Skip to main content

tv   U.S. Senate  CSPAN  March 21, 2012 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT

5:00 pm
she is a towering figure. albert schweitzer once said, "i don't know what your destiny will be, but one thing i know for sure: the only ones among you who will be truly happy are those who have sought and found how to serve." this, barbara mikulski has done, from her early days as a social worker to her years in congress, she has served. she has served long and well. so congratulations, barbara. it's an honor to be your colleague. mr. president, i would just ask that my statement be inserted in the record as if read. thank you. the presiding officer: without objection. is en --
5:01 pm
ms. snowe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. snowe: i couldn't be more pleased in joining all of my colleagues here today in joining my good friend and esteemed colleague, the dean of the women of the united states senate, senator barbara mikulski. in overtaking congressman edith nourse rogers as the longest-serving woman in the history of the united states congress. as someone who has had the privilege of knowing senator mikulski since 1978 when i was first elected to the u.s. house of representatives, to me, this milestone represents a great moment in american politics. for nearly 35 years i have witnessed senator mikulski, a seemingly limitless reservoir of energy as a fierce advocated, a champion on behalf of the people of maryland as well as the
5:02 pm
country. she has demonstrated a devotion to her constituents that has been unerring in its promise and ironclad in its purpose. it is precisely that caliber of service that the people of maryland have rewarded time and time again. as i stated on this very floor at the outset of this congress, when she surpassed the length of service of maine's legendary senator margaret chase smith, senator mikulski is synonymous with a special bond of trust that exists between the governing and the tkpwofrd. she -- governed. she has recognized injustice and acted boldly to quell it, giving a voice to the voiceless, power to the powerless. what senator margaret chase smith and congresswoman edith nourse rogers exemplified, senator mikulski embodies in this century, that the commitment to advancing the common good is bound neither by geographic region nor political
5:03 pm
affiliation. but rather by an untkoupbted desire to -- undaunted desire to serve others. a consummate role model and admired mentor, senator mikulski always stands as a shining example that the robust pursuit of policy and the willingness to hear and consider dissenting views are not mutually exclusive. as i've often said, senator mikulski knows only one speed, and that is full speed ahead. but by the same token, she only knows one way to govern, through what she aptly refers to as a zone of civility. that approach so integral to making this institution work is indisputably one of the hallmark measures of senator mikulski's long-standing success in public life. and indeed it's the blueprint for interaction that she has imbued in all of us who are women serving in the united states senate. she has worked to establish a tone of respect that infuses our
5:04 pm
conversations, our collegiality, our collaborations. it is a personal cause for senator mikulski that is exemplified by the monthly dinners for women senators she initiated, a tradition that has become a catalyst for camaderie and central to what senator mikulski calls our unbreakable bond. there's been no greater friend for women who have come to serve the united states senate, and i'm sure it's the result of senator mikulski having arrived here as the second woman to serve in the united states senate along with the senator from kansas, senator kassebaum. as she said at the time, and that's why she was so willing to serve as a mentor for other women who arrived in the united states senate, because she was only one of two women who was serving in this institution. and as she said, the senate had a long tradition for every man for himself. well, she was determined, she
5:05 pm
saeurbgsd that it would not be -- she said, that it would not be every woman for herself while she was in the united states senate. as my colleagues who also well know, when it comes to having an ally in the legislative foxhole, there's none more feisty, none more formidable and certainly none better than senator barbara mikulski. i have witnessed her tenacity firsthand having worked with her side by side over the decades, whether on matters of equity for women in the workplace, ensuring gender-integrated training in our military, working on cybersecurity, on working on every other issue where we're bringing justice to those who have borne the brunt of injustice. and nowhere has her leadership been more unmistakable of course, mormon -- none tphaoupltal than in the area of -- monumental than in the area of women's health. i recall when i arrived in the
5:06 pm
u.s. house of representatives in 1979 i joined what was then known as the congress women's caucus on women's issues where i ultimately became the cochair for a better part of a decade. senator mikulski at that time being in the house of representatives served in that caucus as well. when i arrived in the house of representatives in 1979, there were only 16 women serving in that institution. and that's why the congress women's caucus was formed, to focus on those issues that matter to women and to family and to children. we recognized that it was our obligation and responsibility to focus on those issues because otherwise they would languish on the back burner rather than being on the front burner. we also understood that if we didn't focus on these issues, if we didn't advance these issues, that no one else would. and so we began to tackle systematically many of the
5:07 pm
discriminatory or discriminatory laws or equities that were embedded in federal law that failed to recognize the dual role that women were playing both at home as well as in the workplace. and we began to work on these issues one by one because there were so many issues across the board that were affecting women where they were ultimately bearing the burden and the consequences of these inequitable laws. we did that with respect to pensions, for example, where spouses, where women would discover that after their husbands died that their pensions had been canceled. we discovered it when it came to family and medical leave. it took us the better part of seven years to enact that legislation. but, again, women were bearing the burden of taking care of their ailing parents or their children at home and paying the consequences in the workplace. and then, of course, was the issue when we discovered there
5:08 pm
was discriminatory treatment in clinical study trials. regrettably at the time our national institutes of health was actually discriminating against women and minorities, excluding them from clinical study trials because it was too complicated to include women in these study trials because we are biologically different. and so as a result, any of those treatments that were developed as a result of those trials could not be applied to women. so, ultimately this could make the difference between life and death, because of the kinds of procedures and treatments that were derived from these clinical study trials could not be applied to women. when we discovered that these inequities exist and this discriminatory treatment, we set to work on how to address this wrong. it was hard to believe that there was a time in america where women and minorities were
