[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5466-5486]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1925, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to S. 1925, a bill to reauthorize the 
     Violence Against Women Act of 1994.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 2 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first 
30 minutes and the majority controlling the second 30 minutes.
  The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. HELLER. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Violence 
Against Women Reauthorization Act.
  I am glad the Senate is finally considering this important 
legislation, and I am proud to be the crucial 60th cosponsor of the 
bill. I commend Chairman Leahy for producing a bill that enjoys broad 
bipartisan support, and I look forward to swift passage of the VAWA 
reauthorization.
  Violence in all its forms is unacceptable, but it is particularly 
horrifying when it takes place in the home, which should be a sanctuary 
for all who live there. Yet a recent CDC report found that nearly half 
of all women living in my home State of Nevada at the time of the 
survey experienced domestic violence at some point in their lifetime. 
This statistic is sickening and unacceptable. Women and children often 
feel powerless to escape abusive or dangerous situations, which too 
often end in tragedy.
  My home State knows this sad reality all too well. Nevada is ranked 
first in the Nation for women murdered by men in domestic violence. 
Sadly, our State has appeared in the top three States in this horrific 
category in the last 7 years. Thankfully, organizations throughout the 
State of Nevada work tirelessly to help those jeopardized by domestic 
violence. While these groups have faced significant challenges due to 
funding cuts in recent years, they are doing their best with what they 
have to provide assistance to families who need it most.
  According to last year's Nevada Census of Domestic Violence Services, 
nearly 500 Nevadans received crisis assistance through Nevada's 
domestic violence programs on a single day; 272 found refuge in 
emergency shelters or temporary housing; 204 received nonresidential 
assistance. Staff and volunteers fielded an average of six hotline 
calls every hour. Despite the best efforts of our State's domestic 
violence programs, 25 cases of unmet requests for services were 
reported on a single day due to shortage of funds and staff. That means 
thousands of Nevadans could not access the services they needed last 
year.
  Nevada's struggling economy has limited State resources to help those 
who are affected by domestic violence. Reauthorization of VAWA will 
provide greater certainty for organizations that work hard every day to 
prevent and address domestic violence. I trust this bill will ensure 
and enable domestic violence programs to plan for the future and serve 
even more Americans in need. Importantly, this bill will also further 
prevention efforts that, hopefully, will result in reducing domestic 
violence and help our Nation's most vulnerable.
  I am also pleased this legislation reauthorizes programs vital to the 
National Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges. The National 
Council has made a strong impact in courts throughout the Nation by 
teaching judges innovative strategies that equip them to appropriately 
assist families and young people who face significant hardships. I 
cannot be more proud of the positive changes the National Council is 
effecting in courtrooms and communities in Nevada and nationwide, and I 
am glad this bill will further their efforts.
  As a fiscal conservative, I am also glad this bill was written with 
full awareness of the fiscal crisis our Nation is facing. This 
legislation repeals duplicative provisions and programs, creating a 
more efficient system. I encourage my colleagues to use this bill as a 
model when considering additional reauthorizations this year. We must 
not forget the need to implement commonsense budgetary practices across 
the board in order to put our Nation on a path to long-term fiscal 
responsibility.
  While not perfect, I am pleased the Senate is proceeding with this 
bill and trust it will further the important goal of reducing violence 
in all its forms. This bipartisan effort is an example of how Members 
of Congress should be working together to solve the problems facing our 
Nation and protecting those

[[Page 5467]]

who have no voice. I look forward to the passage of the VAWA 
reauthorization measure and believe it will truly make a difference in 
the lives of countless women in Nevada and throughout the United 
States.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas.


                         National Energy Policy

  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, as certainly every Kansan and all 
Americans know, our gas prices are on the rise and the U.S. economy 
continues to struggle. I believe one of the most important things 
Congress can do now is to facilitate the production of affordable 
energy in this country. In Kansas, we have the third highest number of 
highway miles in any State in the country, so higher fuel prices are 
particularly difficult for Kansans who drive long distances each day 
for work and school. When business owners pay more for fuel, they have 
less to invest in their businesses and fewer resources to use to hire 
new employees.
  In our State, higher fuel prices increase operating costs for farmers 
and ranchers who produce much of our Nation's food supply. One Kansas 
farmer feeds 155 people. The global food supply is threatened when food 
producers have to pay high costs to plant, harvest, and transport their 
production.
  Higher gas prices don't just affect the farmer or rancher filling 
their equipment; they also affect every American as they shop at their 
grocery store. While producers have to pay higher fuel costs, so do the 
folks who transport the goods to market. So that increased cost gets 
passed on to the consumer. We all are paying more.
  For the United States to remain competitive in this global economy, 
Congress must develop a comprehensive national energy policy. No single 
form of energy can provide all the answers. High fuel prices and an 
uncertain energy supply will continue until we take serious steps 
toward increasing the development of our own natural resources.
  Our country has some of the most plentiful, affordable, and reliable 
energy sources available. Our own Congressional Research Service has 
reported the United States has greater energy resources than China, 
Saudi Arabia, and Canada combined. Unfortunately, access to those 
resources continues to be restricted.
  Technological advances have made the exploration, extraction, and 
transportation of oil and gas safer and more efficient. Yet the Obama 
administration has repeatedly blocked efforts to expand energy 
production. In the President's State of the Union Address, he claimed 
oil and gas production has increased under his leadership. While 
private lands are being further developed, and energy production is 
being increased on those private lands, energy production on Federal 
lands has actually decreased. According to the Department of the 
Interior, oil production on Federal property fell by 14 percent and 
natural gas production fell by 11 percent last year.
  The failure to explore and develop our vast natural resources on 
Federal lands hit an unfortunate milestone last week. Ten years ago, 
the Senate failed to open a fractional portion of the Arctic National 
Wildlife Reserve for responsible resource development. Those opposed to 
developing that small portion of that vast area claimed the resources 
available in ANWR would not reach the market for 10 years. Well, here 
we are, 10 years later, no closer than we were in 2002 to gaining our 
energy independence.
  American businesses involved in the oil and gas industry can bring 
these resources to market and send a strong signal to the world that 
the United States is serious about energy security. Yet rather than 
allowing these companies to deploy their expertise and increase 
production, there are those who say oil and gas companies deserve even 
more taxes--a tax increase. Raising taxes on the very businesses tasked 
with locating, extracting, and distributing the fuel to power our 
economy would do nothing to lower costs and reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil. In fact, it would do exactly the opposite.
  When the Congressional Research Service analyzed President Obama's 
fiscal year 2012 budget proposal last year to raise taxes on the oil 
and gas companies, they concluded those efforts would have the effect 
of ``decreasing exploration, development and production while 
increasing prices and increasing the nation's foreign oil dependence.'' 
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service says these taxes would 
reduce domestic supply and hurt consumers.
  To increase domestic production, I have sponsored the 3-D Act, which 
would require the administration to reverse their cancellation of 
dozens of oil and gas leases, open areas previously restricted to 
responsible oil and gas development, such as the Arctic National 
Wildlife Reserve, and streamline the environmental review process that 
continually ties up worthy projects in costly bureaucracy and 
litigation.
  The administration is also delaying projects that will improve our 
energy's infrastructure. The President's denial of TransCanada's 
Keystone XL Pipeline permit delayed an important project that would 
create thousands of jobs and bring billions to the U.S. economy. This 
private investment in energy infrastructure is exactly the type of 
investment the President should be encouraging. Construction projects 
create jobs and boost local economies.
  For example, back home in Kansas, Clay County is a small, lowly 
populated county. Their utility sales to TransCanada could quadruple 
their overall sales and add more than $\1/2\ million to the local 
economy every year. This would be a significant boost to the county's 
economic development.
  President Obama's own Jobs Council cited the pipeline construction as 
a way to boost the economy in their year-end report released January of 
this year, stating:

       Policies that facilitate safe, thoughtful and timely 
     development of pipeline, transmission and distribution 
     projects are necessary to facilitate the delivery of 
     America's fuel and electricity and maintain the reliability 
     of our nation's energy system.

  But TransCanada's project has been stalled as the company works to 
seek a new route through the State of Nebraska, to our north. But 
instead of putting the entire project on hold, we would be much better 
off if we would allow construction to begin in areas not subject to 
this rerouting so jobs could be created and our Nation could have 
greater access to more reliable energy. S. 2041, which I have 
sponsored, would do that.
  Renewable energy must also play a role in supplying our energy needs 
as new technologies allow for the increased commercialization of 
renewable fuels. Kansas is a leader in wind production and second only 
to Texas in wind resource potential. Innovation in biofuel production 
has also increased our ability to develop additional energy from 
renewable sources available in my home State of Kansas.
  Nuclear energy is a necessary component that will help us supply our 
country's future energy needs and allow our country to be less reliant 
on energy from other nations. I will continue to support initiatives to 
spur growth in the nuclear energy industry, including initiatives to 
streamline regulatory compliance.
  Energy exploration must be accompanied by energy conservation. When 
Americans drive more efficient vehicles and occupy energy-conserving 
buildings, they not only consume less energy, they save money. At a 
time when gas prices continue to climb, we need to be looking for more 
innovative ways to help consumers save money on energy bills.
  Congress must develop a comprehensive national energy policy--a 
policy based upon the free market principles that say we can find the 
resources necessary to meet our country's needs. We must develop our 
domestic sources of oil, natural gas, and coal, encourage the 
development of renewable energy sources, and promote conservation.
  Not only would the development of our Nation's resources reduce our 
dependence on foreign energy, it would also provide our economy can 
with a reliable, affordable fuel supply. If future generations of 
Americans are to experience the quality of life we enjoy today, the 
time to address our energy needs is now.

[[Page 5468]]

  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I know we have not yet concluded the 
postal reform bill, but I come to the floor to speak on an amendment I 
intend to offer on the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women 
Act. The amendment I intend to offer is one that enjoys bipartisan 
support, and I hope as more Senators learn about the content of this 
amendment and how it will strengthen the Violence Against Women Act, 
they will join me and Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois, Senator Bennet of 
Colorado, as well as Senator Vitter from Louisiana. I believe it will 
strengthen the Violence Against Women Act we will vote on, presumably 
later today, but probably tomorrow.
  I am also happy to have the support of the Rape Abuse and Incest 
National Network--RAINN--PROTECT, and the Texas Association Against 
Sexual Assault, as well as Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed, 
whose office is in San Antonio, TX. She has worked with us on this 
amendment, and we have benefited from her counsel and that of her 
staff. We have the support as well of San Antonio Police Chief William 
McManus.
  At its core, this amendment would help end the nationwide rape kit 
backlog while improving law enforcement tools to crack down on violent 
criminals who target women and children for sexual assault.
  To give a little context, in the course of an investigation, law 
enforcement officials will collect DNA evidence in something called a 
rape kit. These are generally bodily fluids that can be tested, because 
of their DNA signature, against a bank of DNA evidence for a match. In 
fact, this is a very powerful tool for law enforcement because it will 
literally identify someone from this DNA match in a way nothing else 
can. This DNA evidence can also, for those who care, as we all do, 
about making sure the innocent are not held in suspicion or convicted 
for crimes they didn't commit, be so powerful as to literally exclude, 
in some instances, suspects of criminal conduct.
  The nationwide rape kit backlog is a national scandal--one that many 
people don't know very much about--and it has serious consequences for 
sexual assault victims. The truth is we don't know about the full scope 
of the problem, but one estimate is there are as many as 400,000 
untested rape kits currently sitting in labs and on police station 
shelves across the Nation, each one of them holding within itself the 
potential to help solve a serious crime and, in the process, take a 
rapist off the streets and provide a victim with the justice they 
deserve.
  Take, for example, the case of Carol Bart. Carol is from Dallas, TX. 
In 1984, Ms. Bart was kidnapped and raped at knife point outside her 
Dallas apartment. Although she submitted herself for rape kit testing 
immediately following the crime, her kit was not tested until 2008--24 
years later. When it was tested 24 years after the rape kit specimens 
were collected, it yielded a match for a serial sex offender who had 
attempted to rape another woman only 4 months later after he raped Ms. 
Bart.
  This is one of the most important reasons why this evidence is 
important, because the fact is people who commit sexual assaults are 
not one-time offenders. They do it many times, and often they do it 
until they are caught. But because the rape kit in Ms. Bart's case was 
not tested for 24 years after the crime, the statute of limitations had 
run, meaning that her attacker could not be brought to justice for that 
particular crime.
  Statutes of limitations serve a worthwhile purpose under ordinary 
circumstances. They are designed to make sure charges are brought on a 
timely basis, while witnesses' memories are fresh and they can identify 
the perpetrator and the like. But in this instance, what it concealed 
was an injustice because, in fact, this late testing--24 years after 
the fact--meant her attacker could not be brought to justice for that 
particular crime.
  Take also the case of Helena Lazaro, who was raped outside of Los 
Angeles in 1996 when she was just a teenager. Ms. Lazaro's rape kit sat 
untested for more than 13 years after her assault. When it was finally 
tested in 2009, it yielded a match to a repeat offender who had raped 
several women at knifepoint in Indiana and Ohio.
  There are countless, I am sorry to say, examples of similar tragedies 
across the country, only a handful of which are actually reported on 
the front pages of our major newspapers. And some of these victims, of 
course, have merely suffered in silence in towns and communities across 
our country.
  One thing is clear: While DNA evidence is powerful evidence, we have 
not yet adapted our administration of testing nor the capacity to 
inventory these kits in a way to make sure they are tested on a timely 
basis, and we have not kept up with that. But that is what this 
amendment hopes to do.
  According to a 2011 report by the National Institute of Justice:

       [c]urrent Federal programs to reduce backlogs in crime 
     laboratories are not designed to address untested evidence 
     stored in law enforcement agencies.

  As a matter of fact, one of the problems in requiring an inventory of 
these untested rape kits is often the National Institute of Justice and 
law enforcement personnel don't even categorize a rape kit as untested 
until it actually is in the hands of the laboratory. So many of them 
sit in evidence lockers, never making their way to the labs, and are 
not identified as backlogged. So there are two distinct types of rape 
kit backlogs: the well-known backlog of untested rape kits that have 
already been submitted for testing and the hidden backlog of kits in 
law enforcement storage that have not been submitted for testing, as 
you can see, sometimes over a span of 13 years in one case and 24 years 
in the next. This amendment would help us learn more about this hidden 
backlog and ultimately help State and local law enforcement officials 
to end it.
  One of my experiences during the 4 years I was attorney general of 
Texas was that many local jurisdictions simply did not have the 
expertise or experience or the knowledge to deal with new technology, 
whether it is Internet crimes or whether it is this new, powerful DNA 
tool. It is not so new now, and in urban areas it is not as big of a 
problem. In New York City, for example, I am sure they are quite 
sophisticated when dealing with this sort of evidence but less so in 
smaller towns and communities across the country.
  The justice for victims amendment would reserve 7 percent of existing 
Debbie Smith Act grant funding for the purpose of helping State and 
local governments to conduct audits of their rape kit backlogs. In my 
hometown of San Antonio, the police department recently conducted such 
an audit of their evidence storage facilities using similar grant 
funding from the State of Texas. They identified more than 5,000--and 
that is just in San Antonio alone--untested sexual assault kits, of 
which 2,000 they determined should be submitted promptly for testing. 
My amendment would use existing appropriations to encourage more audits 
like this.
  The amendment would also add accountability to the audit process by 
requiring grantees of these funds to upload critical information about 
the size, scope, and status of their backlog into a new sexual assault 
evidence forensic registry. This valuable information would also help 
the National Institute of Justice better target the approximately $100 
million of existing appropriations already available for this type of 
testing. In the spirit of open government, the amendment would also 
require the Department of Justice to publish aggregate, non-personally 
identifying information about the rape kit backlog on an appropriate 
Internet Web site.
  To ensure that these audit grants do not take resources away from 
actual testing, my amendment would increase the amount of Debbie Smith 
Act appropriations required to be spent directly on laboratory testing 
from the 40 percent currently in the underlying Leahy bill, which will 
be the base bill, to 75 percent. So what it will do is it will actually 
take more of the funding that

[[Page 5469]]

