports and ports, 
and rail lines to make sure that we have an economy ready to compete in 
the 21st century, that businesses can locate in America with confidence 
that their products can move to the markets as quickly as possible.
  This bill comes up every 5 years, and it is a political piece of 
cake. Democrats and Republicans agree. We all have needs in our States 
and districts, and we always come together with a bipartisan bill. We 
did in the Senate.
  Two Senators couldn't be further apart on the political spectrum than 
Barbara Boxer of California and Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma. But you know 
what. They accepted their political responsibility and came up with a 
bipartisan Federal transportation bill that passed the Senate 74 to 22.
  Meanwhile, what was happening in the House? The House was just one 
crash after another. Their first highway bill went nowhere--rejected. 
Their second highway bill they would not even call for a vote. Time 
passed, and more and more of these measures were falling apart. They 
withdrew the chairman of the committee in the House in charge of it and 
said: We are going to put somebody else in. They brought in another 
name. I couldn't keep up with it.
  The Speaker of the House and the House Republican caucus made a dog's 
breakfast out of this Federal Transportation bill. Today, to add insult 
to injury, they not only would not call our bipartisan bill, which is 
all we have asked for--I see Senator Boxer on the floor. All we said 
is, bring the Boxer-Inhofe bill to a vote in the House. It is a 
bipartisan bill. It is good for this country. For goodness' sakes, vote 
on it.
  No, we are not going to do it. If it isn't the House Republican bill, 
we are not going to consider it.
  What do they do instead? Senator Boxer can explain what they did 
instead. They said: We will kick the can down the road. We will extend 
the highway taxes for 90 days and get back to you later.
  A person might think, no harm, no foul. Just extending it 90 days, 
there is no harm. Wrong. State after State, county after county will 
tell you that this 90-day extension freezes efforts to build projects 
across America and will cost us at least 100,000 jobs. The number may 
be much larger, but it will cost us at least 100,000 jobs. Do we need 
jobs at this moment in time in America? I should say so. In the midst 
of a recovery from a recession, one of the areas hit the hardest is the 
construction industry. And it is not just a matter of the workers out 
there on the job, it is all of their suppliers. The truckdrivers, the 
material men, and all of them are now going to be put on hold because 
the Speaker of the House refuses to call a bipartisan Senate 
transportation bill for a vote.
  That is all we asked--up or down, call it for a vote. Why wouldn't he 
call it for a vote? Because it would pass. To his embarrassment, it 
would pass. Well, he got his way, I guess. He is going to send us a 90-
day extension. The alternative of letting the highway trust fund lapse 
is not a reasonable one, not one any of us would embrace. But what a 
wasted opportunity.
  My colleague and good friend, who is sitting right here and has been 
in this business, the House and the Senate, for a long time, poured her 
heart and soul into that Federal Transportation bill. She accomplished 
what nobody thought she could. When she said she was going to sit down 
with Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and work it out, we said: Bet that 
works; the two of them are so different. But when it comes to this 
measure, they see eye to eye. They worked it out. I am proud of what 
they did. I didn't like everything in the bill, but nobody does. But I 
voted for it, saying it is bipartisan, it moves our country forward, 
and it creates almost 3 million jobs. The Boxer-Inhofe bill creates and 
saves almost 3 million jobs. Is that important at this moment in our 
history? You bet it is. If you are not in favor of creating good-paying 
jobs right here in America for American families, what the heck are you 
doing in this business? And instead, the House said: No, we will not 
even let you vote on this measure. House Democrats tried the entire 
week to get this measure up. Even a few--just a few--House Republicans 
spoke up and said: Bring it up for a vote. It wasn't good enough.
  I know the Senator from California is here, and I want to give her a 
chance to say a word about the impact of the measure that just passed 
the House of Representatives. She has gone in it, in many cases State 
by State, to measure what it means to just extend the highway trust 
fund and not pass a bill that can create and save up to 3 million jobs. 
She told me that in my State, it was something like 4,000.
  Mrs. BOXER. More than that--about 4,500.
  Mr. DURBIN. There are 4,500 jobs lost if we let the federal 
transportation program expire this summer because Speaker Boehner 
refuses to call up this bill. That is the reality. Is it any wonder 
that the approval rating of Congress is in single digits when you take 
a hard look at what this does to our Nation? At a time when we need 
Congress to work together, the Speaker will not call the bipartisan 
bill from the Senate. The Senate will not take up postal reform. The 
Senate refuses to even cut the $4 billion subsidy to the biggest oil 
companies in America.
  It is a disappointment to me because many of us worked hard to come 
here. I feel honored to have this job and feel a responsibility to the 
people we represent. I think the Senate, on those two votes I 
mentioned, and the House with their action today have let down the 
people of this country.
  I would like to yield to the Senator from California. I have another 
statement to make, but I want to give her a chance.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes and then 
return the floor to Senator Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered
  Mrs. BOXER. I was going to wait until the House actually sent over 
this extension before saying anything, but I was so impressed with 
Senator Durbin's explanation that I felt I should come to the floor and 
thank him so much. His leadership on this and also, Madam President, 
your deep concern for your State, which actually has the largest job 
loss numbers because they are being very conservative about what they 
do on the ground--not everybody understands the way the transportation 
programs work in our States. The Federal Government pays for about 75 
percent of many projects and the State pays 25 percent. But the States 
go out and they front the money and then they bill the Federal 
Government. Well, the signal that has been sent from the House today is 
a disastrous signal because it is a signal to all of our States that 
they better beware because there is no guarantee they will ever get 
those funds back from the Federal Government.
  You know, I love it when we make history here, but I love it when we 
make good history here. Today, by the House's action, I believe they 
have become the first House of Representatives ever to allow this 
highway trust fund to go bankrupt because right now the fund is not 
sufficient and has to be filled. That is why part of the wonderful 
result of the Senate bill--and Senator Inhofe and I appreciate getting 
a lot of credit, but we actually had four