5:09 pm
systematically excluded from these trials that as i said had lifesaving implications. who would have thought women's health would be a missing page in america's medical textbook of merely an afterthought. i as a cochair along with congresswoman pat schroeder in the house on behalf of the caucus and then senator barbara mikulski in the senate teamed up in a close bipartisan, bicameral collaboration to establish the groundbreaking office of women's health at the national institutes of health so that never again would women be overlooked when it came to key clinical study trials that were underwritten by the federal taxpayers and federal funds. in fact, senator mikulski, as i well recall, lodged a key panel of stakeholders at bethesda to give this initiative critical national attention and momentum as only she could, as well as
5:10 pm
fundamental policy changes that ultimately resulted from that panel that reverberate to this day, resulting as well in lifesaving medical discoveries for america's women. well, that's the passion and power of senator mikulski that has led her to this historic day. barbara isn't about legacy. she's about problem solving. as somebody described her ideology is grounded in the practical. and that's so true. it's not only the practical, but giving power to the people and developing practical solutions in their everyday lives. she is a guardian of the common good, a woman who predefines the word "trail blazeer" a pioneer of public policy. she continues to shape the landscape of our nation for the better with a force and the might and a stature befitting
5:11 pm
one of the giants of public service not just in our time, but for all time. so on the occasion of senator mikulski's record-breaking service, we congratulate her, we salute her, we are honored to be able to express a profound appreciation for extraordinary and legendary tenure in the united states senate. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask that my buyer statement be put on the -- that my entire statement be put on the record. i know my two colleagues are here and i will be brief. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i come to the floor this afternoon to celebrate barbara mikulski's service to this country. i had the honor for presiding the last hour and heard the statements of so many of my colleagues. i heard them talk about how when she joined this chamber in 1986, barbara mikulski was the first woman elected to the senate who was not preceded by a husband or a father. the first woman selected to the
5:12 pm
statewide office to serve the state of maryland, and only the 16th woman to have served in the united states senate ever. today she is truly the dean of the women senators. she is a mentor and a friend to the rest of us, and she has always set the bar high. this is a woman who took on city hall as a young social worker in baltimore and would be. this is a woman -- and won. this is a woman who championed landmark legislation that has touched the lives of millions on issues ranging from health care to education to civil rights. she has shattered glass ceilings not just in the senate, but in the congress as a whole. and as if that isn't enough, mr. president, she has even graced the glossy pages of "vogue" magazine. most of you may have not seen the photos which were taken in front of the capitol building with another number -- a number of women leaders including meryl streep who was in town for her screening of the film "the iron
5:13 pm
lady." so i think it is fitting, to borrow a phrase from the iron lady herself, margaret thatcher who famously said in politics if you want anything said, ask a man. if you want anything done, ask a woman. i don't think my male colleagues who are here today will take offense to that one, since anyone who has ever worked with barbara mikulski knows that she is a force of nature. she may not be the tallest member of the united states senate, but she is certainly the most tenacious. she is a tireless advocate for the people of her state, and she is a fierce and enduring love for those that she represents. she knows where to pick her battles, and we've seen her face some tough debates in the senate over the past few years. whether it was working to take c-sections off the list of preexisting conditions that insurance companies are fighting to insure equal pay for equal work for women or promoting better educational opportunities
5:14 pm
for children with special needs, or insuring our troops and families receive the benefits that they've earned and that they deserve, she has never stopped working for fairness, justice, and decency. the daughter of a small-town grocery store owner, she has made strengthening the middle class the centerpiece of her economic agenda. because as she always puts it, the women in the senate understand issues not just at the macro level, but also at the macaroni and cheese level. when barbara mikulski came to the senate 26 years ago, she lit a torch that has brightened the path for so many of us, for the 16 other women senators who serve today, and for all the future generations of women leaders who will lead our country forward. i am humbled to call her a colleague and a friend, and i am honored to celebrate her incredible service to our country today. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the
5:15 pm
senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: my colleagues here for continuing the tributes to senator mikulski. i want to -- if i could possibly help things out, i have a statement that was scheduled at
5:16 pm
5:00 that would take all of about ten minutes, and then i would like to yield the floor at that point. i don't know if the members who are on the floor want to establish a queue of who will follow, but if anyone wants to make that unanimous consent request, i see that senator carper and senator cantwell are here on this side, senator coats on the other side. i don't know if senator sessions is planning to speak after i have spoken on the subsequent matter beyond the u.c. request. mr. sessions: i wouldn't mind seizing the opportunity to speak about senator mikulski, but just for a minute, but otherwise, if the senator has no -- mr. durbin: may i suggest this? mr. sessions: i won't respond. mr. durbin: i will give a statement, make a u.c. request, which i have planned at 5:00. i have waited. if i could suggest that i be followed by senator sessions,
5:17 pm
then senator carper, senator coats. a senator: if the senator would yield on that. mr. coats: i don't want to interrupt the tribute to senator mikulski, and i know you have some business that you have arranged. i will work to find another time. so you don't have to include me in the queue. i'm talking on a different subject. i don't want to be the skunk at the party here. i think the tribute is worthwhile. i will find another time to do this. mr. durbin: and i would like to make admissions. i have already spoken about senator mikulski earlier and this is a different issue. i suggest after senator sessions, it would be senator carper, then senator cantwell, correct? i ask unanimous consent that the senators be recognized in the order that i have just noted. the presiding officer: without objection. would the senator like to request that the nontribute-related portion of his discussion be put at a separate place in the record so that he proceeds unimpeded?