Congress intended be used to process rape kits and do actual testing 
and return it to that core function.
  A comprehensive approach to crime prevention and victims' rights also 
requires updated tools for Federal law enforcement officials to target 
fugitives and repeat offenders. My amendment addresses this need by 
including bipartisan language authored by Senator Jeff Sessions that 
would authorize the U.S. Marshals Service to issue administrative 
subpoenas for the purpose of investigating unregistered sex offenders 
and would actually be limited to that narrow purpose. This provision 
would allow the Marshals Service to swiftly obtain time-sensitive 
tracking information, such as rent records and credit card statements, 
without having to go through the grand jury process, which may or may 
not be necessary depending on the circumstances. Such authority is 
urgently needed given the long and complicated paper trail that 
fugitive sex offender investigations often entail.
  My amendment would also guarantee that we hand down tough 
punishments--appropriately so--to some of the worst crimes against 
women and children. For example, it includes enhanced sentencing 
provisions for aggravated domestic violence resulting in death or life-
threatening bodily injury to the victim, aggravated sexual abuse, and 
child sex trafficking. I think preventing these horrible crimes is at 
the heart of the purpose of the Violence Against Women Act, and we 
should take the opportunity to improve the underlying bill by adopting 
this amendment and send a message to would-be perpetrators and child 
sex traffickers. If you commit some of the worst crimes imaginable in 
the United States, you should have the certain knowledge that you will 
be tracked down and that you will receive tough and appropriate 
punishment.
  Finally, thanks to the great work of Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois, 
my amendment would further shed light on one of the greatest scourges 
of our time; that is, child prostitution and the trafficking that goes 
along with it.
  The so-called adult entertainment section of the popular online 
classified Web site backpage.com is nothing more than a front for pimps 
and child sex traffickers. A lot has been written in the New York Times 
on this topic. On this Web site, young children and coerced women are 
openly advertised for sale in the sex trade. In fact, this Web site has 
been affirmatively linked to dozens of cases of child sex trafficking. 
Let me give a few recent examples.
  Last month, Ronnie Leon Tramble was sentenced to 15 years in prison 
for interstate sex trafficking through force, fraud, and coercion. 
Tramble forced more than five young women and minors into prostitution 
over a period of at least 5 years throughout the State of Washington. 
He repeatedly subjected his victims to brutal physical and emotional 
abuse during this time, while using backpage.com to facilitate their 
prostitution.
  In February of this year, Leighton Martin Curtis was sentenced to 30 
years in prison for sex trafficking of a minor and production of child 
pornography. Curtis pimped a 15-year-old girl throughout Florida, 
Georgia, and North Carolina. He prostituted the girl to approximately 
20 to 35 customers per week for more than a year and used backpage.com 
to facilitate these crimes.
  According to human trafficking experts, a casual review of the 
backpage.com adult entertainment Web site reveals literally hundreds of 
children being sold for sex every day. This is absolutely sickening and 
should be stopped with all the tools available to us. We should no 
longer stand idle while thousands of children and trafficked women are 
raped, abused, and sold like chattel in modern-day slavery on the 
Internet. My amendment would therefore join all 50 State attorneys 
general in calling on backpage.com to remove the adult entertainment 
section of its Web site. Again, I would like to thank Senator Kirk for 
his leadership on this issue. Every case of sex trafficking or forced 
prostitution is modern-day slavery--nothing more, nothing less--and we 
should do everything in our power to ensure this practice is eradicated 
in the United States of America.
  I believe the justice for victims amendment would reduce the rape kit 
backlog, take serial perpetrators off the street, and ultimately reduce 
the number of victims of sex violence. I ask my colleagues to join me 
in considering this amendment, which already enjoys bipartisan support, 
and I hope it will get much broader bipartisan support. I hope my 
colleagues will join with me in strengthening the reauthorization of 
the Violence Against Women Act by cosponsoring and supporting this 
amendment. Our constituents and victims of these heinous crimes deserve 
nothing less.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, before the Senator from Texas leaves 
the floor, I was going to ask that I be added as a cosponsor to his 
very worthwhile amendment.


                           Student Loan Debt

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, one of the most heartbreaking yet 
underreported consequences of the Obama economy is the extent to which 
college graduates today are stepping out into a world where the 
possibilities no longer seem endless. Unlike generations past, today's 
college graduates are more likely to end up either unemployed or back 
at home with mom and dad, saddled with student loan debt that they are 
to end up with for the rest of their lives. And they don't tend to have 
the opportunity to get that job of their dreams.
  For a great many of them, the excitement and the promise of President 
Obama's campaign 4 years ago have long since faded as their hopes 
collided with an economy that he has done so much to reshape. So it is 
understandable that the President is so busy these days trying to 
persuade these students that the struggles they face or will soon face 
have more to do with a piece of legislation we expect to fix than with 
his own failed promises. It is understandable that he would want to 
make them believe the fairy tale that there are villains in Washington 
who would rather help millionaires and billionaires than struggling 
college students. But that doesn't make this kind of deception any more 
acceptable.
  Today the President will hold another rally at which he will tell 
students that unless Congress acts, their interest rates will go up in 
July. What he won't tell them is that he cared so little about this 
legislation that created this problem 5 years ago that he didn't even 
show up to vote for it and that once he became President, he didn't 
even bother to include a fix for this problem in his own budget.
  Look, if the President was more interested in solving this problem 
than in hearing the sound of his own voice or the applause of college 
students, all he would have to do is pick up the phone and work it out 
with Congress. We don't want the interest rates on these loans to 
double in this economy. We don't want today's graduates to have to 
suffer any more than they already are as a result of this President's 
failure to turn the economy around after more than 3 years in office. 
Really, the only question is how to pay for it. Democrats want to pay 
for it by raiding Social Security and Medicare and by making it even 
harder for small businesses to hire. We happen to think that at a time 
when millions of Americans and countless college students can't even 
find a decent job, it makes no sense whatsoever to punish the very 
businesses we are counting on to hire them. It is counterproductive and 
clearly the wrong direction to take.
  So let's be honest. The only reason Democrats have proposed this 
particular solution to the problem is to get Republicans to oppose it 
and to make us cast a vote they think will make us look bad to voters 
they need to win in the next election. Earlier this week they admitted 
to using the Senate floor as an extension of the Obama campaign. So no 
one should be surprised that they opted for a political show vote over 
a solution.
  What Republicans are saying is let's end the political games and 
solve the problem like adults. This is an easy

[[Page 5470]]

one. The only real challenge in this debate is coaxing the President 
off the campaign trail and up to the negotiating table to get him to 
choose results over rallies. We can solve the problems we face if only 
he will let us do it.


                       Honoring Our Armed Forces

                   Staff Sergeant Gary L. Woods, Jr.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, with great sadness I wish to report 
to my colleagues today that our Nation and my home State of Kentucky 
have lost a brave and valiant soldier who pledged his life to 
protecting others. SSG Gary L. Woods, Jr., of Shepherdsville, KY, was 
killed on April 10, 2009, in Mosul, Iraq, in a terrorist suicide bomber 
attack. He was 24 years old.
  For his service to America, Staff Sergeant Woods received several 
medals, awards, and decorations, including the Bronze Star Medal, the 
Purple Heart, two Army Commendation Medals, three Army Achievement 
Medals, two Army Good Conduct Medals, the National Defense Service 
Medal, three Iraq Campaign Medals with Bronze Service Stars, the Global 
War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism 
Service Medal, two Noncommissioned Officers Professional Development 
Ribbons, the Army Service Ribbon, and three Overseas Service Ribbons.
  Staff Sergeant Woods, who went by Lee, was born on June 24, 1984, on 
a Sunday. ``He had very light brown hair and beautiful blue eyes,'' 
remembers Lee's mother, Becky Johnson. ``He was my first-born child and 
my only son.''
  Lee grew up in Shepherdsville, where he attended Roby Elementary 
School, Bullitt Lick Middle School, and Bullitt Central High School, 
from which he graduated in 2002. In school he participated in Bullitt 
County's Gifted and Talented Program, and was a member of the academic 
team in both middle school and high school.
  Lee also loved music. He played the trumpet, baritone, and trombone 
in school and sang in the concert choir. He taught himself how to play 
piano at age 6. He played the guitar, too, and took a guitar with him 
on two tours in Iraq to entertain his friends. Lee also played the 
drums.
  ``Before returning from his second tour he ordered a set of drums and 
had them delivered to my house,'' Becky remembers. ``When he came home 
on family leave, he had to set them up the minute he got there, and 
played them in my basement for a full week. I would give anything to 
hear him beat on those drums again!''
  Lee also enjoyed drawing pictures, fishing, camping, and woodworking. 
He was obviously a talented young man. But his mother will always 
remember music as one of his greatest loves.
  During his sophomore year at high school, Lee joined Junior ROTC. It 
was then that he first had the idea to one day join the service. In 
January 2003, Lee told his mother that he had joined the Army.
  Becky was surprised at first, but when Lee laid out his argument, she 
could see that he had given the opportunity serious thought and was 
excited about the future. ``I knew at that instant that my son had 
become one heck of a man,'' she says. ``He had listened to me all those 
years after all. I couldn't say anything except, `I love you and I will 
always support you 110 percent.' ''
  Lee entered active service in February 2003, and did his basic 
training at Fort Knox, in my home State of Kentucky. He graduated as a 
tank armor crewman and deployed on his first of three missions to Iraq 
from August 2003 to March 2004. Lee's second Iraq deployment lasted 
from March 2005 to February 2006.
  After his second deployment, Lee got a reassignment to the First 
Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, based in Fort 
Carson, CO. He deployed for the third and final time to Iraq in 
September 2008, and received a promotion to staff sergeant soon 
afterwards in December.
  In January 2009, one of Lee's fellow soldiers and close friends, 
Darrell Hernandez, was killed, and Lee escorted his friend back home in 
February. ``Soon after returning from this, he volunteered for a 
mission that would take his own life and the lives of four other U.S. 
soldiers,'' Becky remembers.
  That mission put Lee in a convoy of five vehicles that on April 10, 
2009, exited the gates of Forward Operating Base Marez in Mosul, Iraq. 
Shortly after leaving the base, a dump truck sped towards the convoy. 
Lee was driving the fifth and last vehicle.
  Lee drove to put his gunner in position to fire on the dump truck. 
But tragically, that dump truck detonated with 10,000 pounds of 
explosives, killing Staff Sergeant Gary L. Woods, Jr., and four other 
American soldiers.
  ``The FBI says [that the dump truck's] destination was [the forward 
operating base at] Marez,'' says Lee's mother Becky. ``If in fact the 
FOB was the target, these five men saved the lives of thousands of 
soldiers on the FOB.''
  On the same day that Lee acted heroically to save his fellow soldiers 
at the cost of his own life, half a world away Becky Johnson heard the 
knock at the door that all military families dread.
  ``Those men in the dress-green uniforms with the highly polished 
black shoes came to my house,'' she remembers. ``Yes, I noticed their 
shoes, because that was all I could look at while they asked me if I 
was Becky Johnson. I told them no as my husband stood behind me shaking 
his head yes.''
  We are thinking of Staff Sergeant Woods's loved ones as I recount his 
story for my colleagues today, Mr. President, including his mother and 
stepfather, Becky and Pat Johnson; his father and stepmother, Gary and 
Debbie Woods; his sister, Britteny Lynn Woods; his two half-brothers, 
Courtney and Troy Woods; his half-sister, Heather Woods; his step-
sister, Mandy Maraman; his two step-brothers, Newman and Corey Johnson; 
his grandmother, Nancy Ratliff; and many other beloved family members 
and friends.
  Staff Sergeant Woods's loss in the line of duty is tragic. However, 
as small a comfort as it may be, I am pleased to report that his family 
may take some solace in the fact that a terrorist connected to the 
suicide bombing that caused Lee's death was arrested in Edmonton, 
Canada, and Lee's family can look forward to the prosecution of this 
terrorist and justice for Lee.
  Becky Johnson intends to attend the trial and speak in the sentencing 
phase. May she and her family have the strength they will surely need 
to endure this process, and may they find peace in its final outcome.
  I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in saying to the family of 
Staff Sergeant Woods that our Nation is forever grateful to them and 
recognizes the great cost they have paid. This Nation will never forget 
the heroism of SSG Gary L. Woods, Jr., or his great service and 
sacrifice.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.


                   Honoring Meadow Bridge High School

  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise to speak about the importance of 
teaching our young people to embrace their right--and responsibility--
to participate in our democratic election process and to highlight a 
West Virginia high school that has an outstanding record for going the 
extra mile to encourage their students to register and vote.
  As Americans, there is no greater freedom or responsibility than our 
right to vote. Our country was born because brave men and women fought 
tirelessly and endured countless hardships to win their voting rights. 
In fact, even young people had to fight for this right. It was West 
Virginia's own Senator Jennings Randolph, who was elected to serve with 
our beloved Robert C. Byrd, who relentlessly advocated for the 26th 
amendment to the Constitution so Americans could vote starting at age 
18. In 1971, the measure finally passed. What few people know is he 
worked on that for over 20 years.
  Senator Randolph believed, as I do, that every vote counts, and as 
important, I believe every voter has the right and responsibility to 
take an active role in our electoral process. I tell young people all 
the time they cannot just sit on the sidelines and watch life happen; 
they have to get in the game and get active. Voting not only gives us 
the opportunity to have our voices

[[Page 5471]]

heard but also to have a real impact on setting the priorities for 
America's future.
  As secretary of state from 2000 to 2004, in which position I was 
proud to serve in my great State of West Virginia, I made it a priority 
to educate young people all over West Virginia on the electoral process 
and to encourage them to get involved. At that time very few people 
knew that if someone was 17 years of age and would turn 18 years of age 
before the general election, they could still vote in a primary at 17. 
So we educated them and we went around to every school. To make the 
goal a reality, we established a program called Sharing History and 
Reaching Every Student, or the acronym SHARES, a program which was 
tremendously successful. I am proud to say, during my tenure, we 
registered 42,000 high school students to vote. Eleven years after the 
SHARES Program began, it is my privilege to stand on the Senate floor 
and recognize a school that is truly committed to carrying on this 
tradition and passing it down to each senior class and generation that 
has come after them. I am so pleased they have joined me in the gallery 
today.
  Every year for the past 11 years, the staff members at Fayette 
County's Meadow Bridge High School have registered 100 percent of their 
senior class. Think about that, 100 percent. It is truly an incredible 
accomplishment. I am unaware of any other school in our great State or 
in the entire Nation that has registered every student in their senior 
class for 11 years. This school and this year the class gathered 
together in the school's cafeteria so they could register at the same 
time. This is not only a testament to the tradition established at 
Meadow Bridge High School but also to the students and their commitment 
to their community and their civic responsibility.
  I congratulate the Meadow Bridge High School students, their faculty 
and staff, under the leadership of their principal Al Martine, for 
their commitment to our democracy. I also challenge every high school, 
not just in West Virginia but in New York and every other State, to 
follow their example--an unbelievable example. We must work together to 
engage our young people in national issues and encourage them to 
participate in the democratic process by getting our young adults 
involved. They are not children anymore. The world is growing up so 
fast around them, and we are preparing them to be active and passionate 
leaders for the future. They cannot stand on the sidelines and we as 
Americans cannot afford to let them stand on the sidelines. We need 
them in the game now. They can forge the future.
  This is not a Democratic or Republican or Independent issue but one 
all Americans can and should embrace for the future of our great 
Nation. We see so many divides in this great Capitol of ours with so 
many of our colleagues. Everyone comes here for the right reason. The 
right reason truly is sitting in the gallery today and back home, the 
children and young adults who are going to make the difference and lead 
the next generation.
  I, for one, do not intend to turn over to this generation the keys to 
a country in worse shape than when we received them. I do not want to 
be the first person in our country's history to say we did not do a 
better job than the previous generation. We are going to work hard. But 
the unbelievable commitment they made, the knowledge they have about 
the importance of voting, shows me this next generation will take us to 
a new level. I am proud that West Virginians all over our State, but 
most importantly Meadow Bridge High School, are leading that example. I 
thank them and appreciate the effort they made in setting the example 
for all.
  I yield the floor and notice the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. BEGICH. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BEGICH. I rise to support S. 1925, the Violence Against Women 
Act. It is not every day that we vote on a law that actually saves 
lives, but this one does. The Senate needs to send the simple and 
important message that America will not tolerate violence against its 
women, children, and families. We must do our part to reduce domestic 
violence and sexual assault. It is time for us to step up and make sure 
this happens now.
  I look forward to casting my vote for the reauthorization, hopefully 
very soon. Truly this legislation, as we continue to move forward, is 
headed in the right direction. There is bipartisan support with 61 
Members in this Chamber signed on as cosponsors, and lots of good work 
on this bill has been done in the Judiciary Committee. All of us have 
heard from prosecutors, victim service providers, judges, health care 
professionals, and victims themselves.
  Unfortunately, the fight to protect women and families from violence 
is far from over. The Violence Against Women Act was first passed just 
18 years ago. It has not been reauthorized since 2006. The law has made 
a difference. We are making progress, and we know a great deal more 
about domestic violence than when the law was first written. Services 
for victims has improved. More communities provide safe shelters. 
Local, State, and Federal laws are stronger.
  Listen to the national statistics: Since the law was first passed in 
1994, the number of women killed by an intimate partner has dropped 30 
percent, and annual rates of domestic violence against women have 
decreased by two-thirds. The VAWA law saves lives and works. Yet there 
are too many awful stories and inexcusable numbers, especially in my 
home State.
  Alaska continues to have some of the worst statistics in the country. 
Three out of every four Alaskans have or know someone who has 
experienced domestic or sexual violence. Child sexual assault in Alaska 
is almost six times the national average. Out of every 100 adult women 
in Alaska, nearly 60 have experienced intimate partner violence, sexual 
violence, or both. The rape rate in Alaska is nearly 2\1/2\ times the 
national average, and it is even worse for Alaska Native women.
  In Alaska's rural and native communities, domestic violence and 
sexual assault is far too common. Our numbers are often far worse than 
the rest of the country, and clearly we have to continue to do more 
work in this area. We are insisting that Alaskan tribes retain their 
current authority to issue civil protective orders, and I am working on 
a separate bill to expand resources for Alaskan tribes in their fight 
against violence. So one can see why I am standing here today. We need 
to do something about this--not someday, not next year, but truly 
today.
  I have been around for 3 years now, and I am not shy about having my 
say in a good political fight. But in this case, on this issue, truly, 
I have no patience. It is hard to believe we even have to debate the 
law that protects people from abuse and sexual violence. It is truly a 
piece of legislation we should move forward on and vote. We need fewer 
victims, whoever they are--women, kids, White, Black, American Indian, 
Alaska Natives, immigrants, lesbian and gay people, even men.
  As a former mayor in a city and State with a higher rate of abuse 
than the rest of the country, I know this issue. I was responsible for 
the municipal department that prosecuted domestic violence cases. I was 
also responsible for the police investigating these cases and the 
agencies providing health services to victims and funding to shelters. 
With the support of the entire community, we pooled our efforts. Using 
resources from the State and local government and businesses and 
nonprofits alike, we improved services for victims of child sexual 
abuse.
  But intervention and better treatment is not enough--far from it. 
Domestic and sexual violence is a public health epidemic. So what we 
need is prevention, and this reauthorization effort is just that, the 
right step in eventually stopping this epidemic.