[[Page 4572]]

committees that did their work: Senators Johnson and Shelby over in 
Banking, and we had Senators Rockefeller and Hutchison over in 
Commerce. But a very tough job was given to Senator Baucus, and he 
worked hand-in-glove with the Republicans, particularly with Senators 
such as Senator Thune, to come up with a pay-for.
  Well, here we have an extension with no revenues in it, Madam 
President, so naturally your State is very worried, as are all of our 
States, and I am going to quickly go through what we know so far. We 
know that Illinois is having big trouble because their contract-letting 
cannot go forward in 12 particular jobs, and that is going to result in 
a scaleback of 4,500 jobs. They are scaling back right now, as Senator 
Durbin said, at a time when we need jobs. North Carolina has 41,000 
jobs that cannot be filled. Nevada has 4,000 jobs, Maryland has 4,000, 
and Michigan has 3,500. I see the great Senator from Rhode Island here. 
We got word from his director, Mike Lewis, from the Rhode Island 
Department of Transportation, that there are job delays, and it looks 
as if 1,000 jobs will not be filled. In West Virginia, 1,200 jobs will 
not be filled.
  We are in trouble. You know what, it is like taking a hammer and 
hitting your head: Why do they do it? They don't have to. They don't 
have to do this. They are wreaking havoc on the Nation with this 
extension. And Chairman Mica said today: This must be the last 
extension. Fine. It should not even be an extension. They should take 
up and pass the Senate bill. How many bills do we have that have 74 
votes in favor? And if Senator Lautenberg had not been at a funeral, it 
would have been 75. Three-quarters of this Senate came together around 
this bill. So the House is wreaking havoc on the Nation. Right now, you 
could fill 14 Super Bowl stadiums with unemployed construction 
workers--1.4 million. And why are they doing it? Because they don't 
want to deal in any way with the Democrats.
  Senator Inhofe and I were so thrilled to work together. I see the 
senior Senator from Alaska who helped us draft our bill with Senator 
Begich. They crossed party lines. We have a great bill. Is it perfect? 
Of course not. Is it strong? Yes. Is it paid for? Yes. Will it protect 
1.9 million jobs and create an additional million? Yes. That is great 
news. But the House has decided--the only people in America not to get 
this is the House of Representatives over there, the Republicans.
  I see my colleague here, and I am glad to yield for him.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I wonder if the Senator would yield for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Setting aside the questions that this raises about 
the House's ability to govern, which I think are raised by this issue 
but focusing on this highway question, it is now the end of March. If 
we go 90 days, 30 days takes us through the end of April, 30 more days 
takes us through the end of May, and 30 more days takes us through the 
end of June. There is a seasonal component to getting this work done, 
is there not? What is the effect of our entire highway, road, and 
bridge industry having no certainty about what their funding is going 
to be until practically the Fourth of July with the construction season 
then underway?
  Mrs. BOXER. Well, the question is very important. This is the worst 
possible time because now, if you can't enter into new contracts, you 
lose the building season. And it is particularly brutal right now on 
the businesses and on the workers.
  Let me be clear. This is a 90-day extension without any hopes of them 
finishing their work. They didn't say that in the 90 days, they would 
get the job done, get to conference, and get the bill to the President; 
they are just saying 90 days with no commitment to go to conference.
  I will come back and we will attempt to attach the Senate bill to the 
extension. Madam President, I hope you will have the opportunity to 
work on that with me because our States are counting on us, and we have 
to be strong and we have to keep fighting for one simple premise: that 
the House should have the right to vote on the Senate-passed bill.
  I am very proud to be here. I will be here this afternoon as long as 
it takes. I say to my friend from Rhode Island, I hope he can be there, 
as well as my friend from Illinois. As soon as we get their extension, 
which makes no commitment to go to conference, we are going to try to 
attach the Senate bill to the extension and send it into conference, 
and I hope my friends will be here to help me with that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I see my friend from Alaska is on the 
floor, and I would like to yield to her and ask unanimous consent that 
I be recognized after her statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the courtesy 
of my colleague from Illinois, and I also will follow on Senator 
Boxer's comments on the importance of this highway transportation bill.
  I think we recognize that, while far from being perfect--I am not 
convinced we develop any perfect legislation around here--it is an 
extraordinarily good-faith effort, a very strong bipartisan 
demonstration in this body, and deserves to have this support. I 
applaud Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe for their work on that.