5:18 pm
mr. durbin: just what i was about to ask the chair to have permission that my statement not related to senator mikulski be placed at a separate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, it will be so. mr. durbin: by this time next week, the supreme court will have finished hearing oral arguments in the case charging the constitutionality of the patient protection and affordable care act. how important is this supreme court case on health care reform? well, health care is such an important issue that congress spent one year drafting and debating a bill that the court is going to consider next week. health care has been a critical issue for so long in our country that in the last century, nine different presidents have spent time, energy and political capital fighting for reform. it's so important the supreme court reserves six hours for oral argument over the course of three days to consider the act's constitutionality. the last time the court dedicated that kind of time to any one case was in 1966 -- if i'm not mistaken, that's 46 years ago -- when it considered miranda versus arizona.
5:19 pm
nevertheless, not even the health care case is important enough for the supreme court to justify breaking its antiquated tradition and allowing cameras to televise the proceedings. so the american people are not going to have a chance to see and hear these historic arguments for themselves as they take place. i can't predict the outcome of the case, but i can tell you what to expect just outside the doors of the supreme court. it's a scene that we have seen over and over again for decades. thousands will gather outside the court. many are going to camp overnight, sleeping on the sidewalks in the hopes of getting one of about 200 seats available to the public. the vast majority of those wanting to see the supreme court argument on one of the most important cases of our time will be told no, you're not allowed to come inside the court, we don't have room for you. in a democratic society that values transparency and participation, there can't be any valid justification for such
5:20 pm
a powerful element of government to operate outside the view of the american people. for too long, the american people have been prevented from observing open sections of the supreme court -- open sessions of the supreme court. except for the privileged few, the v.i.p.'s, members of the supreme court bar or the press, the most powerful court in our land, some might argue in the world, is inaccessible to the public and shrouded in mystery. i'm pleased to stand in the committee, judiciary committee with senator grassley, the ranking member of the judiciary committee, asking that the senate pass our bipartisan bill that would require televising open supreme court proceedings. with the benefit of modern technology, the supreme court proceedings can be televised using unobtrusive cameras and the court's existing audio recording capability. our bill respects the constitutional rights of the parties before the court and respects the discretion of the
5:21 pm
justices. the court can decline to televise any proceeding where the justices determine by a majority vote that doing so would violate due process of one or more parties. in our view, senator grassley and myself, this is a reasonable approach that balances the public need for information and transparency, the constitutional rights of those before the court, and the discretion of the judges. it's no secret that senator grassley and i have strong disagreements about the actual law that's going to be considered by the court. we have taken to the floor many times to explain our positions. despite our disagreement on substance, senator grassley and i agree on a bipartisan basis to stand united in support of s. 1945 to finally bring transparency and openness to our supreme court. we're not the only members of this body who believe that these proceedings would produce greater accountability. in past years, the cameras in the courtroom act enjoyed bipartisan support.