[[Page 5472]]

  In Alaska the Violence Against Women Act dollars are used in our 
biggest cities and our smallest villages. Funding goes to every corner 
of the State, including the Emmonak Women's Shelter in remote southwest 
Alaska, the Aleut community of St. Paul in the North Pacific Ocean, the 
AWARE Shelter in urban Juneau, and many others throughout Alaska.
  We asked the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault 
for their stories and examples of how VAWA is helping real families. 
Here is just one. It is uncomfortable to hear, but it is why we need to 
act now.
  A shelter in rural Alaska helped a young woman after she suffered a 
domestic assault by the father of their 3-year-old child. When she had 
asked the father for money for food, he choked her and threw her to the 
ground in front of the child. She reported this was the third such 
instance of violence, and she could not live there anymore. She spent 
time in a shelter recovering from her injuries and working to find safe 
housing in her home village. She also attended DV education groups and 
received a referral for legal services to assist her with her custody 
order.
  Months later the shelter program received a call from this quiet 
young woman. She and her child were safe and doing well. She read all 
the books recommended to her by the shelter to understand the cycle of 
domestic violence. She was looking for suggestions on more reading 
material to continue her education on the topic. Now it is hoped that 
the young woman will become a leader in her community so she can help 
educate others and work to end domestic violence in Alaska.
  There are stories of rape and murder from all over the country. Need 
we hear more? It is time to reauthorize VAWA.
  Before I yield the floor, I have one more bit of business. I want to 
thank the shelter staff, the police, the court system employees, the 
advocates and everyone else, who work so hard to protect women, 
children, and families across this country.
  To the victims of domestic violence, there is truly hope. We will 
work with them to break the cycle of violence and to bring an end and a 
change in this area.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I rise to speak about an issue that 
affects everybody in my community. Although it is hard to imagine right 
now, some of the people we serve fear for their own lives, not because 
of a terrorist attack or a natural disaster; they are afraid that 
somebody who is supposed to love them or support them will hurt or even 
kill them. This is an upsetting issue, but one we need to face head on, 
and I am glad we are addressing it today.
  Domestic violence and sexual assault are harsh realities. They know 
no class, race, or economic limitations. Although we have made good 
progress curbing domestic and sexual violence over the past decade, we 
still have a lot of work to do.
  The legislation before us takes another step toward our goal of 
ending domestic and sexual violence. It might not go far enough for 
some, but it is progress, and I am proud to support it.
  Over the years, the Violence Against Women Act has helped reduce the 
rates of domestic and dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, 
but the numbers are still stunning. This bill gives us an opportunity 
to help victims get out of a dangerous situation. We have an obligation 
to pass this reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
  Unfortunately, Montana is no different from the rest of the Nation. 
There were almost 5,000 cases of domestic violence or sexual assault in 
2011, and 10 percent of them involve Montana's kids.
  Federal funding is crucial for Montana shelters, crisis lines, mental 
health services, and victim advocates. The domestic and sexual violence 
programs in Montana rely heavily on Violence Against Women Act funding 
to keep women and children safe and to administer the important 
programs we have operating in Montana. It will also promote changes in 
the culture of law enforcement, pushing governments and courts to treat 
violence against women and children as a serious violation of criminal 
law and to hold the offenders accountable.
  The Violence Against Women Act helped a constituent of mine in 
Billings rebuild her life after she was the victim of domestic 
violence. Maria Martin was beaten by her boyfriend. He threatened to 
kill her and her three daughters. Her cries for help were answered by 
the police who rescued her from a violent attack, but it is the 
programs supported by the Violence Against Women Act that helped Maria 
rebuild her life.
  The Violence Against Women Act provides funding to strengthen law 
enforcement, prosecution, and victim services. Each community has 
flexibility to use these funds in ways that respond to folks most in 
need and take into account unique cultural and geographic factors. This 
is especially important for a rural State such as Montana.
  I am proud of my work with the Judiciary Committee to ensure that the 
set-aside of funding for sexual assault services does not disadvantage 
service providers in Montana who often offer many services in one 
place. I wish to thank Chairman Leahy for his efforts to address this 
important issue.
  For States and cities with specialized programs, this wasn't a big 
concern. In Montana and other rural States, we have county and regional 
service coalitions. That means funds must be flexible enough so that we 
can serve everyone who walks in. If rural areas had to carve out funds 
for each type of service, people wouldn't get what they need to regain 
their footing. The next closest facility might be 90 miles away. That 
is not a referral; it is not help; it is another obstacle for folks who 
are already facing a life-threatening situation.
  Domestic violence crimes also take a heavy toll on those who survive 
the violence. The vast majority of survivors report lingering effects 
such as posttraumatic stress disorder, a serious injury directly from 
the abuse, missing school or work, higher frequencies of headaches, 
chronic pain, and poor physical and mental health.
  And while domestic violence affects every community, every race, and 
every rung of the economic ladder, the problem is even more severe in 
Montana's Indian country. In fact, violence against Native women and 
children is at an epidemic level. As Montana's only member of the 
Senate Indian Affairs Committee, I have had several hearings on 
domestic and sexual violence. American Indian women suffer from violent 
crime at a rate 3\1/2\ times greater than the national average. Nearly 
40 percent of all Native American women will experience domestic 
violence. One in three will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. 
Murder is the third leading cause of death among Indian women.
  In response to our hearing, I was proud to join Chairman Akaka and 
many others on the committee in introducing the Stand Against Violence 
and Empower Native Women Act, or SAVE Native Women Act, which is now 
included in the bill before us today.
  We owe it to the women and children of Montana to intervene--to 
provide resources to those programs which are on the ground, and to 
providers who are in the trenches. They offer safe havens, including 
support and educational services to help survivors of sexual or 
domestic violence break free of the cycle of violence. They help 
children who have lived with violence understand and make sense of what 
has happened so that they are less likely to get entangled in future 
abusive relationships. They help survivors gain the strength and the 
know-how to advocate for themselves in the legal system and in their 
relationships.

[[Page 5473]]

  By passing this bill now, we will continue to make progress toward 
empowering communities to protect all citizens, particularly the most 
vulnerable--women and children. As I stated before, this is not just an 
opportunity; this is an obligation that we have to improve our 
communities, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I thank the Chair, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                      Student Loan Interest Rates

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, next month students all over the United 
States will begin graduating from college. There is a lot of pride in 
that experience. Family and friends will gather and celebrate. These 
young graduates are going to be filled with hope and expectation, and 
gratitude to those who helped them reach this milestone in their lives. 
But they are also going to be graduating with debt--in some cases 
massive amounts of debt.
  Ninety-six percent of for-profit college students will graduate with 
a debt of $33,000. Fifteen percent of them--one out of six--will 
default on their loans within 2 years. There is now more than $1 
trillion in outstanding student loan debt. As I have mentioned on the 
Senate floor several times, a little over a year ago, for the first 
time in history, student loan debt in America surpassed credit card 
debt.
  One of the reasons there has been such a huge influx is that college 
costs continue to rise at unsustainable rates. Tuition fees at 4-year 
schools have rocketed up 300 percent from 1990 through 2011. Over the 
same period, broad inflation was just 75 percent. Even health care 
costs rose at half the rate of the cost of higher education.
  The average for-profit college costs $30,900 a year in tuition and 
fees. Private nonprofit institutions are not too far behind. The 
average tuition and fees run about $26,600. Schools with larger 
endowments charge even more--upwards of $50,000 to $57,000 in total 
fees. They use their endowment to give students large financial aid 
packages, which is admirable, but it has consequences. The elevated 
sticker price for these schools provides for-profit colleges the cover 
to raise their prices to similar levels.
  Let me remind you, for-profit schools, for-profit colleges in America 
get up to and more than 90 percent of their revenue directly from the 
Federal Government. They are 10 percent away from being Federal 
agencies.
  Students graduating this year have one advantage: If they took out 
Federal subsidized loans, their interest rate is low. In 2007, Congress 
set interest rates on subsidized Federal student loans for the last 
several years. Current graduates have low, affordable interest rates on 
their Federal loans, ranging from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, depending 
on the year they took out the loan.
  Graduates next year may not be so lucky. The interest rate goes up to 
6.8 percent for all unless Congress acts. That is because these 
interest rates are set to double for 740 million students across the 
country on July 1 and will only be changed if Congress acts. That is 
going to affect 365,000-plus borrowers in my State of Illinois. Each 
borrower in Illinois will save $1,000-plus over the lifetime of their 
loan if current interest rates of 3.4 percent continue. Across the 
State, borrowers will save a total of $387,000.
  Every week in my office we hear from students who would be directly 
affected by interest rate increases. One of them is George Jacobs, a 
constituent of mine and a graduate of the International Academy of 
Design and Technology in Chicago, a for-profit college owned by the 
Career Education Corporation.
  Every day of his life, George Jacobs regrets that he ever attended 
this school. He is 29 years old. His current private student loan 
balance has ballooned to $107,000. The original loan was $60,000. But 
with a variable interest rate, George has been paying anywhere from 7 
percent to 13.9 percent. Combine that with his Federal loan balance, 
and his total outstanding student loan debt is $142,000. George is not 
even 30 years old, and he already has the debt the size of some 
people's mortgages on their homes. Unlike a lot of his peers who attend 
for-profit colleges, George has a job in his field of study. His annual 
salary is $45,000, but since his lender will not let him consolidate 
his loans, his monthly payment is $1,364. Half of his income goes to 
pay his loan.
  Unfortunately, because of high interest rates, very little of his 
payment reduces the principal. He does not know when he will possibly 
pay off this loan. When asked if he has tried to work out a plan with 
his lender, he says: They won't talk to me. They just don't care.
  George was the first in his immediate family to attend college. He 
did not ask people for advice on financial matters. He trusted the 
school. George was subjected to high-pressure sales that some for-
profit colleges use.
  Reflecting on that experience now, George believes the school took 
advantage of him. He believes the school's primary focus is to identify 
people they can make money off of. George owes about $29,000 in Federal 
loans. With low interest rates, his monthly payment is $230 a month on 
the Federal loans--an amount he says is not a real problem.
  He is married, and although he and his wife own a car, he does not 
think they will ever qualify for a mortgage. He is 29 years old.
  George is not the only one affected by the private student loans. His 
parents are in their fifties. To help George, they cosigned his private 
student loans. They cannot refinance the mortgage on their home because 
of George's outstanding debt.
  There was a story in the Washington Post about 2 weeks ago of a 
woman--a grandmother--who now has her Social Security check garnished 
because she was kind enough to cosign her granddaughter's college loan. 
Her granddaughter has defaulted. Her grandmother is watching her Social 
Security check reduced.
  Making college affordable should not be partisan. It affects 
everybody. Just this week, during a news conference in Pennsylvania, 
Gov. Mitt Romney acknowledged the tough job market new graduates face 
and expressed support for keeping interest rates low. He said:

       I fully support the effort to extend the low interest rate 
     on student loans . . . . temporary relief on interest rates 
     for students . . . in part because of the extraordinarily 
     poor conditions in the job market.

  Higher education is not a luxury anymore. It is part of the American 
dream that many of us bought into and invested in. An educated 
workforce will make us a stronger nation. By 2018, 63 percent of jobs 
will require postsecondary education. Keeping debt levels low and 
manageable for college graduates is essential.
  George Jacobs, like so many other students I have spoken about on 
this floor, is going to spend the rest of his young adult life paying 
for student loans. There has always been a lot of talk around here 
about mortgage crises--and rightly so--but think about the 17- and 18- 
and 19-year-old students signing away their income for the next 30 
years before they can even dream of owning a home.
  When we get back from the break in about 10 days, we are going to 
consider legislation on making sure student loan interest rates are 
manageable. There is more to this issue. We have to deal with the 
reality the President raised in his State of the Union Address. This 
spiraling cost of higher education is unsustainable and unfair--
fundamentally unfair.
  We say to the young people: Get educated for your future.
  They follow our advice and walk into the student loan trap. 
Unfortunately, many for-profit schools are the worst offenders. These 
schools have enrollment that has grown 225 percent over

[[Page 5474]]

the past 10 years. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the 
enrollment of for-profit colleges in my State has grown 556 percent 
over the last 10 years. They enrolled 1.2 million students in 2009. In 
the 2008-2009 academic year, the GAO found for-profit colleges took in 
$24 billion in title IV aid; 4-year for-profit schools an average of 
$27,900 a year before aid, as compared to $16,900 for public 4-year 
universities.
  The chief executives at most of the for-profit schools--parent 
companies--make many times more than their counterparts in nonprofit 
schools. Remember, 90 percent-plus of their revenue comes directly from 
the Federal Government. These are not great entrepreneurs; these are 
folks who have managed to tap into one of the most generous Federal 
subsidies in the law.
  Five years ago, we gave them a break. In the bankruptcy bill, we said 
private for-profit schools will be the only private loans in America 
that are not dischargeable in bankruptcy, which means you carry them to 
the grave. So the for-profit schools give these private loans to 
students, and their parents sign up for them. When it is all said and 
done, they end up saddled with this impossible debt for a lifetime. 
That is not even to go to the question about whether they are receiving 
any kind of valuable education in the process.
  For-profits, incidentally, spent 21 percent-plus of their expenses on 
instruction--21 percent on instruction. It was 29.5 percent at public 
institutions, 32.7 percent at private nonprofit institutions.
  USA Today reported that for-profits educate fewer than 10 percent of 
students, take in 25 percent of all Federal aid to education, and 
account for 44 percent of defaults among borrowers. Remember those 
numbers: 10, 25, and 44. They are taking in 10 percent of the students, 
taking in 25 percent of all the Federal aid to education, and 44 
percent of the defaults on student loans are attributable to these for-
profit schools.
  According to the Project on Student Debt, 96 percent of for-profit 
college students graduate with some debt, compared to 72 percent of 
private nonprofit grads, 62 percent of public school grads. The Project 
on Student Debt also reported that borrowers who graduated from for-
profit 4-year programs have an average debt of $33,000, compared to 
$27,600 at private nonprofits, $20,000 at public schools.
  Last year, the Department of Education released a report showing that 
for-profit schools have a student loan default rate overall of 15 
percent, compared with 7.2 percent at public schools, 4.6 percent at 
private nonprofit schools. If I were to stand before you and talk about 
any other business in America, heavily subsidized by the Federal 
Government--beyond 90 percent of all the revenues they take in--that is 
luring students and their families into unmanageable debt, I would hope 
both sides of the aisle would stand and say that is unacceptable. How 
can we subsidize an operation that is causing such hardship on students 
and their families--a hardship they are going to carry for a lifetime.
  George Jacobs, at age 29, is writing off the possibility of ever 
owning a home because he signed up at one of those for-profit schools 
in my State.
  The Senate HELP Committee also discovered that out of $640 million in 
post-9/11 GI benefits, a bill we were all proud to vote for, out of the 
$640 million that flowed to for-profit schools in the last academic 
year, $439 million went to the largest 15 publicly traded companies. 
For-profit colleges are receiving $1 out of every $2 in military 
tuition assistance, according to the Department of Defense, and more 
than 60 percent of education benefits available to military spouses go 
to for-profit schools.
  This is significant. We capped Federal aid to for-profit schools at 
90 percent of their revenue, but we created an exception for the GI 
bill. So some of them are up to 95 percent Federal subsidy and still we 
have these terrible results and terrible indebtedness.
  Students at for-profit colleges have lower success rates than similar 
students in public and nonprofit colleges, including graduation rates, 
employment outcomes, debt levels, and loan default rates. Yet the 
Department of Defense is paying more to for-profit schools for the GI 
bill than public and nonprofit institutions.
  I wish to have printed in the Record, along with my remarks, an 
article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, April 
18. It tells the story of Jodi Romine, who between the ages of 18 and 
22 took out $74,000 in students loans. She attended Kent State 
University, a public university in Ohio. It seemed like a good 
investment at the time. But now it is going to delay her career, her 
marriage, and her decision to have children.
  Ms. Romine's $900-a-month loan payments eats up 60 percent of the 
paycheck she earns as a bank teller in South Carolina, the best job she 
could get after graduating from college.
  Her fiance spends 40 percent of his paycheck on student loans. They 
each work more than 60 hours a week and volunteer where they can to 
help the local high school's football and basketball teams. Ms. Romine 
works a second job as a waitress, making all her loan payments on time. 
She cannot buy a house. They cannot visit their families in Ohio as 
often as they would like or spend money to even go out.
  Plans to marry or have children are on hold, says Ms. Romine, ``I am 
just looking for some way to manage my finances.'' This is an 
indication of a debt crisis that is coming. It is different, I would 
agree, than the mortgage debt crisis we faced. Smaller in magnitude, 
perhaps, but no less insidious and no less of a problem for us when it 
comes to the growth of our economy.
  I have a couple bills pending. One of them goes to a very basic 
question: Should any college, public, private, profit, nonprofit, be 
allowed to lure a student into a private student loan when they are 
still eligible for government loans? In other words, should that not be 
one of the causes for a discharge in bankruptcy? It is fraud. It is 
fraud to say to that student: You have to take out this private student 
loan, even though the school knows that student is still eligible for 
low-interest rate accommodating Federal loans. They are luring them 
into a debt that is unnecessary and a debt which is crushing, in some 
circumstances.
  At the very minimum, that should be considered fraud in a bankruptcy 
court, and that debt should be dischargeable in bankruptcy because of 
the failure of the school to disclose that the student still has 
eligibility for a Federal loan.
  Secondly, I know I am probably crying in the wilderness, but I still 
find it inconceivable that the only private sector business loan in 
America that is not dischargeable in bankruptcy goes to these heavily 
subsidized for-profit schools. First, we lured them with Federal 
money--90 percent-plus--and then we turn around and say: And we will 
protect you. When the student who is likely to default ends up 
defaulting, we will make sure they still have the debt, carrying it to 
the grave. What were we thinking to give this one business this kind of 
fantastic Federal subsidy and this kind of amazing support in the 
Bankruptcy Code?
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, along with 
that article from the Wall Street Journal, a recent article from 
Barron's of April 16.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 17, 2012]