                       Violence Against Women Act

  Madam President, just very briefly, I wanted to take a few minutes 
this morning to speak about an event that just happened outside on the 
lawn of the Capitol. About maybe 50 or 60 Alaskans and some wannabe 
Alaskans gathered in a rally, a march that we have entitled ``Choose 
Respect.'' This is an effort that has stemmed from the actions of our 
Governor in Alaska to shine the spotlight on domestic violence and 
sexual assault and to come together as communities, as a State, to 
speak up and to turn around the statistics that are so devastating in 
our State when it comes to domestic violence and sexual assault.
  Over the past few years, the Governor has led the charge in 
organizing rallies in the State of Alaska during the last week of 
March. This morning in our State there will be 120 different rallies 
going on in communities such as Anchorage and Fairbanks, our larger 
communities, but also in smaller villages such as Kooskia and Tanana, 
communities where the numbers are small but the passions on the issues 
I think are very strong and robust. The Governor has commissioners in 
Barrow, in Tanana, in Cordova, in Nome, and in Galena, all leading the 
march to stand up and speak out about domestic violence. I wish to 
acknowledge what the Governor has done in his effort to spotlight this 
and to work to reduce the rates of domestic violence, sexual assault, 
and child abuse through this ``Choose Respect'' initiative. We have 
great Alaskans standing together and, again, a real commitment to make 
a difference.
  Unfortunately, my colleagues have heard me say this before, that in a 
State such as Alaska where I think we have unparalleled beauty, we also 
have an ugly side to our State that is manifested in statistics we see 
with violence against women and particularly violence against Native 
women. Violence against Native women has reached epidemic proportions. 
We are at a point where Native women experience domestic violence and 
sexual assault at rates 2\1/2\ times higher than other races. In the 
lower 48, women on reservations are 10 times more likely to be 
murdered. Systematic legal barriers and ineffectual or deficient law 
enforcement mechanisms result in women, children, and families living 
in fear. In Alaska, nearly one in two women has experienced partner 
violence and close to one in three has experienced sexual violence. 
Overall, nearly 6 in 10 Alaska women have been victims of sexual 
assault or domestic violence. This is absolutely unacceptable. That is 
the reality we are living with as a State now, and it is absolutely 
unacceptable.
  Alaska's rate of forcible rape between 2003 and 2009 was 2.6 times 
higher than

[[Page 4573]]

the national rate. Tragically, about 9 percent of Alaska mothers 
reported physical abuse by their husband or their partner during 
pregnancy or in the 12 months prior to pregnancy. These are horrifying 
statistics.
  These statistics bring me to the issue of violence against women and 
the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, the bill we have been talking 
about and hopefully will be bringing to the floor soon. A measure such 
as this I think is incredibly important as a vehicle for us to stand 
behind women and men. It doesn't make any difference if one is from a 
rural part of the country or an urban part of the country; it is an 
issue that I think we know rips at the heart of who we are.
  In so many of the Alaskan villages, victims of domestic violence and 
sexual assault face some pretty unique challenges and therefore 
horrific challenges. It may be that there is no full-time law 
enforcement presence, there is no local justice infrastructure. In many 
situations villages are landlocked. There are no roads in. The only way 
in and out is by airplane. So we have a situation where we can have an 
individual who has been victimized, with no law enforcement presence in 
the community whatsoever. It may take State troopers days--days--to be 
able to respond to an incident, depending on weather conditions. 
Imagine yourself in that situation. You have been a victim of domestic 
violence. You seek help. There is none in the village and no way away 
from your perpetrator.
  I think we recognize that one thing we can and must do is make sure 
there is a safety net available to address the immediate survival needs 
of the victim and the survival needs of their children in the short 
term. Only with this level of confidence can one gather the courage to 
leave an abusive situation.
  One final comment on VAWA, and then I will yield to my colleague who 
has given me the courtesy of the floor right now. I think we recognize 
in Alaska that the Violence Against Women Act does offer a ray of hope, 
if you will, for those who are not only the victims but for those who 
help assist the victims of domestic violence and sexual assault in our 
villages. It will provide for some increased resources to our rural and 
to our very isolated communities. It will help to establish a framework 
for the Alaskan Rural Justice Commission which has been a great venue 
to make sure we are all understanding what the tools are and how we 
adapt to those tools. It also recognizes Alaska's Village Public Safety 
Officer Program as law enforcement so that VAWA funds can be directed 
to providing a full-time law enforcement presence in places that have 
none.
  We have a lot of issues we need to work through. We believe the 
reauthorization of VAWA will help us with that. So as we join with 
other Alaskans in the State and those here in Washington, DC, to choose 
respect for all women, for all in our communities, I think it is 
important that there are some tools we can put in place to help not 
only the people of my State but victims of domestic violence wherever 
they may be.
  With that, I thank my colleague from Illinois for yielding, and I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                             The DREAM Act