5:22 pm
the last sponsor of the act before he left the senate was senator arlen specter of pennsylvania. this version of the bill, very similar to his own, has the support of senators cornyn, klobuchar, schumer, blumenthal, gillibrand, harkin and begich. as senator grassley would note, democrats and republicans from both chambers have written to the supreme court asking it to permit live television broadcasts of the health care reform arguments next week. in november, senators bloomen that will, schumer and i wrote -- bloomen that will, schumer and i wrote a letter to the chief justice making the request, open the supreme court for this historic argument. let the court make the argument before the supreme court and the questions asked by the justices in open court. well, chief justice roberts responded to our request last week, and it sounds like he sent the same letter, incidentally, to senator grassley. the chief justice informed us that the supreme court has respectfully declined to televise the health care
5:23 pm
arguments, but that the court would graciously offer an alternative. here's the alternative. now the court will post audio recordings and unofficial transcripts to the court's web site just a few hours after the arguments are over. for that gesture, i guess we can congratulate the united states supreme court for entering the radio age. america entered the radio age 90 years ago. the supreme court is catching up with a delayed broadcast, audio only, but i think america deserves better. decisions that affect our nation should be accessible by the people who are affected by those decisions, and they should be produced in a way that americans can both see and hear. the day of the fireside chat is gone. the day of radio transmissions exclusively, those days are gone. television and even the internet
5:24 pm
are the dominant media for communicating messages and ideas in the modern america. it's not too much to ask the third branch of government at the highest level to share the arguments before the court with the people of america. understand, there will be hundreds of people present and watching this as it occurs. it isn't confidential or private. it's only kept away from the rest of america because this court doesn't want america to see the proceedings. the supreme court is an elite institution in our government. every member of the supreme court went to one of two ivy league law schools. most of the clerks before the court come from one of seven law schools. none of the current justices have ever run for public office. none of the current justices have ever tried a death penalty case, and the lawyers that appear before the supreme court are part of a small and
5:25 pm
exclusive club. perhaps this limited exposure is why many on the court don't seem to fully appreciate the impact its decisions have on everyday america and why the american people deserve to have more access to the court's public proceedings. since the supreme court is the final word on constitutionality, on issues that impact every american, the american people should have full and free access to its open proceedings on television. now, let's be clear about one thing. our bill only applies to court sessions already open to the public. supreme court justices should be able to consult with each other, review cases and deliberate privately. no one, no one in this bill or otherwise is calling for those private deliberations to be televised. i believe that televising private deliberations or closed sessions of the court could cause harm to our judicial system. our bill doesn't require it, i wouldn't support it.
5:26 pm
open sessions, already open sessions of the court, however, where members of the public are already invited to observe are a different matter. they should be televised in real time and widely available. some who oppose our bill say that the elite cadre of seasoned lawyers with the rare opportunity to argue before the highest court in the land will grandstand in front of the cameras, risking their professional reputations and even their clients' cases. some say the court's justices who have been subjected to the most rigorous vetting process known to man and widely covered confirmation hearings, will suddenly shrink from asking tough questions because of the camera's glaring lens. i don't buy it. the experience of state and federal courts that have allowed their open proceedings to be televiseed proves these fears unfounded. while the federal courts of appeal have not yet permitted live cameras to broadcast all appellate proceedings, there was a three-year pilot project in 1990 that assessed the impact of
5:27 pm
cameras in the federal courts. listen to what happened as a result of that pilot program. at the end of the day, 19 of the 20 judges most involved concluded that the presence of cameras in the federal courts -- quote -- "had no effect on the administration of justice." end of quote. don't take my word for it. kenneth starr, former solicitor general and independent counsel, supports our bill and said this -- "this fear seems groundless. the idea that cameras would transform the supreme court into judge judy is ludicrous." for more than 30 years, state courts have broadcast their proceedings, and in fact what they found is it hasn't detracted at all from the pursuit of justice. every state in our nation permits all or part of the appellate court proceedings to be recorded for broadcast on television or streaming on the internet. expanding access to the supreme court by televising its proceedings shouldn't be
5:28 pm
controversial. public scrutiny of the supreme court proceedings produce greater accountability, transparency, understanding and access to the decisionmaking in government. congressional debates have been fully televised for more than three decades. there are people who follow c-span broadcasts religiously. i know. i meet them regularly. as i have said in the judiciary committee, people will come up to me and say one of your colleagues looks a little bit under the weather. has he got the flu? is he sick? just by observing c-span and following the floor of the senate and knowing each of us they think on a more personal basis. they hear these statements, they listen to our debate, they feel better informed about their government. wouldn't the same apply across the street in the supreme court? opponents of our bill say the public will be misinformed because all they will see a brief clip of the court's proceedings which can be misconstrued, leaving the public with the wrong impression. as i have said previously, this argument sounds a lot like an
5:29 pm
editorial from a few years ago. here is what it said." keeping cameras out of the supreme court to prevent people from getting the wrong idea is a little like removing the paintings from an art museum out of fear that visitors might not have the art history background to appreciate them. in 1986, chief justice berger wrote the following words in the supreme court's press enterprise company versus superior court opinion. these words are true today as they were in 1986. people in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it's difficult for them to accept what they are prohibit interested observing. the time has long since come for the supreme court, for the highest court in our land to open its doors and allow the american people to finally observe its proceedings. mr. president, at this point, i would like to make a unanimous consent request relative to this bill that would open the supreme court proceedings to be televised. i ask unanimous consent the
5:30 pm
senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 319, s. 1945, a bill to permit the televising of supreme court proceedings, that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. sessions: reserving the right to object, mr. president. i want to congratulate my colleague, senator durbin, for his able articulation of his view. this is a matter that is -- the senate and the congress has considered quite a number of years. it has not decided to take this step to direct a co-equal branch of government how to conduct their business, and i don't think we should. so i think it would be inappropriate to pass this on a u.c. without a full debate and discussion and a full vote on it. so i would say that.