           To Pay Off Loans, Grads Put Off Marriage, Children

                         (By Sue Shellenbarger)

       Between the ages of 18 and 22, Jodi Romine took out $74,000 
     in student loans to help finance her business-management 
     degree at Kent State University in Ohio. What seemed like a 
     good investment will delay her career, her marriage and 
     decision to have children.
       Ms. Romine's $900-a-month loan payments eat up 60% of the 
     paycheck she earns as a bank teller in Beaufort, S.C., the 
     best job she could get after graduating in 2008. Her fiance 
     Dean Hawkins, 31, spends 40% of his paycheck on student 
     loans. They each work more than 60 hours a week. He teaches 
     as well as coaches high-school baseball and football teams, 
     studies in a full-time master's degree program, and 
     moonlights weekends as a server at a restaurant. Ms. Romine, 
     now 26, also works a second job, as a waitress. She is making 
     all her loan payments on time.

[[Page 5475]]

       They can't buy a house, visit their families in Ohio as 
     often as they would like or spend money on dates. Plans to 
     marry or have children are on hold, says Ms. Romine. ``I'm 
     just looking for some way to manage my finances.''
       High school's Class of 2012 is getting ready for college, 
     with students in their late teens and early 20s facing one of 
     the biggest financial decisions they will ever make.
       Total U.S. student-loan debt outstanding topped $1 trillion 
     last year, according to the federal Consumer Financial 
     Protection Bureau, and it continues to rise as current 
     students borrow more and past students fall behind on 
     payments. Moody's Investors Service says borrowers with 
     private student loans are defaulting or falling behind on 
     payments at twice prerecession rates.
       Most students get little help from colleges in choosing 
     loans or calculating payments. Most pre-loan counseling for 
     government loans is done online, and many students pay only 
     fleeting attention to documents from private lenders. Many 
     borrowers ``are very confused, and don't have a good sense of 
     what they've taken on,'' says Deanne Loonin, an attorney for 
     the National Consumer Law Center in Boston and head of its 
     Student Loan Borrower Assistance Project.
       More than half of student borrowers fail to max out 
     government loans before taking out riskier private loans, 
     according to research by the nonprofit Project on Student 
     Debt. In 2006, Barnard College, in New York, started one-on-
     one counseling for students applying for private loans. 
     Students borrowing from private lenders dropped 74% the next 
     year, says Nanette DiLauro, director of financial aid. In 
     2007, Mount Holyoke College started a similar program, and 
     half the students who received counseling changed their 
     borrowing plans, says Gail W. Holt, a financial-services 
     official at the Massachusetts school. San Diego State 
     University started counseling and tracking student borrowers 
     in 2010 and has seen private loans decline.
       The implications last a lifetime. A recent survey by the 
     National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys says 
     members are seeing a big increase in people whose student 
     loans are forcing them to delay major purchases or starting 
     families.
       Looking back, Ms. Romine wishes she had taken only ``a bare 
     minimum'' of student loans. She paid some of her costs during 
     college by working part time as a waitress. Now, she wishes 
     she had worked even more. Given a second chance, ``I would 
     never have touched a private loan--ever,'' she says.
       Ms. Romine hopes to solve the problem by advancing her 
     career. At the bank where she works, a former supervisor says 
     she is a hard working, highly capable employee. ``Jodi is 
     doing the best she can,'' says Michael Matthews, a Beaufort, 
     S.C., bankruptcy attorney who is familiar with Ms. Romine's 
     situation. ``But she will be behind the eight-ball for 
     years.''
       Private student loans often carry uncapped, variable 
     interest rates and aren't required to include flexible 
     repayment options. In contrast, government loans offer fixed 
     interest rates and flexible options, such as income-based 
     repayment and deferral for hardship or public service.
       Steep increases in college costs are to blame for the 
     student-loan debt burden, and most student loans are now made 
     by the government, says Richard Hunt, president of the 
     Consumer Bankers Association, a private lenders' industry 
     group.
       Many private lenders encourage students to plan ahead on 
     how to finance college, so ``your eyes are open on what it's 
     going to cost you and how you will manage that,'' says a 
     spokeswoman for Sallie Mae, a Reston, Va., student-loan 
     concern. Federal rules implemented in 2009 require lenders to 
     make a series of disclosures to borrowers, so that ``you are 
     made aware multiple times before the loan is disbursed'' of 
     various lending options, the spokeswoman says.
       Both private and government loans, however, lack ``the most 
     fundamental protections we take for granted with every other 
     type of loan,'' says Alan Collinge, founder of 
     StudentLoanJustice.org, an advocacy group. When borrowers 
     default, collection agencies can hound them for life, because 
     unlike other kinds of debt, there is no statute of 
     limitations on collections. And while other kinds of debt can 
     be discharged in bankruptcy, student loans must still be paid 
     barring ``undue hardship,'' a legal test that most courts 
     have interpreted very narrowly.
       Deferring payments to avoid default is costly, too. 
     Danielle Jokela of Chicago earned a two-year degree and 
     worked for a while to build savings before deciding to pursue 
     a dream by enrolling at age 25 at a private, for-profit 
     college in Chicago to study interior design. The college's 
     staff helped her fill out applications for $79,000 in 
     government and private loans. ``I had no clue'' about likely 
     future earnings or the size of future payments, which 
     ballooned by her 2008 graduation to more than $100,000 after 
     interest and fees.
       She couldn't find a job as an interior designer and twice 
     had to ask lenders to defer payments for a few months. After 
     interest plus forbearance fees that were added to the loans, 
     she still owes $98,000, even after making payments for most 
     of five years, says Ms. Jokela, 32, who is working as an 
     independent contractor doing administrative tasks for a 
     construction company.
       By the time she pays off the loans 25 years from now, she 
     will have paid $211,000. In an attempt to build savings, she 
     and her husband, Mike, 32, a customer-service specialist, are 
     selling their condo. Renting an apartment will save $600 a 
     month. Ms. Jokela has given up on her hopes of getting an 
     M.B.A., starting her own interior-design firm or having 
     children. ``How could I consider having children if I can 
     barely support myself?'' she says.
                                  ____


                     [From Barron's, Apr. 16, 2012]

                              What a Drag!

                         (By Jonathan R. Laing)


 At $1 trillion and climbing, the growing student-loan debt could be a 
             burden on economic growth for decades to come.

       You don't need a Ph.D. in math to know that student-loan 
     debt is compounding at an alarming rate. In the last six 
     weeks alone, two new government reports have detailed the 
     growing student debt burden, which has no doubt contributed 
     to the weak economic recovery and could remain a drag on 
     growth for decades to come. First came a report early last 
     month from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York stating that 
     the $870 billion in loans carried by some 37 million present 
     and former students exceeded the money owed by all Americans 
     for auto loans, as of the Sept. 30 end of the government's 
     2011 fiscal year. It's also greater than credit-card debt. 
     The report went on to note that delinquencies, officially 
     reported at about 10% of outstanding loans, were actually 
     more than twice that number when things like loan-payment 
     deferrals for current full-time students were properly 
     accounted for.
       But that was just prelude for a speech in late March, when 
     an official of the new federal watchdog agency, the Consumer 
     Financial Protection Bureau, asserted that total student debt 
     outstanding actually topped $1 trillion. The Fed, it seems, 
     failed to account for much of the interest that had been 
     capitalized, or added to outstanding loan balances on 
     delinquent and defaulted loans.
       The cause of the binge is the unfortunate concatenation of 
     steeply rising tuitions in the face of stagnating family 
     incomes, a precipitous decline in states' funding of public 
     universities and two-year colleges, and the burgeoning of 
     avaricious for-profit colleges and universities--which rely 
     on federally guaranteed student loans for practically all of 
     their revenue, in exchange for dubious course offerings.
       Ever-rising tuitions are the biggest part of the problem. 
     As the chart nearby shows, tuition and fees at four-year 
     schools rocketed up by 300% from 1990 through 2011. Over the 
     same period, broad inflation was just 75% and health-care 
     costs rose 150%.
       However you apportion blame, it boils down to this: Two-
     thirds of the college seniors who graduated in 2010 had 
     student loans averaging $25,250, according to estimates in a 
     survey by the Institute for College Access & Success, an 
     independent watchdog group. For students at for-profit 
     schools, average per-student debt is even greater for 
     training in such fields as cosmetology, massage therapy, and 
     criminal justice, as well as more traditional academic 
     subjects.
       Whether you have kids in school or they've long since 
     graduated, this is a big deal. Graduates lugging huge debt 
     loads with few job opportunities to pay them off are 
     reluctant to buy cars, purchase homes, or start families. 
     Family formations, a key bulwark to home prices, have been in 
     a seemingly inexplicable funk over the past five years or so.
       Prospects are even more harrowing for defaulters on student 
     debt. They are virtually excluded from the credit economy, 
     unable to get mortgages, take out auto loans, or even obtain 
     credit cards. ``We are creating a zombie generation of young 
     people, larded with debt, and, in many cases dropouts without 
     any diploma,'' says Mark Zandi, the chief economist at 
     Moody's Analytics.
       Debt taken on by students pursuing professional degrees in 
     graduate schools is even more daunting. Federal Reserve 
     Chairman Ben Bernanke turned some heads in an aside during 
     congressional testimony last month when he said that his son, 
     who is in medical school, would probably accumulate total 
     debt of $400,000 before completing his studies. Law students, 
     even at non-elite law schools, often run up debt of as much 
     as $150,000 over the course of earning their degrees. This 
     even though top-paying law jobs at major corporate law firms 
     are shrinking, consigning many graduates to lives of relative 
     penury. Many are resorting to lawsuits against their schools, 
     charging, with some justification, that the schools gilded 
     the employment opportunities that awaited graduates.
       It's not just students who are being crushed by student-
     debt loads. Kenneth Lin, of the credit-rating Website Credit 
     Karma, found something astounding when he examined credit 
     reports on literally millions of households nationwide. 
     Student debt borrowing by the 34-to-49 age cohort has soared 
     by more than 40% over the past three years, faster than for 
     any other age group. He attributes this in large part to bad 
     economic times that prompted many to seek more training to 
     enhance their career prospects.

[[Page 5476]]