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Senate is not a place for sprinters, 
only long-distance runners, because sometimes we need patience beyond 
human endurance to see an idea that one believes is meritorious finally 
make it--to get passed by the Senate and maybe even the House or maybe 
even signed into law. Sometimes it happens quickly; more often it takes 
a long time.
  My personal story that kind of leads when it comes to examples is the 
DREAM Act, which I introduced 11 years ago. This was legislation that 
addressed a problem I learned about from my Chicago office. We got a 
phone call. The phone call was from a mother. She was Korean American 
and she ran a drycleaners. In Chicago, 75 percent or more of the 
drycleaning establishments are owned by Korean families. She came to 
this country years before, brought her little girl with her, and then 
raised a family, and she became an American citizen.
  Fast forward to her little girl who became a musical prodigy. In 
fact, she was in demand at some of the best music institutions in 
America, including the Julliard School of Music and the Manhattan 
Conservatory of Music, offering her admission to come and develop her 
skills as a concert pianist. As her daughter filled out the form to 
apply to these schools, she turned to her mother and said: Where it 
says ``nationality'' what should I write? Her mother said: I don't 
know. We never filed any papers for you after you came to America. The 
daughter said: What can we do? The mother said: We can call Durbin.
  So they called my office and we checked with the Immigration Service. 
They came back and said, the law is very clear that when a child is 
brought to this country and through no fault of their own is 
undocumented, the law is clear they have to leave for at least 10 
years. They have to go back to wherever they were before or anywhere 
they want to go, but they can't be here. I thought to myself: This girl 
did nothing wrong. Mom and dad didn't file the papers and here she is 
in this predicament.
  So I introduced the DREAM Act. It has five simple provisions. Here is 
what it says: If you came to the United States as a child, if you have 
been a long-term U.S. resident, if you have good moral character, if 
you graduate from high school and you either complete 2 years of 
college or serve in the U.S. military, we will put you on a path to 
become a citizen of the United States. You have to earn it. We are not 
going to give it to you, but we are going to give you that chance. Just 
because mom and dad may have done an illegal act, we will not hold you 
as a child responsible for it.
  The net result of this bill, when it becomes law, will strengthen our 
military--and we have the support from military leaders all across the 
United States; they want these young men and women to enlist. They will 
bring diversity and talent to the military. It will also mean they will 
be contributing to America with their higher education. They are going 
to be tomorrow's doctors and engineers, soldiers and teachers. We don't 
want to lose their talents. We don't want them educated in America for 
13 years and then cast aside. We want them to stand and be part of our 
future and make us a stronger Nation.
  Keep in mind that for most of these students it comes as a shock when 
they finally ask the questions and get the answers and realize the flag 
they have been pledging allegiance to every single day is not the flag 
of their country. They are people without a country. That is what the 
DREAM Act is about--to give them a chance.
  We have asked the Obama administration on a bipartisan basis to not 
deport these eligible young people, for they have done nothing wrong. 
If they do something wrong, it is another story. But if they have done 
nothing wrong, don't focus on deporting them. What we are trying to do 
is to give them a chance--just a chance--to earn their way to the 
American dream. I think the administration's new deportation policy is 
sensible and I think these young people deserve a chance.
  I can give these speeches for a long time and they don't mean much 
until we meet the DREAM Act students. Let me show my colleagues two 
handsome young men from Illinois: Carlos and Rafael Robles. I met them 
both. Carlos and Rafael were brought to the United States by their 
parents when they were children. Today, Carlos is 22, Rafael is 21. 
They grew up in suburban Chicago in my home State of Illinois. They 
graduated from Palatine High School where they were both honor 
students. In high school, Carlos was the captain of the tennis team and 
a member of the varsity swim team. He volunteered with Palatine's 
physically challenged program where every day he helped to feed lunch 
to special needs students. Carlos graduated from Harper Community 
College and is now attending Loyola University in Chicago majoring in 
education. His dream is to become a teacher. Do we need more good 
teachers in America? You bet we do.

[[Page 4574]]

  Listen to what one of Carlos's high school teachers said about him:

       Carlos is the kind of person we want among us because he 
     makes the community better. This is the kind of person you 
     want as a student, the kind of kid you want as a neighbor and 
     friend to your child, and most germane to his present 
     circumstance, the kind of person you want as an American.

  One of Carlos's college professors wrote and said:

       He is, very simply, the finest student I have ever had the 
     opportunity to mentor.

  Rafael, his younger brother, has a lot in common with Carlos. In high 
school, Rafael was captain of the tennis team and a member of the 
varsity swim team and soccer team. He graduated again from Harper 
Community College--understand these young men would attend college in 
America with no Federal assistance--none. They have to pay for it out 
of their pocket. So he graduated from Harper Community College. Now he 
is at the University of Illinois in Chicago where he is majoring in 
architecture.
  Here is what one of Rafael's teachers in high school said about him:

       Rafael is the kind of person I have taught about in my 
     Social Studies classes--the American who comes to this 
     country and commits to his community and makes it better for 
     others. Raffi Robles is a young man who makes us better. 
     During my 28 year career as a high school teacher, coach, and 
     administrator, I would place Raffi in the top 5 percent of 
     all the kids with whom I have ever had contact.

  Here is the unfortunate part of the story about these two amazing 
young men. They were both placed in deportation proceedings. I asked 
the administration to consider their request to suspend their 
deportations and they agreed to do it, for the time being. I think it 
was the right thing to do. Carlos and Rafael are represented by 
volunteer lawyers in Chicago.
  After I met Carlos and Rafael, they sent me a letter asking Members 
of Congress to support the DREAM Act, and here is what they said:

       We ask you today to see it in your heart to do the right 
     thing, to listen, and to reward the values of hard work and 
     diligence, values that made America the most beautiful and 
     prosperous country in the world and that we're sure got you, 
     as members of Congress, to where you are today in life. These 
     are values we have come to admire and respect in the American 
     people. We will continue to uphold these values until the 
     last of our days--we hope eventually as citizens of the 
     United States, a country we now see as home.

  So I ask my colleagues who are critical of the administration's 
deportation policy or have difficulties with the DREAM Act, Would 
America be a better place if Carlos and Rafael are deported? Of course 
not. These two young men grew up here, they were educated here, they 
have done well here, they have earned their way here. They want to be 
part of our future.
  They are not isolated examples. There are literally thousands of them 
just like Carlos and Rafael across this country.
  When I introduced this bill 11 years ago, and I would give a speech 
like this and leave a hall, I could count on, if it were nighttime, 
someone standing by my car quietly as I approached and started to 
leave. They would ask me: Senator, can I speak to you for a minute.
  Sure.
  Senator, I am one of those students.
  They were afraid of being deported if they raised their hand and 
identified themselves at the meeting. That has all changed now, and it 
has changed for the better. These young men and women are courageously 
stepping forward to identify themselves. It is no longer a mystery of 
who they are or what they want to be. They are real flesh and blood. 
They are children. They are the people you sit next to in church. They 
are the folks who are working hard next to your son or daughter in the 
library at school. You are cheering them on on the football field. You 
are watching them lead the USC Marching Trojan Band. You are watching 
as they are aspiring to become tomorrow's scientists, engineers, 
doctors, lawyers, and teachers. They deserve a chance, and we should 
give them that chance by passing the DREAM Act.
  I hope my colleagues will consider doing that as quickly as possible. 
They want peace of mind, they want a future, and we need them in 
America's future.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from North 
Carolina.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Tribute To Senator Barbara Mikulski