5:31 pm
also, i would note that the justices have opposed this policy. i think we have a duty to respect the co-equal branch of our government. they feel like it would impact adversely the tenor and tone of the oral arguments, that justices would have to feel burdened to explain why they're asking a question, to perhaps instead of just citing a case by name that all the lawyers would know, but to explain to nonlawyers now what was on their mind as a part of their process of questioning. and so i think that's a factor. i would also note that it raises constitutional questions. why do we want to push to the limit and perhaps over the limit and try to dictate to a co-equal branch how to conduct the adjudicative process? not the political process. we're the political branch.
5:32 pm
that's the nonpolitical branch, where judges are given lifetime tenures so to insulate them from pressure and to allow them to dispassionately decide complex issues. and i would just note also that in terms of what is said and how an argument goes, there's no difference, i suppose, in that than what goes on in chambers when the judges meet in private and talk about what issues are before the court and how it should be decided. what is important in the adjudicative branch, what is the criteria and the fundamental essence of a judicial proceeding ultimately it's the judgment. the judgment speaks. the arguments don't speak, the in camera discussions don't speak, the judgment itself represents the opinion of the court. it is the law and the binding
5:33 pm
process. so although i appreciate very much my esteemed colleague, i know he loves the law as we both do, he believes this would improve justice in america. i can't conclude that that is correct. i believe that the justices should be given on the -- the responsibility to conduct their branch consistent with their best judgment of how to do it. therefore i object and thank and respect my colleague for his different opinion. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. sessions: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i wanted to ask consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar 247, s. 67, that the committee reported amendment to 671 be agreed to, the bill be amended as read a third time and passed.
5:34 pm
mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: mr. durbin: reservie right to object. it's my understanding the judicial committee staff has been working on a number of bills including the very session that senator sessions has asked consent to move to, a bill which i quite likely will support. would the senator be willing to modify his request to include the passage of other bills which are part of that passage and have similarly important elements in terms of keeping america safe? calendar 246, s. 179 , strengthening and investigations of sex offenders and missing children act. calendar 233, s. 1793, the investigative assistance for violent crimes act and discharging the judiciary committee if from further consideration of s. 1696, the dale long officers benefits improvements act, agreeing to a substitute amendment which is at the desk and passing the bill as amended. the presiding officer: does the
5:35 pm
senator so modify his request? mr. sessions: mr. president, i appreciate the suggestion by the senator from illinois. as i believe i would be able to support all of those bills, but i do have information that senators on our side oppose or have objections to two of them, would like to offer amendments or modify them, and so i'm not able to agree on behalf of colleagues that all the bills would be passed as written. mr. durbin: mr. president, until the time comes and i hope it's soon that we can reach an agreement on all four bills i will object to removing one bill from the package. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. sessions: i would note that that the chair is a cosponsor with myself of s. 1793, strengthening investigation of sex offenders and missing children's act of 2011, and perhaps we'll be able to make that work sooner liert. i'm sure we will. -- later.
5:36 pm
i'm sure we will. i did just want to take a moment. i had not prepared remarks but want to join with my colleagues in making a few comments about senator mikulski. first i would ask that my remarks be made part of that portion of the transcript. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: dealing with senator mikulski. mr. president, senator mikulski is a great senator, a delight to work with, a formidable adversary and a formidable ally in any important debate. she is someone that all of us respect and admire. it's surprises me that she's been at this business so long. it doesn't seem like it's possible. she certainly hants lost her enthusiasm for -- hasn't lost her enthusiasm for the job and she has played an important role in quite a number of issues that the country has had to deal
5:37 pm
with. i remember her leadership on an important issue during the post-9/11 time when we were wrestling with how to deal with security for our country. she spoke up firmly and strongly in favor of firm action to defend america from attack. another thing that i don't think has been mentioned, but is exceedingly important, something that i have observed her deal with and provide leadership on for some time, and that is space and nasa. she is one of the absolutely most knowledgeable and experienced members of this senate and the entire united states congress in dealing with the complexities and the needs of nasa and she is a champion and advocate for exploration of
5:38 pm
space. this is something america has led the world in, for all of her time in the senate she has been a champion of advocating united states maintain this leadership because i think we share the views that america is a nation of explorers. we are a nation that leads the world in exploring, and it's part of our d.n.a. so i just really appreciate her leadership in that particular area, and have watched her with great admiration in her activities. so i didn't have -- didn't realize the remarks would be going on this afternoon, i didn't have prepared remarks but i just want to join with my colleagues to say how much i appreciate her. we celebrate her great accomplishment in the senate and i do believe that as we go
5:39 pm