     This is also the age group that the for-profit schools 
     mercilessly mine with late-night television ads, online 
     advertising, and aggressive cold-calling to entice with their 
     wares.
       Also, some folks in their 30s are obviously having trouble 
     paying off student loans taken out earlier in their lives 
     because of high unemployment rates and disappointing career 
     outcomes. According to the aforementioned Fed report, the 30-
     to-39 age group owes more than any other age decile, with a 
     per-borrower debt load of $28,500. They're followed by 
     borrowers between the ages of 40 and 49, who had outstanding 
     balances of $26,000. This is what happens to folks when loans 
     go delinquent or fall into default (nine missed payments in a 
     row), as back interest is added to principal and collection 
     costs mount.
       Parents, too, are getting caught up in the student-loan 
     debt explosion. Loans to parents to help finance their kids' 
     post-secondary education have jumped 75% since the 2005 06 
     school year, to an estimated $100 billion in federally backed 
     loans; this according to data compiled by Mark Kantrowitz, 
     the publisher of the authoritative student-aid Website 
     FinAid.org. That's certainly a painful burden to bear for 
     baby boomers, who are fast approaching retirement bereft of 
     much of the home equity they'd been counting on to finance 
     their golden years.
       To be sure, student loans aren't the debt bomb that many 
     doomsayers claim, poised to destroy the U.S. financial system 
     as the residential-mortgage-market collapse nearly did. 
     Moody's Mark Zandi ticks off a number of reasons why:
       Student loans are just one-tenth the size of the home-
     mortgage market. Subprime mortgages, including alt-A, option 
     ARMs (adjustable-rate mortgages), and other funky constructs, 
     were bundled into $2.5 trillion worth of securitizations at 
     their peak, ensuring that the damage wrought by their 
     collapse spread far and wide, destroying the value of U.S. 
     families' biggest asset. The impact of these mortgage 
     securitizations was only amplified by huge bets made by 
     financial institutions like insurer American International 
     Group (ticker: AIG) on the home-mortgage market in the form 
     of credit-default swaps and the like.
       Finally, and most important, the bulk of the student debt 
     outstanding, some $870 billion of the total, is guaranteed by 
     the federal government--and ultimately taxpayers. ``Thus, the 
     damage can be contained, at least until the next recession,'' 
     Zandi asserts. ``We should worry more about more subtle 
     things like how indebtedness is causing the U.S. to fall 
     behind some . . . emerging nations in the proportion of our 
     population with college degrees than about any direct 
     financial system fallout.''
       The eventual bill to taxpayers on defaulted student loans 
     won't be overwhelming. That's because Uncle Sam has enough 
     collection powers to make a juice-loan collector envious and 
     most debtors cry, well, ``Uncle!'' Among other things, the 
     government can garnish the wages and glom onto income-tax 
     refunds or Social Security payments of defaulters. And 
     student debts are treated like criminal judgments, alimony 
     and the like when it comes to bankruptcy. They can be 
     discharged only under the rarest of circumstances, no matter 
     how fraught the deadbeats' financial circumstances have 
     become.
       A recent story by Bloomberg's John Hechinger describes the 
     hard-nosed tactics used by collection agencies hired by the 
     Department of Education to go after the defaulters on $67 
     billion in loans. The collectors, operating out of boiler 
     rooms, badger their marks with all manner of threats in 
     return for bonuses, gift cards, and trips to foreign resorts 
     if they pry at least nine months of payments above a certain 
     minimum out of the defaulters. No mention is made of more 
     lenient payment plans.
       Such strategies apparently work, tawdry though they may be. 
     The government claims it collects around 85 cents on the 
     dollar of loan defaults. By contrast, credit-card companies 
     are lucky to collect 10 cents on the dollar from borrowers in 
     default.
       Changes in repayment plans instituted in 2009 allow some 
     student-loan borrowers in extreme hardship to pay monthly on 
     the basis of what they can afford rather than what they owe. 
     Under this ``income-based repayment plan,'' after 25 years of 
     payments based on the borrower's discretionary income, the 
     remainder of the loan will be forgiven. Thanks to the Obama 
     administration, that number will soon be just 20 years.
       Students going into public-service jobs like teaching can 
     receive a get-out-of-debtors'-prison card after 10 years of 
     income-based payments.
       But these programs aren't likely to add much to the 
     taxpayer tab on student-loan defaults, since the 
     participation in the programs has been light (550,000 out of 
     37 million student borrowers), and the money collected is 
     better than nothing.
       Nor are the major players in the private, nongovernment-
     backed student-loan market, such as SLM, formerly known as 
     Sallie Mae (SLM), Discover Financial Services (DFS), Wells 
     Fargo (WFC) and PNC Financial Services (PNC), likely to 
     suffer much from delinquencies or defaults. Their student-
     loan balances, at around $130 billion, are relatively 
     manageable. They also were able to slip into 2005 legislation 
     a provision prohibiting student-loan borrowers from 
     discharging that debt in bankruptcy, mimicking the 
     government's leverage over defaulters.
       The private student-loan industry has also tightened up its 
     underwriting standards since the financial crisis, demanding 
     higher FICO, or credit, scores from borrowers and parents to 
     co-sign most education loans. However, Fitch recently warned 
     that private student-loan asset-backed securities, especially 
     bundled before the recent recession with less stringent 
     standards, are expected to continue to suffer from ``high 
     defaults and ratings pressure.'' Little surprise then that 
     JPMorgan Chase (JPM) announced last week that it would stop 
     underwriting student loans as of July 1, except to customers 
     of the bank.
       Despite all this, some observers blame the government for 
     the debt spiral--by making subsidized loans overly available 
     to students. Without easy federal Pell grants (up to $5,550 a 
     year for full-time students at four-year colleges) and 
     federal undergraduate loans, now capped at an aggregate of 
     $57,500, there would have been no spiral in college costs.
       But this smacks of blaming the victims--students encumbered 
     by debt and taxpayers ultimately subsidizing and guaranteeing 
     the loans.
       The perps clearly seem to be the so-called nonprofit 
     universities and colleges that have been gunning tuition and 
     fees ever higher since 1980, vastly in excess of consumer 
     inflation, health care, and nearly any other cost index one 
     can imagine.
       Just take a look at the chart nearby, helpfully provided by 
     the College Board in its latest 2011 ``Trends in College 
     Pricing.'' Inflation-adjusted, private four-year college 
     tuition and fees have jumped 181% on a smooth but 
     relentlessly higher glide path. Public four-year college 
     tuitions have risen by an even larger 268%, although it's 
     clearly a case of catch-up. In-state tuition this year 
     averages only $8,244, compared with the privates' $28,500 
     average tab. Student-debt outstanding, meanwhile, is growing 
     far faster, climbing ninefold since 1997.
       The College Board and private colleges and universities 
     obdurately defend themselves, saying the ``sticker price'' in 
     no way represents the actual price paid by families after 
     taking into account federal and state grant aid, federal-tax 
     breaks to families paying for college, and, of course, 
     scholarship money provided by the schools themselves. In fact 
     on a ``net-price'' basis, private four-year tuition costs, at 
     $12,970, were slightly lower than in the academic year five 
     years ago, the report brags.
       That assertion is true as far as it goes. But the lower net 
     price is not the result of the munificence of schools' 
     scholarship programs, but is almost solely due to large 
     increases made under President Obama in the size of Pell 
     grants and educational tax credits. Throw in room and board--
     ``not really part of the cost of attending college,'' the 
     report says dismissively--and college costs are indeed higher 
     this year. Room and board--$8,887 on average for in-state 
     students at public schools in the current school year and 
     $10,089 at private colleges--have long been a means for 
     colleges to make stealth price increases.
       Ivy League schools with total sticker prices including room 
     and board of $50,000 to $57,000 in the current academic year 
     use their large endowments to give out large dollops of 
     student aid. In fact, Yale and Harvard are said to offer 
     scholarship money or assistance to families with incomes up 
     to $180,000. As a result, students graduating from elite 
     schools like Princeton, Yale, and Williams College are able 
     to graduate with total debt under $10,000, making them among 
     the lowest-debt college and universities in the country.
       But the Ivies can't be absolved of all blame in the current 
     debt mess. They began the sticker-price arms race in the 
     early 1980s, reasoning correctly, it turns out, that they 
     could boost prices with impunity because of the scarcity 
     value, social cachet and quality of the education they offer. 
     They've led the charge ever since, even getting caught by the 
     U.S. Justice Department for colluding on tuition increases 
     and grant offers to applicants in the early '90s. They signed 
     a consent decree neither admitting to nor denying the 
     charges.
       Don't think that state governments--which have been 
     methodically cutting appropriations to higher public 
     education for the last decade--aren't aware of the still-
     yawning gap between the sticker prices of state and private 
     schools, which means that tuitions are likely to continue to 
     rise at break-neck speed.
       Too, elevated sticker prices by the privates have given 
     cover to for-profit schools, including University of Phoenix, 
     owned by Apollo Group (APOL), Bridgepoint Education (BPI), 
     ITT Educational Services (ESI), Washington Post's (WPO) 
     Kaplan University, and Career Education (CECO), a capacious 
     umbrella under which to nestle. The schools live off of Pell 
     grants, federally backed student loans, and, increasingly, 
     the GI bill for veterans. Thus, they derive as much as 90% or 
     more of their revenue from such government money, so they 
     concentrate their recruiting efforts on the less affluent in 
     order to qualify

[[Page 5477]]

     for such government largess. (For a look at ITT Educational's 
     practices, see ``Clever Is as Clever Does.'')
       The industry's course content is often risible, and 
     graduation rates horrible. Students naively hoping for a big 
     jump in earnings power end up saddled with debt averaging 
     about $33,000, with little to show for their efforts. 
     Students at for-profits make up about 10% of the post-
     secondary-school population. Yet according to congressional 
     researchers on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and 
     Pensions Committee, which has been investigating the for-
     profit industry, they account for between 40% and 50% of all 
     student-loan defaults.
       The student-debt crisis is emblematic of issues bedeviling 
     the U.S. as a whole, such as income inequality and declining 
     social mobility. For as scholarship money is increasingly 
     diverted from the needy to achievers with high grade-point 
     averages and test scores, boosting institutional rankings, 
     the perhaps less-privileged applicant is thrust into the 
     position of having to take on gobs of debt, indirectly 
     subsidizing the education of more affluent classmates. The 
     race to the career top is likely over long before graduation.
       Student debt also helps sustain many school hierarchies 
     that are virtually bereft of cost controls--the high-salaried 
     tenured professorates, million-dollar-a-year presidents and 
     provosts, huge administrative bureaucracies, and lavish 
     physical plants.
       The debt game will continue until students and their 
     families revolt or run out of additional borrowing capacity. 
     Don't expect the educational establishment to rein in its 
     spending. Things have been too cushy for too long.

  Mr. DURBIN. They identified those who were offering these private 
student loans. The major players in the private nongovernment-backed 
student loan market: SLM let me translate--formerly known as Sallie 
Mae, Discover Financial Services, Wells Fargo, and PNC Financial 
Services. Even with the defaults, if there are defaults on these loans, 
these loans are protected because they continue forever.
  I do not know if my colleagues will join me in this, but all I ask 
them to do is go home and please talk to some of the families in their 
States, and they will find this student loan crisis is not just 
something manufactured by politicians; it is real, and we are complicit 
in it. When we allow low-performing and worthless schools to receive 
Federal aid to education, students and their families are lured into 
believing these are real schools.
  Go to the Internet and put in the words ``college'' or 
``university,'' click the mouse and watch what happens. You will be 
inundated with ads from for-profit schools. Some of them will tell you: 
Go to school online. One of them ran a television ad here in 
Washington--I think they have taken it off the air now--that showed 
this lovely young girl who was in her bedroom in her pajamas with her 
laptop computer on the bed. The purpose of the ad was: You can graduate 
from college at home in your pajamas. It is a ruse. It is a farce. It 
is a fraud.
  Many times these schools offer nothing but debt for these students. 
The students who drop out get the worst of the circumstances. They do 
not even get the worthless diploma from the for-profit schools; all 
they get is the debt. That is not fair. If we have a responsibility--
and I think we do--to families across America, for goodness' sake, on a 
bipartisan basis, we should step up and deal with the student debt 
crisis and the for-profit schools that are exploiting it.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
up to 15 minutes as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Would the Chair please let me know when there is 2 
minutes left.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. I will.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I am glad I had a chance to hear my 
distinguished friend from Illinois speak about student loans and 
college costs. All of us would like to make it easier for Americans to 
be able to afford college. At another time, I will speak about some of 
the other options available. The average tuition at 4-year public 
colleges in America is $8,200. The average tuition for a community 
college is $3,000.
  I know at the University of Tennessee, where tuition is about $7,400, 
at a very good campus in Knoxville, virtually all the freshmen show up 
with a $4,000 Hope Scholarship, which is a State scholarship. Of 
course, if they are lower income students, they are also eligible for 
Pell grants and other federal aid.
  So we will continue to work, on a bipartisan basis, to make college 
an opportunity available to students. If there are abuses in the for-
profit sector or other sectors of higher education, we should work on 
those together.
  Mr. INHOFE. Would the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Of course.
  Mr. INHOFE. I do not want to change the Senator's line of thought. It 
was beautiful and I want to hear every word. Madam President, I ask 
unanimous consent that after the conclusion of the remarks of the 
Senator from Tennessee, that there will be 10 minutes given to the 
Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Barrasso, and that I have the remainder of 
the Republican time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Alexander pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2366 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.


                            A Second Opinion

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, week after week, I have come to the 
floor to give a doctor's second opinion about the health care law. I 
tell my colleague from Tennessee that I should have him join me on a 
weekly basis in these second opinions, because he has clearly stated a 
number of things in this health care law that are hurting people. He 
talked about his experience as a Governor and the impact of Medicaid 
mandates and how that impacted his ability to provide for education 
within a State.
  Just now, with the bill he will introduce, I associate myself with 
his remarks, because he showed that one of the tricks that was used in 
passing the health care law is overcharging. This is the Obama health 
care law overcharging young people on student loans. The Democrats all 
voted for it and the Republicans all voted against it. It is 
overcharging students for student loans to pay for the President's 
health care law.
  Again, I appreciate the comments by my colleague, the Senator from 
Tennessee, and his incredible leadership on this, which he continues to 
provide every day in the Senate.
  I come to the floor today to again give a second opinion about 
another component of the health care law and one of the tricks that the 
administration has tried to use in terms of making the health care law, 
in their opinion, more appealing, which essentially the Government 
Accountability Office this week called foul.
  The President was caught and called out by the GAO, when they 
uncovered another gimmick in the President's health care law. It is a 
gimmick that tries to cover up how the President's law devastates 
seniors' ability to get the care they need from the doctor they want at 
a cost they can afford.
  The Obama administration's latest trick targets seniors on a program 
called Medicare Advantage. It is a program that one out of four 
seniors--people on Medicare--relies on for their health care coverage. 
As someone who has taken care of lots of Medicare patients over the 
years, I can tell you that one in four--about 12 million seniors--is on 
this Medicare Advantage Program. The reason it is an advantage for them 
is that it helps with preventive medicine, with coordinating their 
care. They like it because of eyeglasses and eye care and because of 
hearing aids.
  Each one of those 12 million seniors knows they are on Medicare 
Advantage because it is a choice they make to go onto the program. 
Well, as people all around the country remember, the White House and 
Democrats, in the effort to pass the health care law, cut $500 billion 
from Medicare--not to

[[Page 5478]]

strengthen Medicare or save Medicare for our seniors, no--to start a 
whole new government program for other people. Out of that $500 billion 
that the President and his administration and Democrats in Congress cut 
from Medicare, about $145 billion of that money came from this Medicare 
Advantage Program--a program people like. These cuts would have gone 
into place this year--actually, October of this year. That is the time 
of year when seniors are supposed to register for their Medicare 
Advantage plans for the next year. So we are talking about October of 
2012, the month before the Presidential election, and cuts coming then 
would make those millions of American seniors who have chosen Medicare 
Advantage very unhappy with this administration and the Democrats in 
Congress who shoved this down the throats of the American people.
  In spite of the American people saying, no, don't pass this health 
care law, according to the President and the Democrats, too bad, we 
know what is better for you. Democrats believe that a one-size-fits-all 
is best, that a government-centered program is better than a patient-
centered program.
  The President and his folks saw this political problem developing. It 
is a real political problem for the President. And what did the 
administration do? Well, they put in place a massive $8.3 billion--that 
is billion with a ``b''--so-called pilot program. What that will do is 
temporarily reverse most of these Medicare Advantage cuts--not for too 
long, just to get the President and the Democrats past the election of 
2012.
  According to the GAO, 90 percent of the Medicare Advantage enrollees 
will be covered by these contracts eligible for this so-called bonus in 
2012 and 2013. But this is a sham program. It is seven times larger 
than any similar demonstration program Medicare has ever attempted, and 
Medicare has been in place now for 50 years. Take a look at this. This 
is the largest ever--seven times larger than any demonstration program 
they have ever attempted. Even the GAO, which is supposed to be--and 
is--nonpartisan, called out the President and the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services.
  This program wasn't actually designed to improve the Medicare 
Advantage Program. That is why this is a sham. The reality is this so-
called bonus program is a political stunt aimed at the 2012 
Presidential election. The administration simply did not want to face 
America's seniors with the truth--the truth that his health care law 
gutted the popular Medicare Advantage Program, reducing choices and 
raising premiums.
  The Wall Street Journal editorial board reported yesterday that ``the 
demonstration program turns into a pumpkin in 2013.''
  They go on to say:

       The real game here is purely political--to give a program 
     that is popular with seniors a temporary reprieve past 
     Election Day. Then if Mr. Obama is reelected, he will go 
     ahead and gut Medicare Advantage.

  That has been his intention all along--to gut Medicare Advantage.
  Investor's Business Daily yesterday described it as ``playing 
politics with Medicare.'' They go on to report:

       The entire project is so transparently political that the 
     normally reserved GAO urged the Health and Human Services 
     Department to cancel it altogether.

  Isn't this the administration that claimed that accountability was 
their goal, that this was going to be the most accountable 
administration in history? Then why is the government's own 
accountability office calling the President and the Democrats on the 
carpet and saying: Cancel this program altogether.
  An op-ed that appeared in Forbes Magazine called it the ``Obama 
Campaign's $8 Billion Taxpayer-Funded Medicare Slush Fund.'' The author 
notes:

       This development opens up a new expansion of executive-
     branch power: the ability to spend billions of dollars on 
     politically-favored constituents, without the consent of 
     Congress.

  Madam President, we wouldn't have known about the Obama 
administration's $8 billion coverup if it weren't for my colleague, 
Senator Orrin Hatch, who insisted on the GAO investigation. I believe 
the American people owe a debt of thanks to Senator Hatch. Thanks to 
his leadership, we now know what the administration is doing to try to 
trick American seniors and make it harder for them to get the care they 
need after the Presidential election.
  Once again, this administration claims to be for transparency, claims 
to pride itself on accountability, but is not leveling with the 
American people. So today I am calling on the President to direct his 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to cancel this waste of taxpayer 
dollars that are being used to cover up the damage his health care law 
is doing to the seniors of this country who are on Medicare Advantage. 
It is time they cancel the program and come clean about their plan for 
seniors on Medicare Advantage. This latest gimmick is just another 
reason we must repeal the President's health care law and replace it 
with patient-centered reform.
  So I will continue to come to the floor every week because we can 
never forget Nancy Pelosi's quote that ``first you have to pass it 
before you get to find out what's in it.'' Week after week, we are 
finding out more things in this health care law. And now, under the 
direction and suspicion of Senator Hatch, we have the Government 
Accountability Office coming out and saying they found something new 
again this week--an effort by this administration to hide from the 
American people the real impact of the health care law and hide it 
before the election so the American people will not--the President 
hopes--go to the polls and vote the way, in my mind, they would have 
voted had they seen the clear reality of all of the impacts of this 
health care law.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                       Domestic Energy Production

  Mr. INHOFE. First of all, Madam President, let me say we are very 
fortunate to have the Senator from Wyoming, with his background, come 
and give us his second opinion. The ratings are very high on his second 
opinion, and I am very glad of that.
  I am also very pleased we had the Senator from Tennessee talking 
about the big issue of today. There is no one--having been the 
Secretary of Education in a previous administration--who is more 
qualified to talk about student loans than the Senator from Tennessee. 
So I am very appreciative.
  Ironically, we have talked about two subjects, and I am here to talk 
about one totally unrelated that I think is equally critical--and I 
have to be critical--of this administration. I am going to state 
something that hasn't been stated before. I am going to release 
something that hasn't been released before, and I think it is very 
significant that people really listen.
  You know, this President has had a war on fossil fuels--and when we 
talk about fossil fuels, we are talking about oil, gas, and coal--ever 
since before he was in office. He is very clever because what he has 
attempted to do is to kill oil, gas, and coal when we had the huge 
supply of it here and yet do it in a way that the American people won't 
be aware over it. How many people in America, I ask the Chair, know 
what hydraulic fracturing is? I daresay more people know about it today 
than knew about it a short while ago.
  So today I wish to address for the first time ever the questionable 
actions recently taken by the Obama administration's Environmental 
Protection Agency to stop domestic energy production, particularly 
doing so by using hydraulic fracturing.
  Today I wish to draw attention to a little-known video from 2010 
which shows a top EPA official, region 6 Administrator Al Armendairiz, 
using the vivid metaphor of crucifixion to explain EPA's enforcement 
tactics over oil and gas producers.
  This is a long quote, and I am going to ask everyone to bear with me 
because it is all a quote by Armendairiz. He is, as I said, the 
Administrator of region 6, and he is instructing at this time people 
who are working for them in what their behavior should be. So this is 
an actual quote I am going to use. It is a long quote. Bear with me.