  Mrs. HAGAN. Madam President, I come here today to pay tribute to 
Senator Barbara Mikulski on becoming the longest serving woman in the 
history of Congress.
  First and foremost, I feel deeply privileged to be able to serve 
alongside Senator Mikulski. She blazed a path that allowed the rest of 
us, and people like me, to be here today. Along the way, she 
distinguished herself as not only a leader and tenacious advocate for 
the people of Maryland but for all Americans.
  Senator Mikulski's path to the U.S. Senate prepared her well to be an 
effective fighter for her constituents. Ever the dedicated public 
servant, Senator Mikulski worked as a Baltimore social worker, 
community activist, and as a city council member. She brought an 
urgency and an unrelenting commitment to service to her work and the 
people she represented. It can be seen in the legislation she has 
fought for and the causes she has championed during her 25 years in the 
Senate.
  I am proud to say the first bill I cosponsored when I came to the 
Senate 3 years ago was one of Senator Mikulski's--the Lilly Ledbetter 
Fair Pay Act. This bill--which ensures that no matter your gender, 
race, national origin, religion, age or disability, you will receive 
equal pay for equal work--the fight to get it signed into law is a 
perfect example of the tenacity and sense of fairness that drives 
Barbara Mikulski.
  I am particularly grateful to her for her mentorship. On the day I 
was sworn in to the Senate, I was standing in the back of the Chamber 
waiting to walk down to the well. My colleague from North Carolina, 
Senator Burr, was with me. Senator Mikulski came up to me and asked who 
was going to escort me to the well to be sworn in. I, obviously, said: 
My colleague from North Carolina. She said: Well, you need a woman too. 
And with that, I was both humbled and honored to have her escort me 
down the Chamber aisle to be sworn in as a U.S. Senator.
  Her generosity in sharing her experience and her expertise did not 
stop on that day. She is always encouraging, supportive, and eager to 
foster a spirit of teamwork. I especially appreciate that Senator 
Mikulski embraces the need for bipartisanship, which no doubt is why 
she is and has been so effective, accomplished, and widely respected.
  Everyone knows well and respects Senator Mikulski for her advocacy on 
behalf of women and families. In this regard, she is truly a role 
model. During the debate on health care reform, her tireless fight to 
ensure that women's preventive services, including screenings for 
breast cancer and cervical cancer, would be covered with no out-of-
pocket expenses is legendary.
  Her ability to see and understand people's needs is clearly reflected 
in her Spousal Anti-Impoverishment Act, which protects seniors across 
the country from going bankrupt while paying for a spouse's nursing 
home care. It is no wonder she is beloved, not only in the Third 
District, which she represented for 10 years in the House, but by all 
the people of Maryland whose interests she fights for every single day.
  As one of the 17 women now serving in the Senate, it is hard to 
imagine what it must have been like when she arrived here 25 years ago 
as one of two women. I am grateful she and the other female Senators 
have paved the way.
  Barbara Mikulski is the dean of the women Senators, and her 
bipartisan women's dinners are among my favorite Senate traditions. I 
thank Senator Mikulski for her leadership and strong belief in the 
empowerment of women in our communities and in public office. For those 
of us who came to Washington to make a difference, Barbara Mikulski has 
set a very high bar.

[[Page 4575]]

  I congratulate Senator Mikulski for this extraordinary and historic 
accomplishment. I look forward to many more years of serving alongside 
her.


                       Surface Transportation Act

  Mrs. HAGAN. Madam President, I will speak for a couple minutes on the 
Transportation bill.
  I have come to the floor to express my support for passing the Senate 
bill before the current Transportation authorization expires this 
Saturday. This would create and sustain nearly 41,000 jobs in North 
Carolina and across the country close to 3 million jobs.
  Earlier today, the House passed a short-term 90-day extension. 
Unfortunately, passing another stopgap extension is not the solution 
that businesses, States, and the entire country needs.
  Short-term extensions create instability and uncertainty in funding, 
and without that certainty, States such as mine, North Carolina, cannot 
plan or move forward with projects, which jeopardizes tens of thousands 
of projects and millions of jobs in America. Once again, that is 41,000 
jobs in North Carolina.
  Upgrading our infrastructure is not a Democratic or a Republican 
priority; it is truly an American priority.
  The Senate Transportation funding bill makes critical investments in 
transportation and infrastructure in North Carolina and across our 
Nation.
  The return on investment, when it comes to infrastructure, is high. 
Moody's estimates that for every $1 spent on infrastructure, our GDP is 
raised about $1.59.
  Additionally, for every $1 billion spent on infrastructure, 11,000 to 
30,000 jobs are created--jobs that North Carolina desperately needs.
  Failure to pass the Senate Transportation bill could put these 
millions of jobs and $1.2 billion worth of North Carolina construction 
projects in jeopardy.
  This Transportation bill we are talking about is truly an economic 
engine. My State currently receives only about 92 cents for every $1 we 
pay into the highway trust fund. This new legislation would ensure that 
at least 95 percent of North Carolina's payments to the highway trust 
fund will come back to our State--nearly 3 percent more than we 
currently receive.
  Maintaining and upgrading our infrastructure is not just about 
creating jobs in the construction sector; it is the lifeblood of our 
communities. We need to make sure businesses have roads to access their 
plants and factories, rail, ports, and airport runways to export goods 
across the globe and to keep pace with the 24/7 global economy.
  To put this in a global perspective, China currently spends four 
times as much on infrastructure as we do in the United States. We 
cannot allow this to continue. This is about staying competitive and 
leveraging commonsense investments that will enable our economy to 
grow.
  This Transportation funding bill will be used to improve our roads, 
bridges, and mass transit systems--projects that will put North 
Carolinians back to work and help American businesses compete in our 
global economy.
  I urge my colleagues to take up and pass the Senate Transportation 
funding bill without delay.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Hoeven pertaining to the introduction of S. 2264 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, with that, I yield the floor, and I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
15 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Justice Ginsburg on Constitutions

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg, on a recent trip to 
Egypt, made comments that garnered public notice. She said:

       I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were 
     drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the 
     constitution of South Africa.