forward, we'll find that in issue after issue, she has played a critical role and a positive role in making america a better place. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: if i could, i'd like to follow our colleague from alabama beam in speaking for just a few minutes about our friend and colleague, senator mikulski, who celebrates a milestone in her career of public service to the people of maryland. i asked my staff to go to the web page for senator mikulski for senate -- her senate office, and i just came across one paragraph i want to read to my colleagues, if i can. it says barbra mikulski has never forgotten her roots. throughout her career, had she has returned home each night to her home city of baltimore, maryland. from community activist to united states senator, she's never changed her view that all
5:40 pm
politics is indeed local and that her job is to serve the people as their-day to day needs -- their day-to-day needs as well and prepare this country for the future. sometimes people have come to congress over the years and they come here understanding clearly that our job is to serve, and over time somehow they lose that thought a little bit and it's less clear who is to be served and who is to be the servant. she's never forgotten who the servant is. she knows that she came her as a servant and she'll leave her someday as a servant. hopefully not any time soon. looking -- those -- most people, what are one or two words that best describe barbara mikulski. a lot of people would say she's a fighter. if you're an advocate, she's a person you want in the foxhole for you. there's no better advocate and
5:41 pm
no better opponent on an issue. it's a lot better to have you on her -- her on your side. i came the train home at night, i go through baltimore on my way to wilmington, delaware. along the route we go by a place called aberdeen. sometimes the train stops there, sometimes it does not. aberdeen proving grounds we've seen consolidate from across the country much of the important research activity that the army does. at the aberdeen proving grounds. the person who more than anybody else has made that possible, it's a huge, vast facility with thousands, i think tens of thousands of employees, mostly civilian, and a campus that's over 100,000 acres, that does great work, helping to provide for our defense against all kinds of attack, foreign and -- and domestic. but she's a great person to have on your side in leading that fight. one of the other things i love
5:42 pm
about barb is her devotion to first responders. there's a big national fire school in a place called gaithersburg, maryland. she's made that place possible and trained first responders for the state of maryland, they train first responders for every state and every corner of this nation. for people going to bed tonight knowing there's a incident in their community that needs to be responded to, they can thank barbara mikulskier that for helping to ensure that i they're ready to do that. she's a person who values service. americorps, encouraging young people, really people of all ages to volunteer and to serve. the ages of our pages here and people a whole lot older, the ages of guys like me. that we all have an obligation to serve and to bring that spirit of service to our lives,
5:43 pm
whether we're in public life or not. i'd say one or two other things, i was struck by the fact that she often opened as a -- a lot of her days as her family opened the grocery store early in the morning in east baltimore. i was born in west virginia, a town called beckley. lived there the first six years of our life but went back many summers and had the opportunity to work for a supermarket, a mom and pop supermarket, my own grand 235ur -- grandfather opened the store six daition a week and i had the opportunity to see him and his work and what he brought to the store as the butcher and i think i learned more about serving by working my summers in that store than anything else i've ever done. i suspect one of the reasons why barbara has become and retained the adopted and retained the spirit of aer is vapt is because of her childhood and growing up
5:44 pm
in her own family and her own dad in that particular store. last point i want to make is this: -- maybe two more. i mentioned my grandfather in west virginia. his wife, my grandmother, suffered from alzheimer's disease. my grandmother's mother suffered from alzheimer's disease. my own mother suffered from alzheimer's disease. and i don't think there's anybody in this body who has really done more to lead the fight to ensure that this scourge of our society and really a scourge of people all over the world is reined in and -- and overcome. and when that day comes, people stand forward to say, well, i did something about this, nobody in this body i think can take more credit for conquering alzheimer's disease than barbara mikulski. finally, if i could, i don't
5:45 pm
think, people probably don't think much when you think of barbara they think of a fighter, an advocate for volunteerism and some of the other things i talked about. i don't think many people think of her as an athlete. but she is a big advocate for leveling the plead playing field. she wants to make sure people have a playing field in which to compete but wants to make sure that young people whether they come from the most impoverished backgrounds have the opportunity, a real shot at life to get a decent education, the chance to go to college and to increase their potential to not just earn money to support their families but live productive lives. those are some of the things i think about when i think of barbara mikulski and i would close by saying to her, she has been in the house i think for six years when i arrived there in 1982, 1983, and for all the time that we served there together she was always very encouraging of me, supportive of me of her delmarva buddy who
5:46 pm
shared the delmarva peninsula with her. and today, trying to make sure by have a strong, vibrant poultry industry, we are still delmarva buddies as we look out for the interests of our respective states. i see senator cantwell who's here to say some good things about senator barbara mikulski. but those are the things i wanted to say. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: thank you, mr. president. i do rise to celebrate the remarkable achievements of my colleague from maryland, senator mikulski. last january we celebrated obvious achievement of her becoming the longest serving female senator. and last saturday, that milestone entered another chapter with her 12,858th day of serving the people of maryland in congress, which means she is now the longest