[[Page 5479]]

       I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff 
     about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was 
     probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the 
     meeting but I'll go ahead and tell you what I said. It was 
     kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages 
     in the Mediterranean. They would go into a little Turkish 
     town somewhere, they'd find the first five guys they saw and 
     they would crucify them. And then you know that town was 
     really easy to manage for the next few years. And so you make 
     examples out of people who are in this case not compliant 
     with the law. Find people who are not compliant with the law, 
     and you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out 
     of them, and there is a great deterrent effect there. And, 
     companies that are smart see that, they don't want to play 
     that game, and they decide at that point that it's time to 
     clean up. And, that won't happen unless you have somebody out 
     there making examples of people. So you go out, you look at 
     the industry, you find the people violating the law, you go 
     aggressively after them. And we do have some pretty effective 
     enforcement tools. Compliance can get very high, very, very 
     quickly. That's what these companies respond to, is both 
     their public image but also financial pressure. So you put 
     some financial pressure on a company, you get other people in 
     that industry to clean up very quickly. So, that's our 
     general philosophy.

  Again, that is a quote from the EPA Administrator of region 6. He 
actually said: You know, it is kind of like the Romans, when they used 
to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They would go into a 
little Turkish town and find the first five guys they saw and crucify 
them. That is how you get their attention.
  I remember a few years ago a lumber company in my State of Oklahoma 
called me up and said: I am not sure what to do. The EPA is putting us 
out of business.
  I said: What do you mean, putting you out of business?
  This was a lumber company in Tulsa, OK--Mill Creek Lumber. The man 
who was calling me was the president.
  He said: We have been disposing of our used crankcase oil in the same 
legal, licensed depository for 10 years now, and they have traced some 
of this oil to a Superfund site, and they say they are now going to 
fine me $5,000 a day for that violation. Now, that is what the letter 
said.
  I said: Send the letter to me. That is a typical threat by the EPA to 
try to make you voluntarily go out of business.
  So he sent it to me, and sure enough that is what it said. Any 
concerned reader would look at that and say: They are going to put us 
out of business. He said they could stay in business maybe another 30 
days and that would be the end.
  Well, that was a threat. That is what they do to intimidate people. 
It is not quite to the level of a crucifixion, but nonetheless times 
have changed and things have gotten worse over the past few years. So, 
yes, they have the enforcement tools, and they are able to scare 
people, intimidate people. And these are the very people who are 
working and hiring people and doing what is necessary to run this 
machine we call America.
  So according to Administrator Armendairiz, EPA's general philosophy 
is to crucify and make examples of domestic energy producers so that 
other companies will fall in line with EPA's regulatory whims. His 
comments give us a rare glimpse into the Obama administration's true 
agenda. No matter how much President Obama may pretend to be a friend 
of oil, gas, and coal, his green team constantly betrays the truth that 
the Obama administration is fully engaged in an all-out war on 
hydraulic fracturing, thinking people won't know that if you kill 
hydraulic fracturing, you kill oil and gas production in America.
  Not long after Armendairiz made his stunning admission, the EPA, 
apparently, began to zero in on the first crucifixion victims. The 
Agency targeted U.S. natural gas producers in Pennsylvania, in Texas, 
and in Wyoming, and in all three of these cases, before these 
investigations were complete, EPA made headline-grabbing statements 
either insinuating or proclaiming that hydraulic fracturing was the 
cause of water contamination. But in each of these three cases, the 
EPA's comments were contrived, and despite their best efforts they have 
been unable to find any science to back up their accusations.
  Of course, this administration has a propensity for making 
embarrassing announcements on days when they hope no one will notice. 
During the past 2-week recess, while Congress was out of town, the EPA 
released several late-Friday-night statements reversing their earlier 
assertions in these cases. Still, the problem is people are walking 
around believing these things are true.
  The Agency hopes they can admit they were wrong quietly, but we are 
not going to let that happen. We are not going to let them get away 
with it. The American people deserve to know exactly why the EPA is 
pushing ahead with such intensity to capture alarmist headlines, and 
then, when no one is looking and when their investigation shows they 
were wrong, quietly backing away from it.
  The EPA, in Texas, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania, not only reversed their 
assertions but did so with a stunning lack of transparency, 
strategically attempting to make these announcements as quietly as 
possible, at times they know Congress won't be looking. Let me quickly 
highlight a few of these examples. In Parker County, TX, the Agency's 
major announcement--the withdrawal of their administrative order--was 
announced at a time they knew Congress was adjourning for Easter 
recess. In Dimock, PA, the EPA made two announcements, and the same 
thing happened there. In Pavillion, WY, the EPA announced their 
reversal as Congress was wrapping up that week.
  So the same thing was happening. The EPA's general philosophy is to 
crucify domestic energy producers. Let's look at the three of their 
crucifixions.
  Parker County, TX. I think this could be the most outrageous of all 
the examples we will be talking about today. I will not have time to 
hit them all, but I will go back and make the complete statement I was 
going to make. Unfortunately, there isn't time to finish it now.
  But what happened in Parker County, TX, took place in region 6, where 
my State of Oklahoma is located. Despite Texas State regulators 
actively investigating the issue, EPA region 6 issued a December 7, 
2010, Emergency Administration Order, which determined--I use the word 
``determined'' because that is the word they used--determined that 
State and local authorities had not taken sufficient action and ordered 
a company called Range Resources to provide clean drinking water to 
affected residents and begin taking steps to resolve the problem.
  Along with this order, the EPA went on a publicity barrage in an 
attempt to publicize its premature and unjustified conclusions. The day 
of the order, EPA issued a press release in which it mentioned 
hydraulic fracturing--not once, not twice but four times--in trying to 
tie that to problems with groundwater contamination.
  The Agency claimed they also had ``determined''--again, they used 
that word--that natural gas drilling near the homes by Range Resources 
in Parker County, TX, had caused the contamination of at least two 
residential drinking water wells.
  Regional administrator Al Armendariz was quoted in a press story 
posted online, prior to him even notifying the State of Texas, that EPA 
was making their order--and the e-mails have been obtained from the day 
the order was released--showing him gleefully sharing information with 
rabid antifracking advocates--and this is a quote by this EPA regional 
administrator: ``We're about to make a lot of news . . . time to Tivo 
channel 8.'' He was rejoicing.
  In subsequent interviews, Armendariz made comments specifically 
intending to incite fear and sway public opinion against hydraulic 
fracturing, citing multiple times a danger of fire or explosion. When 
State regulators were made aware of EPA's action, they made it clear 
they felt the Agency was proceeding prematurely, to which Armendariz 
forwarded their reply calling it ``stunning.''
  What was ``stunning,'' to quote Armendariz, were revelations about 
the way in which the EPA acted in this

[[Page 5480]]

particular case, which led me to send a letter, at that time, to the 
EPA inspector general requesting him to preserve all records of 
communication in connection with the emergency order issued by the EPA 
region 6 administrator.
  Subsequent to the EPA's December 7, 2010, administrative order, on 
January 18, 2011, EPA followed through on Regional Administrator 
Armendariz's promise to ``make examples of people'' and filed a 
complaint in Federal district court, requesting penalties against Range 
Resources of $16,500 a day for each violation they alleged took place--
for each violation. I don't know how many violations there are. I think 
there are three or four.
  Again, this goes back to the same thing that happened in my State of 
Oklahoma with the EPA trying to put a lumber company out of business by 
EPA, except this is a larger company so there are larger fines.
  So $16,500 a day in order to align with Armendariz's pursuit of fines 
which ``can get very high very, very quickly.''
  If these actions alone didn't create an appearance of impropriety and 
call into serious question the ability of Regional Administrator 
Armendariz to conduct unbiased investigations and fairly enforce the 
law, just 7 months prior to the region's actions in Parker County, 
Regional Administrator Armendariz laid the groundwork of how he planned 
to reign over his region.
  In a townhall meeting in Dish, TX, he ``gave an analogy'' of his 
``philosophy of enforcement.'' Again, we have already talked about that 
analogy.
  This is a quote I highlighted at the beginning of my speech:

       It was kind of like the Romans used to conquer little 
     villages in the Mediterranean. They'd go into a little 
     Turkish town somewhere, they'd find the first five guys they 
     saw and they would crucify them. And then you know that town 
     was really easy to manage.

  Let me go back and be clear about this. This is President Obama's 
appointed regional administrator for the States of Arkansas, Louisiana, 
New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma comparing his philosophy of enforcement 
over the oil and gas industries to Roman crucifixions, where they would 
``just grab the first five guys they saw'' in order to set the policy 
and to scare everybody else and crucify them.
  Fast forward to late Friday afternoon, March 30 of this year, just a 
few hours after Congress left town for the Easter recess. The Wall 
Street Journal reported that:

       EPA told a federal judge it withdrew an administrative 
     order that alleged Range Resources had polluted water wells 
     in a rural Texas county west of Fort Worth. Under an 
     agreement filed by U.S. district court in Dallas, the EPA 
     will also drop the lawsuit it filed in January 2011 against 
     Range, and Range will end its appeal of the administrative 
     order.

  Listen to this. A few weeks prior to EPA's withdrawal, a judge also 
concluded that one of the residents involved in the investigation 
worked with environmental activists to create a ``deceptive video'' 
that was ``calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was 
burning''--water that was the result of the hydraulic fracturing--when 
it appears the resident attached a hose to the water well's gas vent, 
not the water, and of course lit it on fire.
  I was on a TV show the other night by someone whom I will not mention 
their name--she happens to be one of my three favorite liberals--and 
she mentioned: ``This water is so bad it is burning.'' That judge 
showed what it was and of course made them cease from doing that.
  Remember, this is only one of the three recent high-profile instances 
of backtracking on behalf of the Agency, after they have already scared 
everybody into thinking it is a serious problem.
  Next we go into Wyoming--Pavillion, WY. Last December, EPA publicized 
and released nonpeer-reviewed draft findings which pointed to hydraulic 
fracturing as the cause of groundwater contamination. Again, the 
culprit is always hydraulic fracturing because we all know we can't get 
any large oil and gas out of tight formations without hydraulic 
fracturing.
  Here again, the EPA stepped in over the actions of the State and made 
a press announcement designed to capture headlines where definitive 
evidence linking the act of hydraulic fracturing to water contamination 
simply didn't exist.
  The announcement came in December, despite as late as November of 
2011 EPA regional administrator James Martin saying the results of the 
last round of testing in Pavillion were not significantly different 
from the first two rounds of testing which showed no link between the 
hydraulic fracturing and contamination. That is three rounds of testing 
which showed no contamination from hydraulic fracturing. Yet only a few 
weeks later EPA announced the opposite.
  In another reversal by the EPA in the past few weeks, the EPA stepped 
back and quietly agreed to take more water samples and postpone a peer 
review of the findings, something the State of Wyoming had been 
requesting for quite some time.
  Again, the damage was done. They didn't do anything wrong. There was 
no water groundwater contamination at all. This is hydraulic 
fracturing.
  As I have mentioned so many times before, I know a little bit about 
this because the first hydraulic fracturing took place in my State of 
Oklahoma in 1949. There has never been a documented case of groundwater 
contamination as a result of it. Yet this administration is doing 
everything they can to destroy hydraulic fracturing.
  Dimock, PA, is the third site of the EPA's recent backtracking of its 
publicized attempts to link hydraulic fracturing to groundwater 
contamination. In this instance, the Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Protection had taken substantial action to and including 
working out an agreement with an oil and gas company ensuring residents 
clean drinking water.
  In line with the State's Department of Environmental Protection, on 
December 2, 2011, the EPA declared that water in Dimock was safe to 
drink. Just over a month later, EPA reversed that position.
  So they go back and forth. What do people remember? They remember 
this process of hydraulic fracturing is the culprit and is creating 
serious environmental problems.
  What is maybe more egregious was--to quote Pennsylvania DEP secretary 
Michael Krancer--EPA's ``rudimentary'' understanding of the facts and 
history of the region's water: Independent geologists and water 
consultants such as Brian Oram have been puzzled by the Agency's 
rationale for their involvement in Dimock because the substances of 
greatest concern by EPA are naturally occurring and commonly found in 
this area of Pennsylvania. Yet EPA has chosen this area to attack 
because of the presence of hydraulic fracturing.
  In other words, this has been going on for years, long before 
hydraulic fracturing.
  By the way, I have to say they used to attack oil and gas, but it was 
always out West in the Western States. The chair knows something about 
that. This is different now because we have these huge reserves that 
are in places such as New York and Pennsylvania. All that time there 
has not been hydraulic fracturing, but as soon as hydraulic fracturing 
came in, they said this is the result of hydraulic fracturing when it 
has been there all the time.
  Of course, this is part of the strategy to try to convince Americans 
we don't have the vast supply of natural resources we clearly have.
  I was redeemed by this. I have seen saying all along that of all the 
untruths this President has been saying, the one he says more than any 
other is that we only have 2 percent of the reserves of gas and oil and 
we use 25 percent. It is not true. I don't want to use the ``L'' word. 
I don't want to get everybody mad, but it is just not true.
  The U.S. Geological Survey revealed just a few days ago that 
President Obama's favorite talking point, that we only have 2 percent 
of the world's proven oil, is less than honest. The 2 percent the 
President quotes is proven reserves, but he ignores our recoverable 
reserves. This is coming from the

[[Page 5481]]

USGS. Our recoverable reserves are some of the largest in the world.
  According to information gleaned from the USGS report, America has 26 
percent of the world's recoverable conventional oil reserves. That 
doesn't begin to include our enormous oil shale, tight oil and heavy 
oil deposits. That is just a fraction of it. But that is 26 percent of 
the world's recoverable oil.
  Our problem is our politicians will not allow us--and particularly 
the Obama administration--to drill on public lands and to be able to 
capture that.
  We also hold almost 30 percent of the world's technically recoverable 
conventional natural gas.
  In other words, to put it in a way that I think is more 
understandable: Just from our own resources and at our own consumption 
level, we could run this country for 90 years on natural gas at our 
current level of consumption and for 60 years on oil. That is what we 
have. That is the answer to the problem. It is called supply and 
demand. There is not a person listening now who would not remember back 
in the elementary school days that the supply and demand is real.
  But we all know he remains fully committed to his cap-and-trade, 
global warming, green energy agenda--a plan that is to severely 
restrict domestic development of natural gas, oil, and coal, to drive 
up the price of fossil fuels so their favorite forms of green energy 
can compete. It is, quite simply, a war on affordable energy--and, at 
that time, they weren't afraid to admit it.
  Now they are backtracking a little bit--such as using hydraulic 
fracturing and not saying they are opposed to oil and gas.
  Do you remember Steven Chu, the Secretary of Energy, President 
Obama's man? He told the Wall Street Journal that ``[s]omehow we have 
to figure out a way to boost the price of gasoline to levels in 
Europe.''
  We all know the infamous quote from President Obama. He said that, 
under his cap-and-trade plan, ``electricity prices would necessarily 
skyrocket.''
  The President himself has been on record supporting an increase in 
gas prices. Although, according to him, he would ``have preferred a 
gradual adjustment'' increasing the average family's pain at the pump. 
But this isn't a plan that gets you reelected. So the gas prices have 
skyrocketed, and with the utter failure of Solyndra, President Obama's 
dream of green energy economy is in shambles. We can be sure we won't 
be talking about this plan to raise energy costs until after the 
election.
  I would have to say the President's own Deputy Energy Secretary Dan 
Poneman last month made a statement, and I appreciate it, because he 
said we have a very strong belief that the laws of supply and demand 
are real.
  They have been saying that the laws of supply and demand are not 
real. Gary Becker--I quoted this the other day. He is a Nobel Prize-
winning economist, professor at the University of Chicago. He has said 
``supply and demand are the cause of the vast majority of large 
fluctuations in oil prices, and it is hard to believe that speculation 
has played a major role in causing a large swing in oil prices.''
  The President tried to say it is not supply and demand. We do not 
need to develop our own resources to bring down the price of gas at the 
pumps. It is speculation. Here is a Nobel Prize winner saying that just 
flat is not true.
  The President's budget proposal this year alone--I want to get back 
to how he has made this attempt to tax oil and gas out of business. The 
President's budget proposal this year alone amounts to a $38.6 billion 
tax increase on oil and gas companies, which would hit my own State of 
Oklahoma where 70,000 people are employed in oil and gas development 
especially hard. His proposal specifically would either modify or 
outright cancel section 199--that is the manufacturers' tax deduction 
that is something all other manufacturers would be able to enjoy--for 
the intangible drilling costs, IDCs: percentage depreciation, tertiary 
injections. All of these were in his budget--not just this year, not 
just last year, but every year since his budget 4 years ago--to try to 
tax the oil and gas companies out of business.
  His actions have not slowed his rhetoric. In fact, President Obama 
has become so desperate to run from his antifossil fuel record that he 
ran all the way to Cushing, OK. That is my State. We have a major 
intersection of the pipeline down there. This President, in his attack 
on fossil fuels, stopped the XL Pipeline that goes from Canada down 
through my State of Oklahoma. He came all the way to Oklahoma to say: I 
am in support of the pipeline that goes south out of Oklahoma into 
Texas.
  Wait a minute, that is because he cannot stop it. He could only stop 
the other one because it crossed the line from Canada to the United 
States. So he came all the way to Oklahoma to say he was not going to 
stop something that he could not stop anyway.
  President Obama is trying to take credit for the increase in oil and 
gas. I have to get this out because I think so many people do not 
understand this. The increase that is taking place in production is all 
on private lands. It is not increasing on public lands. It is 
decreasing on public lands, but on private lands he has no control. In 
the report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, since 
2007, quoting now from the CRS:

       About 96 percent of the [oil production] increase took 
     place on non-federal lands.