  She also spoke favorably of the Canadian Charter of Rights and 
Freedoms and the European Convention on Human Rights.
  Although some people have criticized Justice Ginsburg for speaking 
negatively about the U.S. Constitution while abroad, I think she has a 
right to say what legal documents countries should consider that are 
now writing constitutions. But I do not agree with her those other 
constitutions are better examples of constitutions today than the U.S. 
Constitution is.
  Some people who have criticized Justice Ginsburg's preference for the 
other constitutions she named have focused on the positive rights 
contained in those documents. Some of those constitutions, such as 
South Africa's, protect the right to ``make decisions concerning 
reproduction,'' to ``inherent dignity,'' and the right to have an 
environment protected ``through reasonable legislative and other 
measures that prevent pollution and environmental degradation.'' The 
European Convention on Human Rights guarantees a right to education. Of 
course, none of these constitutions contain anything like a second 
amendment right for the citizens to defend themselves.
  Our Constitution is all about limiting the power of government. 
Americans do not fully trust the power of government, and Americans 
insist on rights that are protected against government action. In other 
words, our Constitution was intended to last for centuries, with the 
same meaning, even as those principles were applied to new situations. 
Our judges should reflect that philosophy, which is at the heart of our 
Constitution. If other countries feel differently, that is their right.
  I think praise for those foreign constitutions rather than our own 
raises a much more serious issue--the role of the judiciary. Our 
Constitution made a judiciary that was the least dangerous branch, as 
Hamilton said. Policy is to be made by elected officials who answer to 
the voters and can be replaced; whereas, judges, under our 
Constitution, cannot be replaced. They have a lifetime position, short 
of impeachment.
  The foreign constitutions that were named create a much different 
judiciary. The Canadian Supreme Court has stated their charter of 
rights and freedoms ``must be capable of growth and development over 
time to meet new social, political and historical realities often 
unimagined by its framers. The judiciary is the guardian of the 
Constitution and must, in interpreting its provisions, bear these 
considerations in mind.''
  The European Convention has been interpreted by the European Court of 
Human Rights to be a ``living instrument.''
  Madam President, these are explicit statements--that Justice 
Ginsburg's preferred constitutions are ``living constitutions.'' A 
living constitution is one in which the meaning changes over time. 
Judges decide that new circumstances require a living constitution to 
mean something it did not mean sometime before. They say the 
constitution must keep up with the times. A living constitution can 
mean whatever judges want it to mean, completely contrary to what our 
forefathers had in mind when they wrote our Constitution.
  Our Constitution is not a living constitution. Judges are not to make 
up its meaning as they go along over time. Even President Obama's 
Supreme Court nominees told us the role of a judge under our 
Constitution is not to interpret words however they believe new 
circumstances might warrant. ``It's the law all the way down,'' Justice 
Kagan said. We should be skeptical of a living constitution that opens 
the door for judges to impose their values, not those of the Framers of 
the Constitution, on the citizenry of this country.
  The Canadian Charter says it ``guarantees the rights and freedoms set 
out

[[Page 4576]]

in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can 
be demonstrably justified in a free and Democratic society.'' The 
Canadian Supreme Court interprets that provision in light of a highly 
generalized four-part test that invites judges to insert their own 
policy preferences.
  Similarly, the South African Constitution provides that its rights 
can be limited if they ``are reasonable and justifiable in an open and 
democratic society based on human dignity, equality, and freedom.'' It 
tells courts explicitly to apply a six-part subjective balancing test 
that allows judges to interpret this provision however they want.
  How would you like to live under a constitution such as that?
  These constitutions Justice Ginsburg endorses invite judges to rule 
however they want on any question of rights. That is not consistent 
with traditional American notions of the rule of law, of a government 
of laws and not a government of people. Some judges may prefer 
constitutions in which judges are free to displace democratic 
decisionmaking on policy questions that are to be decided by elected 
representatives of the people under our Constitution. I do not. Our 
Constitution does not. We do not live in a government of, by, and for 
the judiciary.
  But no one should think that the Canadian or the South African 
Constitutions fully protect rights that Americans think are precious, 
such as freedom of speech. Under the Canadian Charter, reasonable 
limits on free speech include prohibiting so-called hate speech against 
a group.
  Finally, it is important to recognize why some of us on the Judiciary 
Committee continue to press judicial nominees on their adherence to the 
Constitution without reference to foreign law. For instance, Justice 
Breyer has stated that foreign judges also interpret ``texts that more 
and more protect basic human rights.'' He has stated that he looks to 
the decisions of the European Human Rights Court and to Canadian cases 
as well, because they are ``relevant'' even if they do not control. He 
says, ``[W]e can learn something about our law and our documents from 
what happens elsewhere.''
  What Justice Ginsburg did was to make very clear that which had only 
been implied in the past, making very clear that there are some in this 
country who feel that our venerable Constitution is outdated. If they 
treat that document as it was written and understood by the Framers, 
then their decisions will often lead to results they do not like as a 
policy matter. But if they can cite decisions from foreign courts and 
interpret constitutions that contain all kinds of different rights and 
that give judges unbridled power to make policy decisions at the 
expense of the elected representatives of the people, then they can 
reach decisions that our Constitution otherwise would not allow.
  It is not simply a disinterested survey of what other courts around 
the world are doing. It opens the door to a search for preferred 
liberal activist outcomes. These are the very high stakes at issue when 
we discuss whether it is appropriate for judges to cite or rely on 
foreign law in interpreting the U.S. Constitution.
  We need to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the 
United States. We need to preserve, protect, and defend the rights of 
American citizens. Justice Ginsburg and others who have a judicial 
longing for other constitutions that protect different rights and give 
unelected judges power that, under our Constitution, self-governing 
people exercise themselves--I tell those judges, including Justice 
Ginsburg, that is the wrong approach.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 
for up to 5 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Oil Subsidies