5:47 pm
serving female member of congress. i know that barbara mikulski started her career fighting for fell's point, a particular location in the baltimore area that she thought deserved -- needed to be protected. and that galvanized her to 24 years of service where she's been a trailblaze other so many issues -- trailblazer on so many issues. many people have talked about these today, about being the first woman elected to statewide office in maryland, being the first democratic woman to serve in both houses of congress, the first democratic woman to sit in a senate leadership position, and the first democratic woman elected to the senate in her own right. so throughout her career, she has faithfully provided a very strong voice for the people of maryland, but it's here in the senate we've all got to see barbara mikulski, the dean of the women senators, and to see her incredible work as a trailblazer on so many important issues. she has been a tireless champion
5:48 pm
of things from pay equity, to increasing access to college education, for women's health, for women's health care law, and time and time again she has proven that she knows thousand fight on the right -- knows how to fight on the right side of the issues. and for the women of the senate, she is an incredibly important ally when it comes for each of us who've come to the united states senate to find our way and to make our own mark. barbara mikulski is the senator who's always there with you to make sure you that can achieve what you want to for the state that you represent. i know for me, i'm very excited, my colleague from alabama was mentioning senator mikulski's love of nasa and space and exploration and i can say that senator mikulski is certainly interested also in sci-fi. and i would call her a techie senator, because she certainly has shown a great deal of interest in technology and in
5:49 pm
science. as the chair of the commerce-justice-science appropriations subcommittee, she's been a key partner on funding of key science and technology issues, and for us in the state of washington when we needed a new doppler radar technology system, she was there to help ensure that those people who lived in coastal regions were going to have the appropriate protections that they needed from understanding inclement weather. she also has helped in prioritizing things like the cleanup of chesapeake bay in maryland, something we in the northwest relate to because we strive to have the same cleanup of puget sound. and we've worked together on important legislation, like passing the lilly ledbetter legislation. but it's barbara mikulski, when it comes to protecting women's access to health care or standing up for any attack on medicare, it's barbara mikulski who is the most articulate, the most determined, the most
5:50 pm
persevering advocate to make sure that women's issues and their cause is understood in the united states senate. i was proud to stand with her when she went up against the house plan to defund critical women's health care access and there was a near shutdown of government. and as people tried to pressure planned parenthood, she was there to make sure that we continued important programs like breast cancer screening. so today i join my colleagues from the senate to thank her for those years of service in the united states congress, both in the house and the senate. and while she may represent maryland, we all want to claim that we are better off as a country having barbara mikulski in the united states senate. and to my colleagues or the young people who are here with us on the senate floor, to understand this moment in achievement, you have to understand that in the whole history of our country, there's
5:51 pm
only been 39 women senators. and a good number of those women senators only served a few days or a few years. so the fact that somebody has achieved not just a seat in the united states senate but a leadership position in the united states senate is an incredible achievement. so we are glad that she has represented a time where women have ascended to leadership in the united states senate and are considered one of the wise members when it comes to strategy on so many policy issues. so we are better off as a body because barbara mikulski has served with us, and we are looking forward to many, many more years of wisdom and hopefully many more women senators joining the ranks of barbara mikulski in their tenure. i thank the president, and i yield the floor. mr. franken: mr. president? the presiding officer: the
5:52 pm
senator from minnesota. mr. franken: thank you, mr. president. i rise today also to pay tribute to my colleague, the senior senator from maryland, barbara mikulski. as everyone has said, this is -- this is a landmark, this is a milestone, the longest woman senator -- member of congress in the history of congress, serving more than 35 years. let me just say this. as a relatively junior member of this body, i love barbara mikulski. i love her because she calls me "franken." that is just music to my ears. we're in the caucus lunch and i may be in her way, she goes, "franken!" she's -- i'm not only a relatively junior senator, i actually kind of recently was a comedian at one point, and she's really funny, barbara. i remember the first time i saw
5:53 pm
her speak -- it was years ago, years ago. i was at some -- i can't remember what event was. and i'm going to try to quote her joke. it was her joke, remember, about herself. and she said that she talked about her first campaign ever. and i think it was for city council or something like that. and she said, well, i -- i knocked on 7,387 doors and i walked a total of 372 miles, and i didn't lose a pound. so i love barbara. and she's just a -- a force. just a force of nature. and being the dean of women here isn't her most commanding title.
5:54 pm
her most commanding title is a fighter. she's a fighter. and when she commits herself to a cause, she is a true champion. she is a true champion for america's seniors, deserving pensions; of medicare, defending medicare. boy, don't attack medicare around barbara mikulski. and combating poverty. no one works harder for quality education, make sure that every child -- or fighting to make sure that every child has a quality education. and so that child can pursue the american dream. and she's committing -- committed to following our country's promises to our veterans. which is so important.