  According to the Obama Energy Information Administration, total 
fossil fuel sales of production from Federal lands are down since 
2008--they are down, not up--and during a time of a natural gas boom 
throughout the country. In other words we have gone through the biggest 
boom on private land, but he will not allow us to do it on public land, 
and that is where these tremendous reserves are. Gas sales from 
production on Federal lands are down 17 percent since 2008.
  Finally, according to PFC Energy, which is a global consulting firm 
specializing in the oil and gas industry, 93 percent of shale oil and 
gas wells in the United States are located on private and State lands, 
hardly the Federal Government triumph that the President falsely 
attempts to take credit for when you put all the pieces together.
  President Obama's election strategy is clear: Say great things about 
oil and gas, say great things about coal and the virtues of domestic 
energy production, but under the surface try hard to manufacture 
something wrong with hydraulic fracturing. Remember, not 1 cubic foot 
of natural gas can be retrieved in tight shale formations without using 
hydraulic fracturing.
  As I said before, that was started in my State of Oklahoma. We are 
going to make sure we are the truth squad that tells the truth about 
how we can bring down the price of gas at the pump. It gets right back 
to supply and demand.
  I am going to come back at a later date and give the long version of 
what I have just given in the last 45 minutes, but I see my friend from 
Tennessee is here. So I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The Senator from Tennessee is 
recognized.


                            Deficit Spending

  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I 
actually learned a lot sitting here listening. I know energy production 
is very important to his State and, obviously, to our Nation. I know he 
has a wealth of knowledge regarding this issue. I candidly enjoyed 
hearing his remarks, and I look forward to hearing the balance of them 
at another time.
  I am going to be very brief. I came down here because I am distressed 
about where we find ourselves. I want to thank the ranking member and 
the chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee who is dealing with 
postal reform. I thank them for working through the committee process 
and actually bringing a bill to the floor in that manner, something we 
do not do enough of around here. I thank them for allowing us to have 
amendments, free-for-all, as it relates to matters pertinent to this 
bill. I thank them for their work. Personally, I would like to see a 
lot more reforms take place in the postal bill.
  There is no question we are kicking the can down the road, and we are 
going to revisit this in another couple

[[Page 5482]]

of years. Because of the way the bill is designed, I don't think there 
is any question that is going to happen.
  But I want to speak to the fact that the world, our Nation, and all 
of our citizens watched us last August as this country almost came to a 
halt as we voted on a proposal to reduce the amount of deficit spending 
that is taking place in our Nation at a time when the debt ceiling was 
being increased. There was a lot of drama around that. Both sides of 
the aisle came together and established a discretionary cap on the 
amount of money that we would spend in 2012 and 2013.
  Again, the whole world and certainly most citizens in our Nation were 
glued to the television or reading newspaper accounts about what was 
happening. In a bipartisan way, at a time when our Nation has 
tremendous deficits, we basically committed to pare down spending.
  What is happening with this bill, and the same thing happened with 
the highway bill that was just passed, is that people on both sides of 
the aisle are saying: You know, the Postal Service is very popular. 
Therefore, what we are going to do is not worry about the budget caps 
we have put in place.
  It is hard for me to believe. I know there is a lot of accounting 
around the postal reform bill that is difficult for people to 
comprehend. But what is happening with this bill, both the ranking and 
chair continue to talk about the fact that some money came from the 
Postal Service into the general fund and now is just being repaid. By 
the way, I agree with that. But the problem is it still increases our 
deficit by $11 billion, and it absolutely violates the agreement we put 
in place last August 2.
  The responsible way for us to deal with this is say we understand 
this is money that should go back to the Postal Service, but to live 
within the agreement we put in place we need to take $11 billion from 
someplace else.
  What I fear is getting ready to happen today--and I know there was a 
budget point of order placed against this bill. I supported that budget 
point of order. The ranking and chair--whom, again, I respect 
tremendously--said let's go through this process and see if there are 
some amendments that actually pare down the cost. That is not 
happening. So what I fear is going to happen this afternoon is that in 
an overwhelmingly bipartisan way, Congress is going to say one more 
time to the American people: You absolutely cannot trust us to deal 
with your money because we are Western politicians--Western democracies 
are having the same problems in Europe--and basically the way we get 
reelected is we spend your money on things that you like without asking 
for any repayment of any kind.
  That is what has happened in this Nation for decades. That is what we 
are seeing play out right now in Europe. We are able to watch the movie 
of what is going to happen to this great Nation. We have politicians in 
this Chamber who have agreed to what we are going to spend this year 
and already, because we have two popular bills, in a bipartisan way 
people are saying: It doesn't matter what we agreed to. We do not care 
that the biggest generational theft that has ever occurred in this 
Nation is continuing. We are basically taking money from our children 
to keep us in elective office by not making tough choices.
  I am afraid that is what is going to happen this afternoon on this 
bill. I am just coming down one more time to appeal to people on both 
sides of the aisle who are participating in this to say: Look, we made 
an agreement. We made this agreement just last August 2, where we said 
how much money we would spend, and we are violating it again on this 
bill. What I would say is, if the Postal Service is so popular, let's 
take money from some other place that we do not consider to be the 
priority this is.
  We do not do that. Instead, what we are doing is exactly what has 
happened in Europe, what has happened here for a long time where we 
have this deal, this arrangement between politicians of this body and 
citizens where we continue to give them what they want, but we will not 
set priorities. We will not ask them to pay for it. And what is 
happening is our country is on a downward spiral.
  These young pages who are sitting in front of me are going to be 
paying for it. It is absolute generational theft. This afternoon we are 
going to take another step in that direction. I appeal to everyone: 
Look, if we want to pass this postal reform bill, let's cut $11 billion 
some other place. That is what the States that we represent have to do. 
That is what the cities that we come from have to do.
  But we will not do that here. I am not talking about one side of the 
aisle or the other. What I think is going to happen this afternoon is 
that people on both sides of the aisle are going to break trust with 
the American people, violate an agreement that we just put in place, 
and basically send a signal to the world that they absolutely cannot 
trust the Senate to live within its means. We would rather do things to 
get ourselves reelected now than save this Nation for the longer term.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from New Mexico is 
recognized.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today to express my 
support for the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. 
Specifically, I want to talk about how crucial the tribal provisions in 
this bill are for Native American women. For the past 18 years, this 
historic legislation has helped protect women from domestic violence, 
from sexual assault, from stalking. It has strengthened the prosecution 
of these crimes and has provided critical support to the victims of 
these crimes.
  It has been a bipartisan effort. Democrats, Republicans, and law 
enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, health professionals--all 
have supported this Federal effort to protect women. Why? Because it 
has worked.
  Since its passage in 1994, domestic violence has decreased by over 50 
percent. The victims of these crimes have been more willing to come 
forward knowing that they are not alone, knowing that they will get the 
support they need, knowing that crimes against women will not be 
tolerated.
  Unfortunately, not all women have seen the benefits of the Violence 
Against Women Act. That is why the tribal provisions in the 
reauthorization are so important. Native women are 2\1/2\ times more 
likely than other U.S. women to be raped. One in three will be sexually 
assaulted in their lifetimes. It is estimated three out of five Native 
women will experience domestic violence in their lifetimes. Those 
numbers are tragic. Those numbers tell a story of great human 
suffering, of women in desperate situations, desperate for support, and 
too often we have failed to provide that support.
  But the frequency of violence against Native women is only part of 
the tragedy. To make matters worse, many of these crimes go 
unprosecuted and unpunished. Here is the problem: The tribes have no 
authority to prosecute non-Indians for domestic violence crimes against 
their Native American spouses or partners within the boundaries of 
their own tribal lands. And yet over 50 percent of Native women are 
married to non-Indians; 76 percent of the overall population living on 
tribal lands is non-Indian. Instead, under existing law, these crimes 
fall exclusively under Federal jurisdiction. But Federal prosecutors 
have limited resources. They may be located hours away from tribal 
communities. As a result, non-Indian perpetrators often go unpunished. 
The cycle of violence continues and often escalates at the expense of 
Native American victims.
  On some tribal lands the homicide rate for Native women is up to 10 
times the national average. But this starts with small crimes, small 
acts of violence that may not rise to the attention of the Federal 
prosecutor. In 2006 and 2007, U.S. attorneys prosecuted only 45 
misdemeanor crimes on tribal lands.
  For perspective, the Salt River Reservation in Arizona--which is a 
relatively small reservation--reported more than 450 domestic violence 
cases in 2006 alone. Those numbers are appalling. Native women should 
not be

[[Page 5483]]

abandoned to a jurisdictional loophole. In effect, we have a 
prosecution-free zone.
  The tribal provisions in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization 
Act provide a remedy. The bill allows tribal courts to prosecute non-
Indians in a narrow set of cases that meet the following specific 
conditions: The crime must have occurred in Indian Country; it must be 
a domestic violence or dating violence offense or a violation of a 
protection order; and the non-Indian defendant must reside in Indian 
Country, be employed in Indian Country, or be the spouse or intimate 
partner of a member of the prosecuting tribe.
  This bill does not--and I emphasize does not--extend tribal 
jurisdiction to include general crimes of violence by non-Indians or 
crimes between two non-Indians or crimes between persons with no ties 
to the tribe. Nothing in this provision diminishes or alters the 
jurisdiction of any Federal or State court.
  I know some of my colleagues question if a tribal court can provide 
the same protections to defendants that are guaranteed in a Federal or 
State court. The bill addresses this concern. It provides comprehensive 
protections to all criminal defendants who are prosecuted in tribal 
courts whether or not the defendant is a Native American. Defendants 
would essentially have the same rights in tribal court as in State 
court. These include, among many others, right to counsel, to a speedy 
trial, to due process, the right against unreasonable search and 
seizure, double jeopardy, and self-incrimination. In fact, a tribe that 
does not provide these protections cannot prosecute non-Indians under 
this provision.
  Some have also questioned whether Congress has the authority to 
expand tribal criminal jurisdiction to cover non-Indians. This issue 
was carefully considered in drafting the tribal jurisdiction provision. 
The Indian Affairs and Judiciary Committees worked closely with the 
Department of Justice to ensure that the legislation is constitutional.
  In fact, last week 50 prominent law professors sent a letter to the 
Senate and House Judiciary Committees expressing their ``full 
confidence in the constitutionality of the legislation, and its 
necessity to protect the safety of Native women.''
  Their letter provides a detailed analysis of the jurisdictional 
provision. It concludes that ``the expansion of tribal jurisdiction by 
Congress, as proposed in Section 904 of S. 1925, is constitutional.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the letter to which I have referred.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Constitutionality of Tribal Government Provisions in VAWA 
                            Reauthorization

                                                   April 21, 2012.
     Sen. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Russell Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Sen. Charles Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, Hart Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Rep. Lamar Smith,
     Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Rep. John Conyers, Jr.,
     Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members: The signers of this 
     letter are all law professors, and we have reviewed Title IX 
     of S. 1925, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 
     2012. We write in support of this legislation generally and 
     of Section 904, which deals with tribal criminal jurisdiction 
     over perpetrators of domestic violence, specifically. Our 
     understanding is that some opponents of these provisions have 
     raised questions regarding their constitutionality. We write 
     to express our full confidence in the constitutionality of 
     the legislation, and in its necessity to protect the safety 
     of Native women.
       Violence against Native women has reached epidemic 
     proportions, and federal laws force tribes to rely 
     exclusively on far away federal--and in some cases, state--
     government officials to investigate and prosecute misdemeanor 
     crimes of domestic violence committed by non-Indians against 
     Native women. As a result, many cases go uninvestigated and 
     criminals walk free to continue their violence with no 
     repercussions. Section 904 of S. 1925 provides a 
     constitutionally sound mechanism for addressing this problem.


                        Constitutional Concerns

       Congress has the power to recognize the inherent 
     sovereignty of Indian tribal governments to prosecute non-
     Indian perpetrators of domestic violence on reservations. 
     While it is true that the Supreme Court held in Oliphant v. 
     Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978), that tribal 
     governments did not have criminal jurisdiction over non-
     Indians, that decision was rooted in common law, not the 
     Constitution, as the later Supreme Court decision in United 
     States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004), clearly indicates.
       Since the Court's decision in Oliphant was not based on an 
     interpretation of the Constitution, Congress maintains the 
     authority to overrule the decision through legislation. The 
     Court in Oliphant said as much when it stated that tribal 
     governments do not have the authority to prosecute non-Indian 
     criminals ``except in a manner acceptable to Congress.'' 435 
     U.S. at 204. More proof of Congress's authority to expand 
     tribal government jurisdiction lies in the more recent 2004 
     Supreme Court decision in United States v. Lara, where the 
     Supreme Court upheld a Congressional recognition of the 
     inherent authority of tribal governments to prosecute 
     nonmember Indians.
       In Lara, the Court analyzed the constitutionality of the 
     so-called ``Duro fix'' legislation. Congress passed the Duro 
     fix in 1991 after the Supreme Court decided Duro v. Reina, 
     495 U.S. 676 (1990), which held that a tribal court does not 
     have criminal jurisdiction over a nonmember Indian, under the 
     same reasoning as Oliphant. In response to this decision, 
     Congress passed an amendment to the Indian Civil Rights Act 
     recognizing the power of tribes to exercise criminal 
     jurisdiction within their reservations over all Indians, 
     including nonmembers. The ``Duro fix'' was upheld by the 
     Supreme Court in Lara. The first part of the Court's analysis 
     determined that in passing the Duro fix, Congress had 
     recognized the inherent powers of tribal governments, not 
     delegated federal powers. 541 U.S. at 193. The Court then 
     held that Congress did indeed have the authority to expand 
     tribal criminal jurisdiction. Id. at 200.
       In Lara, the Court plainly held, based on several 
     considerations, that ``Congress does possess the 
     constitutional power to lift the restrictions on the tribes' 
     criminal jurisdiction.'' Id. The Court relied on Congress's 
     plenary power and a discussion of the pre-constitutional 
     (historical) relationship with tribes, focusing on foreign 
     policy and military relations. The Court in Lara held that 
     ``the Constitution's `plenary' grants of power'' authorize 
     Congress ``to enact legislation that both restricts and, in 
     turn, relaxes those restrictions on tribal sovereign 
     authority.'' Id. at 202. The Court noted that Congress has 
     consistently possessed the authority to determine the status 
     and powers of tribal governments and that this authority was 
     rooted in the Constitution. So the decision in Lara shows 
     clearly that the expansion of tribal jurisdiction by 
     Congress, as proposed in Section 904 of S. 1925, is 
     constitutional.
       The Lara majority also recognized that the Duro fix was 
     limited legislation allowing for an impact only on tribes' 
     ability to control crimes on their own lands, and would not 
     undermine or alter the power of the states. The same is true 
     of Section 904, which does nothing to diminish state or 
     federal powers to prosecute.