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, just a few minutes ago, I was 
presiding over the Senate and I heard remarks from my friend, the 
senior Senator from Missouri, Claire McCaskill, who sits next to me. I 
was intrigued by her response to the vote that had just taken place for 
my colleagues who preach every day about deficit reduction. As Senator 
McCaskill said, they had an opportunity to pick the lowest hanging 
fruit there is, take away the tax breaks and the tax dollar subsidies 
that go to the oil interests in this country.
  Think about that. We are giving incentives. Taxpayers are spending 
hard-earned dollars coming from workers in Dayton and Springfield and 
Akron and Canton that go directly to the most profitable industry in 
the history of the world, perhaps, particularly the big five oil 
companies, making billions and billions of dollars. Yet we are simply 
saying it is OK to give them those kinds of tax breaks and tax 
subsidies.
  That is even putting aside the fact that every time there is a 
pipeline outage or every time there is a fire in a refinery or every 
time there is turmoil in the Middle East, the oil companies and the 
speculators use it as a chance to spike up oil prices. They do it over 
and over like clockwork. A problem in Iran? Prices go up. A fire in a 
refinery? Prices go up. An outage in a pipeline? Prices go up.
  The Presiding Officer from Vermont, with his bill, has led this 
effort to get the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the 
Department of Justice to put the government on the side of the 
motorist, of small businesses, of the consumer. Just as Senator 
McCaskill said earlier, to save tax dollars is really obvious and, on 
the other side, to make sure we go after the speculators when they rip 
us off.
  According to a recent study, 56 cents of the price of every gallon of 
gas you buy when you go to the pump in gas stations all over America 
goes to the hedge fund operators and speculators. That is about $10 to 
$12 to $15 a tank depending on how big a car you drive.
  On the one hand, we are not saying no more tax breaks. On the other 
hand, we are not saying to the speculators: Stop this. You are not 
going to get away with this anymore. The government has to be on the 
side of the middle class here and fight back.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                       Surface Transportation Act

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am going to speak for about 10 
minutes. If someone else comes to the floor, I will be happy to shorten 
that, but I had to come to the floor to support the leadership of 
Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma, who have worked 
for over a year to bring a very balanced and fundamentally important 
and essential infrastructure bill to the floor of the House.
  We have many arguments on this floor. We have been arguing about 
judges. I heard Senator Grassley give a pretty tough speech voicing his 
opinion of some of our Supreme Court Justices. I do not agree with much 
of what he said, but he is entitled to his opinion. We have those 
debates. There are good people on both sides. We are debating oil taxes 
and whether the oil industry is paying too much or too little. You 
could have arguments about that.
  But even our children in kindergarten and even our citizens who do 
not pay attention to some more difficult arguments understand roads, 
bridges, and mass transit. They understand hardhat jobs. They see 
people every day laying bricks, pouring concrete, going to work at 
steel mills and factories that produce the materials that build our 
infrastructure. They drive over potholes all day long. They ride down 
the interstates with 18-wheelers whizzing by them in smaller cars 
because they are trying to be more fuel efficient, with their heart in 
their chest, with their children in the backseat, and they look up to 
Congress, to the House of Representatives, and say: Where is our 
Transportation bill?
  This Transportation bill was not written by one Senator and voted on 
by

[[Page 4577]]

a slim majority. This Transportation bill that the House refuses to 
even consider was built by one of the more progressive and one of the 
most conservative Members of this body. It was voted on almost 
unanimously out of committee, brought to the floor of the Senate just a 
couple of weeks ago, and received over 75 votes in a body that cannot 
decide about our judges, really, we can't decide about the post office, 
we can't decide about oil and gas taxes. But 75 of us said that we are 
tired of running our highways and our transit on 90-day, 30-day, 60-day 
extensions. I think this is the 26th short-term extension since 2009. 
What way is this to run a government?
  For the other side of this building that talks about putting business 
practices to work, let's be more efficient in the way we operate, and 
let's operate more like a business, do you know, Mr. President, any 
business in America, large or small, that operates with a 30-day 
vision? Do you know one? I don't know one. I understand businesses have 
6-month plans, a year, but they always have that 5-year long range. 
They might have 6-month goals. I don't know one business in America 
that operates on a 30-day plan.
  Here we are at the ninth hour again. We have a bill. We produced a 
bill. If the House had a bill--I am a centrist--if the House had a 
bill, I would be working with the middle of the road over there, trying 
to say: This is what your bill does. This is what our bill does. We 
can't have our way completely here in the Senate, although I would like 
to have our way more of the time, but I understand.
  They do not have a bill. They do not have a bill to negotiate because 
they cannot even get a bill together among the three committees of 
jurisdiction over there.
  Again, if they had a bill, I know Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe 
would be happy to negotiate. Maybe they want a 4-year bill, we want a 
2, maybe we negotiate a 3. They don't like the mass-transit portion; we 
like the mass-transit portion; we could come to some terms. They don't 
like the way the formula works; we like the general way the formula 
works; we could come to terms. I understand that.
  But what I do not understand, what no one in the country 
understands--what the mayors are having a hard time understanding, what 
the Governors are having a hard time understanding and the businesses 
that operate in my State, represented by the chamber of commerce, the 
NFIB, and the Main Street Alliance of small businesses from the left to 
the center to the right--what they do not understand is how you do not 
have a bill at all and you have not been able to put one together. We 
have now been in this Congress for a year and a half. You have had 1\1/
2\ years to put a bill together, and you have not come up with one.
  We put one together that looks pretty good. No one that I know of 
from any group has said anything really bad about our bill. It is 
pretty plain in one sense. It is not changing the course of Western 
civilization; it is just trying to fund roads, bridges, and transit, 
which is fundamental to the operations not only of our government but 
our economy and, frankly, the economy of the world because without 
highways it is hard to import or export products. This bill has impacts 
way beyond America.
  For the life of me, I cannot understand how the House of 
Representatives is going to leave and go on vacation and think they 
have done their job by giving us another 90-day extension.
  I do not know what the leadership is going to do, but I want my vote 
recorded as no. I am not going to hold up everybody here over the 
holidays, but I want to say that I want my vote recorded as no. I am 
not going to continue to support 30-day, 60-day, 90-day extensions to a 
transportation bill that really, in the scheme of things, should not be 
that complicated to pass. There are other much more controversial 
things about which we could be having very serious debates. Building 
highways and roads and transit should not be one of them.
  We are hurting jobs. We heard the Republicans--I cannot blame the 
Republicans in the Senate. I think they have been for the most part 
really terrific, actually, working with Senator Boxer. They have even 
given a majority of the votes. So I guess my focus is really on the 
Republicans in the House. I don't think they have taken the time to 
really look at the Senate bill to see how balanced it is, and one part 
I wish they would read, which is the part I want to talk about for the 
next 5 minutes--and I know other Senators are here to speak--I hope the 
gulf coast Members from Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and 
Florida--and together that is a pretty big coalition; I don't know the 
total number, but I think there have to be over 75 Members from Texas, 
Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida--I hope they read the 
section of the Transportation bill that talks about the RESTORE Act.
  I have spent a great deal of time over here with my good friend and 
wonderful leader, Senator Shelby, with Senator Boxer, with over 300 
organizations, for over a year, to build a bill that is now part of the 
Transportation bill that, in addition to building highways in Florida 
and transit and roads in Alabama and Mississippi, will also for the 
first time in the history of our country--the first time--direct a 
significant portion of penalty money paid by a polluter, BP, that 
polluted the gulf coast--a good company in some ways but really messed 
up that well, though, and they just spilled gallons and gallons and 
millions of barrels of oil. We have shrimp that are coming in our nets 
with no eyes. We have turtles that are washing up on our shores dead. 
We have research needs in the gulf coast that--there has been no time 
in our history where we have needed that money more.
  My question is to the gulf coast Republican Members and Democratic 
Members. What is it about this bill that is driving you so crazy that 
you can't accept $10 billion that the Federal Government is trying to 
give you? Because that is what the RESTORE Act could potentially send 
to the gulf coast, a portion of the fine. We don't know whether that 
fine is going to be $5 billion or $10 billion or $20 billion, but we do 
know it is going to be substantial because under current law they have 
to pay $1,000 for every barrel spilled or $4,200 if it was gross 
negligence.
  In the Senate Transportation bill, this body showed rare bipartisan 
support and concern for the gulf coast, America's energy coast. We 
showed an understanding of the great erosion that is taking place in 
the delta of Louisiana, which drains 40 percent of the continent. We 
showed understanding that so much of our shipping and seafood industry 
relies on this coast--not that the other coasts are not vitally 
important--and we showed we understand the underinvestment that has 
been made. So 75 percent of the Senate basically stood and said: OK. 
Let's redirect this penalty money to where the injury is. That is the 
RESTORE Act, and that is in the Senate bill we sent over to the House, 
which they have absolutely just rejected.
  I don't know what magic there is about the next 90 days, but I know 
what I am going to do. I am going to register my vote as no, and I am 
going to go home and work harder in Louisiana and along the gulf coast 
to explain to the people of our region how much is at stake by getting 
a longer term Transportation bill. Maybe 2 years is not as long as we 
would like to have, but it is better than 30 days, it is better than 60 
days, and it is better than 90 days.
  I will ask and explain that not only is the Transportation bill vital 
for Louisiana's projects but for approving the RESTORE Act, which I 
know the House has indicated their support for. They have indicated a 
support for the concept of the RESTORE Act, but the act itself is in 
the Transportation bill.
  So I am going to wrap-up. There are other Members on the floor who 
will speak. I thank the leader, Barbara Boxer, who is here.
  But for 90 days let's get back to work and go for a long-term 
Transportation bill that is a real jobs bill that will help the whole 
country but particularly the gulf coast with the RESTORE Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

[[Page 4578]]


  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I see the Republican leader is on the 
floor, and I understand there may be a unanimous consent that is 
propounded, and I can offer some remarks in the context of an objection 
and a counterproposal, if the minority leader would like to proceed 
now.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my friend from Rhode Island, I am not 
the one who will be asking consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak until 
I get a signal from the majority leader that he will seek recognition, 
at which point I will yield the floor.
  I wished to follow in the footsteps of Senator Landrieu of Louisiana 
and reflect my own dismay and dissatisfaction with the situation we are 
in right now. The House extension on the highway bill, which we are 
going to be asked to proceed with, is going to cost--as far as the 
estimates I can see so far--around 100,000 jobs, and that is damage to 
our economy. That is a self-inflicted wound. More specifically, it is a 
House-inflicted wound, and I would very much like to see the Senate 
fight to force action on the Senate highway bill. It is a bipartisan 
bill with amendments and is fully paid for. This is a serious bill, as 
opposed to inflicting this kind of damage on our economy with a short-
term extension.
  Does the majority leader seek recognition?
  Mr. REID. Yes, I do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________