                          Due Process Concerns

       It is important to note that Section 904 of S. 1925 does 
     not constitute a full restoration of all tribal criminal 
     jurisdiction--only that which qualifies as ``special domestic 
     violence criminal jurisdiction.'' So there must be an 
     established intimate-partner relationship to trigger the 
     jurisdiction. Moreover, no defendant in tribal court will be 
     denied Constitutional rights that would be afforded in state 
     or federal courts. Section 904 provides ample safeguards to 
     ensure that non-Indian defendants in domestic violence cases 
     receive all rights guaranteed by the United States 
     Constitution.


                         A. Narrow Restoration

       The scope of the restored jurisdiction is quite narrow. 
     First, the legislation only applies to crimes of domestic 
     violence and dating violence when the victim is an Indian and 
     the crime occurs in Indian country. Thus, it applies to a 
     narrow category of persons who have established a marriage or 
     intimate relationship of significant duration with a tribal 
     member. Second, for a non-Indian to be subject to tribal 
     court jurisdiction, the prosecuting tribe must be able to 
     prove that a defendant:
       (1) Resides in the Indian country of the participating 
     tribe;
       (2) Is employed in the Indian country of the participating 
     tribe; or
       (3) Is a spouse or intimate partner of a member of the 
     participating tribe.
       In other words, a defendant who has no ties to the tribal 
     community would not be subject to criminal prosecution in 
     tribal court. Federal courts have jurisdiction to review such 
     tribal jurisdiction determinations after exhaustion of tribal 
     remedies. Section 904 is specifically tailored to address the 
     victimization of Indian women by persons who have

[[Page 5484]]

     either married a citizen of the tribe or are dating a citizen 
     of the tribe. This section is designed to ensure that persons 
     who live or work with tribal members are not ``above the 
     law'' when it comes to violent crime against their domestic 
     partners.


                            B. Civil Rights

       The Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) already requires tribal 
     governments to provide all rights accorded to defendants in 
     state and federal court, including core rights such as the 
     Fourth Amendment right to be secure from unreasonable 
     searches and seizures, and the Fifth Amendment privilege 
     against self-incrimination. 25 U.S.C. 1301 1303. There is no 
     question that federal courts have authority to review tribal 
     court decisions which result in incarceration, and they have 
     the authority to review whether a defendant has been accorded 
     the rights required by ICRA. See Santa Clara Pueblo v. 
     Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978).
       Section 904 of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization 
     Act re-emphasizes and reinforces the protections afforded 
     under ICRA. It requires that tribal courts provide ``all 
     other rights'' that Congress finds necessary in order to 
     affirm the inherent power of a participating tribe. Tribal 
     governments are already providing the due-process provisions 
     in cases involving non-Indians in civil cases. Empirical 
     studies have demonstrated that tribal courts have been even-
     handed and fair in dispensing justice when non-Indian 
     defendants appear in court in civil matters. Section 904 
     provides ample protection for any non-Indian subject to the 
     special domestic violence prosecution. The special domestic 
     violence jurisdiction is conditioned on a requirement that 
     tribes maintain certain minimal guarantees of fairness.
       The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act affirms the 
     right of habeas corpus to challenge detention by an Indian 
     tribe, and goes even further by requiring a federal court to 
     grant a stay preventing further detention by the tribe if 
     there is a substantial likelihood that the habeas petition 
     will be granted. The legislation does not raise the maximum 
     sentence that can be imposed by a tribal court, which is one 
     year (unless the tribal government has qualified to issue 
     sentences of up to three years per offense under the Tribal 
     Law and Order Act).
       Thus, the legislation provides ample safeguards. Nothing in 
     the legislation suggests that a defendant in tribal court 
     will be subject to proceedings which are not consistent with 
     the United States Constitution. Indeed, the legislation 
     creates an even playing field for all perpetrators of 
     domestic violence in Indian country. No person who commits an 
     act of violence against an intimate partner will be above the 
     law.


                       C. Political Participation

       While some have criticized tribal jurisdiction over 
     nonmembers based on the inability of nonmembers to 
     participate in tribal political processes through the ballot 
     box, we note that such political participation has never been 
     considered a necessary precondition to the exercise of 
     criminal jurisdiction under the concept of due process of 
     law. A few examples illustrate that point. First, Indians 
     were subjected to federal jurisdiction under the Federal 
     Major Crimes Act of 1885, now codified as amended at 18 
     U.S.C. 1153, almost 40 years before most of them were made 
     citizens or given the vote by the Citizenship Act of 1924. 
     Second, due process certainly does not prevent either the 
     federal government or the states from prosecuting either 
     documented or undocumented aliens for crimes committed within 
     the United States, despite the fact that neither can vote on 
     the laws to which they are subjected. Third, likewise, due 
     process of law does not preclude criminal prosecution of 
     corporations despite the fact that corporate or other 
     business organizations, which are considered separate legal 
     persons from their shareholders or other owners, also cannot 
     vote on the laws to which such business organizations are 
     subjected. In short, there simply is no widely applicable 
     due-process doctrine that makes political participation a 
     necessary precondition for the exercise of criminal 
     jurisdiction.


                               Conclusion

       In conclusion, the signers of this letter urge Congress to 
     enact the VAWA Reauthorization and fully include the tribal 
     jurisdictional provisions necessary for protecting the safety 
     of Native women. Public safety in Indian country is a primary 
     responsibility of Congress, the solution is narrowly tailored 
     to address significant concerns relating to domestic violence 
     in Indian country, and the legislation is unquestionably 
     constitutional and within the power of Congress.
           Sincerely,
       Kevin Washburn, Dean and Professor of Law, University of 
     New Mexico School of Law; Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and 
     Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California 
     Irvine School of Law; Stacy Leeds, Dean and Professor of Law, 
     University of Arkansas School of Law; Carole E. Goldberg, 
     Vice Chancellor, Jonathan D. Varat Distinguished Professor of 
     Law, UCLA School of Law; Robert N. Clinton, Foundation 
     Professor of Law, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona 
     State University; Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Professor of Law, 
     Michigan State University College of Law; Frank Pommersheim, 
     Professor of Law, University of South Dakota School of Law; 
     Rebecca Tsosie, Professor of Law, Sandra Day O'Connor College 
     of Law, Arizona State University; Richard Monette, Associate 
     Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin School of Law; John 
     LaVelle, Professor of Law, University of New Mexico School of 
     Law.
       G. William Rice, Associate Professor of Law, University of 
     Tulsa College of Law; Judith Royster, Professor of Law, 
     University of Tulsa College of Law; Angelique Townsend 
     EagleWoman, (Wambdi A. WasteWin), Associate Professor of Law, 
     University of Idaho College of Law; Gloria Valencia-Weber, 
     Professor of Law, University of New Mexico School of Law; 
     Robert T. Anderson, Professor of Law, University of 
     Washington School of Law; Bethany Berger, Professor of Law, 
     University of Connecticut School of Law; Michael C. Blumm, 
     Professor of Law, Lewis and Clark Law School; Debra L. 
     Donahue, Professor of Law, University of Wyoming College of 
     Law; Allison M. Dussias, Professor of Law, New England Law 
     School; Ann Laquer Estin, Aliber Family Chair in Law, 
     University of Iowa College of Law.
       Marie A. Fallinger, Professor of Law, Hamline University 
     School of Law; Placido Gomez, Professor of Law, Phoenix 
     School of Law; Lorie Graham, Professor of Law, Suffolk 
     University Law School; James M. Grijalva, Friedman Professor 
     of Law, University of North Dakota School of Law; Douglas R. 
     Heidenreich, Professor of Law, William Mitchell College of 
     Law; Taiawagi Helton, Professor of Law, The University of 
     Oklahoma College of Law; Ann Juliano, Professor of Law, 
     Villanova University School of Law; Vicki J. Limas, Professor 
     of Law, The University of Tulsa College of Law; Aliza 
     Organick, Professor of Law & Co-Director, Clinical Law 
     Program, Washburn University School of Law; Ezra Rosser, 
     Associate Professor of Law, American University Washington 
     College of Law.
       Melissa L. Tatum, Professor of Law, University of Arizona 
     James E. Rogers College of Law; Gerald Torres, Bryant Smith 
     Chair, University of Texas at Austin Visiting Professor of 
     Law Yale Law School; Bryan H. Wildenthal, Professor of Law, 
     Thomas Jefferson School of Law; Sarah Deer, Associate 
     Professor, William Mitchell College of Law; Patty Ferguson-
     Bohnee, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, ASU Sandra Day 
     O'Connor College of Law; Julia L. Ernst, Assistant Professor 
     of Law, University of North Dakota School of Law; Mary Jo B. 
     Hunter, Clinical Professor, Hamline University School of Law; 
     Kristen Matoy Carlson, Assistant Professor, Wayne State 
     University Law School; Tonya Kowalski, Associate Professor of 
     Law, Washburn University School of Law.
       Suzianne D. Painter-Thorne, Associate Professor of Law, 
     Mercer University School of Law; Tim W. Pleasant, Professor 
     of Law, Concord Law School of Kaplan University; Justin B. 
     Richland, JD, PhD, Associate Professor of Anthropology, 
     University of Chicago; Keith Richotte, Assistant Professor of 
     Law, University of North Dakota School of Law; Colette 
     Routel, Associate Professor, William Mitchell College of Law; 
     Steve Russell, Associate Professor Emeritus, Indiana 
     University, Bloomington; Marren Sanders, Assistant Professor 
     of Law, Phoenix School of Law; Maylinn Smith, Associate 
     Professor, University of Montana School of Law; Ann E. 
     Tweedy, Assistant Professor, Hamline University School of 
     Law; Cristina M. Finch, Adjunct Professor, George Mason 
     University School of Law; John E. Jacobson, Adjunct 
     Professor, William Mitchell College of Law.

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I respect my colleagues' 
concerns about the tribal provisions of this bill, and I am willing to 
work with any Senator who may have concerns about these provisions. 
Native American law can be daunting, but I want to stress how much 
effort, research, and consultation went into drafting the tribal 
provisions in the Violence Against Women Act. Title 9 is taken almost 
entirely from S. 1763, the Stand Against Violence and Empower Native 
Women Act, the SAVE Native Women Act. This bill was passed on a 
Department of Justice proposal submitted to Congress last July. That 
proposal was the product of extensive multiyear consultations with 
tribal leaders about public safety generally and violence against women 
specifically. It builds on the foundation laid by the Tribal Law and 
Order Act of 2010.
  The SAVE Native Women Act was cleared by the Indian Affairs Committee 
in a unanimous voice vote. The Presiding Officer serves on that 
committee and knows that this is a committee--the Senate Indian Affairs 
Committee--that works in a bipartisan way. This passed by a unanimous 
voice vote through the Senate Indian Affairs Committee.
  Shortly thereafter, its core provisions were again vetted and 
incorporated in the Judiciary Committee's Violence Against Women Act 
Reauthorization as title 9. In short, the

[[Page 5485]]

Safety for Indian Women title has been vetted extensively and enjoys 
wide and bipartisan support. The tribal provisions in this bill are 
fundamentally about fairness and clarity and affording Native women the 
protections they deserve.
  As a former Federal prosecutor and attorney general of a State with a 
large Native American population, I know firsthand how difficult the 
jurisdictional maze can be for tribal communities. One result of this 
maze is unchecked crime. Personnel and funding run thin, distance is a 
major prohibitive factor, and the violence goes unpunished. Title 9 
will create a local solution for a local problem by allowing tribes to 
prosecute the crime occurring in their own communities. They will be 
equipped to stop the escalation of domestic violence. Tribes have 
already proven to be effective in combating crimes of domestic violence 
committed by Native Americans.
  Let me reiterate this very important point: Without an act of 
Congress, tribes cannot prosecute a non-Indian even if he lives on the 
reservation, even if he is married to a tribal member. Without this act 
of Congress, tribes will continue to lack authority to protect the 
women who are members of their own tribes. With this bill, we can close 
a dark and desperate loophole in criminal jurisdiction.
  Beyond extending the jurisdiction of tribes within specific 
constraints, the bill will also promote other efforts to protect Native 
women from an epidemic of domestic violence by increasing grants for 
tribal programs to address violence and for research on violence 
against Native women and also by allowing Federal prosecutors to seek 
tougher sentences for perpetrators who strangle or suffocate their 
spouses or partners.
  All of these provisions are about justice. Right now Native women 
don't get the justice they deserve, but these are strong women. They 
rightly demand to be heard. They have identified a desperate need and 
support logical and effective solutions. That is why Native women and 
tribal leaders across the Nation support the Violence Against Women 
Reauthorization Act and the proposed tribal provisions. Let us work 
with these women to create as many tools as possible for confronting 
domestic violence.
  There are far too many stories of desperation that illustrate why the 
provisions protecting Native women are in this bill, and I want to 
share one story now. This is the story of a young Native American woman 
married to a non-Indian. He began abusing her 2 days after their 
wedding. They lived on her reservation. In great danger, she filed for 
an order of protection as well as a divorce within the first year of 
marriage. The brutality only increased. It ended with the woman's 
abuser going to her place of work--which was located on the 
reservation--and attempting to kill her with a gun. A coworker, trying 
to protect her, took the bullet. Before that awful day, this young 
woman had nowhere to turn for help. She said:

       After a year of abuse and more than 100 incidents of being 
     slapped, kicked, punched and living in horrific terror, I 
     left for good. During the year of marriage I lived in 
     constant fear of attack. I called many times for help, but no 
     one could help me.

  The tribal police did not have jurisdiction over the daily abuse 
because the abuser was a non-Indian. The Federal Government had 
jurisdiction but chose not to exercise it because the abuse was only 
misdemeanor level prior to the attempted murder. The State did not have 
jurisdiction because the abuse was on tribal land and the victim was 
Native American.
  Her abuser, at one point after an incident of abuse, actually called 
the county sheriff himself to prove that he was untouchable. The deputy 
sheriff came to the home on tribal land but left saying he did not have 
jurisdiction. This is just one of the daily, even hourly, stories of 
abuse, stories that should outrage us all. These stories could end 
through local intervention and local authority that will only be made 
possible through an act of Congress. We have the opportunity to support 
such an act in the tribal provisions of VAWA.
  I encourage my colleagues to fully support the tribal provisions in 
this very important bill.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). Without objection, 
it is so ordered.


                       Surface Transportation Act

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, 42 days ago--that is more than 1,000 
hours--42 days ago, 74 Senators from this Chamber voted to pass a badly 
needed, long-term transportation bill. At that time, I joined many of 
my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to call on the House to 
consider the Senate's bill or a similar bipartisan bill that would 
provide highway and transit programs with level funding for at least 2 
years.
  While the House has not yet passed a long-term bill, I am pleased 
that they voted to go to conference with the Senate. That means we are 
one step closer to finally having legislation in place that would 
support nearly 2 million jobs--about 6,600 of those in New Hampshire--
and a bill that would maintain current funding levels, which would 
avoid an increase in both the deficit and gas taxes. I urge the House 
and the Speaker to immediately appoint conferees so we can continue 
moving forward and finally pass a long-term transportation bill. We 
cannot wait any longer. Mr. President, 937 days have passed since our 
last Federal Transportation bill expired. If you are counting, that is 
2 years, 6 months, and 27 days.
  If the House does not join the Senate and support a reasonable 
bipartisan transportation bill that is paid for, States and towns will 
not have the certainty they need from Washington to plan their projects 
and improve their transportation infrastructure.
  According to numerous studies, deteriorating infrastructure--the 
highways, the railroads, the transit systems, the bridges that knit our 
economy together--cost businesses more than $100 billion a year in lost 
productivity. That is because we are not making the investments we need 
to make. And this is no time to further stall programs that encourage 
economic growth and create the climate for businesses to succeed.
  In New Hampshire, we very directly experience the consequences of 
this uncertainty. The main artery that runs north and south in New 
Hampshire, Interstate 93, is congested. Currently, we have a project 
underway that would reduce that congestion on our State's most 
important highway. It would create jobs. It would spur economic 
development.
  Although this project has been underway for several years, the pace 
of the project has slowed dramatically because we do not have a 
transportation bill in place. Businesses and developers along the I-93 
corridor cannot hire workers or invest for the future while the project 
remains uncertain.
  We need to act now to unleash the economic growth this project and 
transportation investments across the country will make possible. We 
know that projects such as Interstate 93 produce good jobs. New 
Hampshire's Department of Transportation said that work on just one 
section of the highway--just one section, between exits 2 and 3--
created 369 construction jobs. And all around the country we have 
projects like Interstate 93 that are waiting on Congress to complete 
this effort.
  For every billion dollars we spend in infrastructure investment, it 
creates 27,000 jobs. It should not be so hard to get this done. If 
Barbara Boxer and Jim Inhofe can agree on legislation, then the House 
ought to be able to agree on legislation. Cities and businesses need 
the certainty as we get to the new construction season. And the longer 
the House waits to appoint conferees, the harder it will be for 
Congress to pass a long-term bill.
  I urge the House to swiftly appoint representatives to negotiate with 
the

[[Page 5486]]

Senate so that we can come together and make the Federal investments 
necessary to get transportation projects moving and get people back to 
work.
  I yield the floor, and 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. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________