5:55 pm
and so increasing community service and volunteerism. as anyone who's watched the proceedings here in the senate knows, barbara mikulski, as my colleague from washington stated, is the greatest champion in the body for women's health. here's something that's pretty amazing to understand. i want the pages to hear this. she fought to include women in n.i.h. clinical trials. women were not included in the national institutes of health clinical trials until she made sure they were. isn't that -- that's just hard to believe, isn't it?
5:56 pm
but in your 16 years of life, you -- you just -- at 16, you can't conceive of this. this is how backward we were. think of what she did. that's who we're talking about today. she has improved access for women to mammograms and cancer screening, just for all women. and she has fought for women's choice to protect their own -- to have their say over their own body and reproductive system. basically, what i'm saying is, when you have barbara mikulski on your side, you have a strong voice in the united states
5:57 pm
senate. we've heard reference to her accomplishment on the lilly ledbetter fair pay act. when advocating for this bill, senator mikulski said -- and i quote -- "women earn just 77 cents for every dollar her male counterparts make. women of color get paid even less. the lilly ledbetter fair pay act will empower women to fight for fair pay by once again making employers accountable for paid discrimination. i will fight on the senate floor to get this bill passed." and the bill was passed. it was the first bill that president obama signed in office. senator mikulski and i share a number of passions. one of them is early childhood education. increasing early childhood education, access to it, is one
5:58 pm
of my top priorities, because we know over and over again the benefits of early childhood education have been demonstrat demonstrated. and barbara knows this. and i wanted to -- i wanted to have a hearing on just the economic benefits of early childhood education, just the economic benefits. because a child who has a quality early childhood education is less likely to be a special ed kid, is less likely to be left back a grade, has better health outcomes. if they're girls, less likely to get pregnant before she graduates high school. more than likely to graduate --
5:59 pm
more likely to graduate high school. more likely to go to college. more likely to graduate college. more likely to get a good-paying job and pay taxes, and much less likely to go to prison. it's been shown over and over again that the cost-benefit, it's like for every dollar spent, it's like $16 in return. i wanted to get a hearing just on this because we were talking -- we were talking about education. i thought that this really needed to be discussed and we needed experts, economists who were credible on this. so i went to barbara and she, of course, said oh, yeah. okay, let's do it. now, she is chair of the subcommittee on children and families. and she said -- and i thought that would be a good place to do it except that i'm not on that
6:00 pm
subcommittee. i'm on the "help" committee, which this is a subcommittee of, but i'm not on that committee. but she said, okay, well, you -- it doesn't matter. you come anyway. and not only that, but what witness do you want? so she let me pick a witness, art rolnick, an expert in early childhood education, on the economics of it. who started out as an economist at the federal reserve in minneapolis and got into this, really, on the economic benefits of it. so she is a true ally. she's someone 0 had wil who wilr resources as chairwoman of a committee to make sure that something that you really feel strongly about will be aired, will be discussed. and you learn from barbara that really what we do around here isn't so much about policy.
6:01 pm
it's really about peoplement for her, it's about the people of maryland. she goes to bat for them time and time and time again. it's about kids. it's about women. they'll often be both the breadwinner and the caregiver and who should have the rights -- every right that -- and every opportunity at work and in society that men have. and as both a member of the united states senate and as a father of a wonderful daughter, i'm enormously grateful to senator mikulski for being a tremendous role model to women in this country, for having
6:02 pm
fought her way to the united states senate, and for proving that legislating wasn't a man's job -- or only a man's job. it is a man's job, too. this body is so much richer for her, and americans are so much better off as a result, but her work, our work isn't over. out of 100 senators, there's still only 17 women. our nation is facing tremendously difficult challenges, and having more women like senator mikulski in the room will help us solve these problems. i'm glad she is here leading the way. and with that, i would like to thank barbara for her leadership, her friendship, and for being such a fierce advocate.
6:03 pm
congratulations, barbara, on your achievements thus far and on this milestone. i look forward to many, many, many years fighting alongside you, barbara. thank you, mr. president, and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
6:04 pm
mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: may i ask that the pending roll call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. whitmr. whitehouse: and if there are further remarks in the series of tributes to senator mikulski, maims i ask unanimous consent that my -- may i ask unanimous consent that my remarks, which will be on a different subject at this point, are moved in the record outside
6:05 pm
of the tributes to senator mikulski, so that h they may be uninterrupted in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you. i am here today to introduce the disclose act of 2012, what we're informally calling disclose 2.0 in recognition of the original bill that senator schumer worked so hard to get passed a few years ago. the supreme court's 2010 decision in citizens united v. federal election commission opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate and special interest money in elections, bringing about an era where corporations and other wealthy interests can drown out the voices of individual voters in our political system. we'rwhere still much of this spd something anonymous. so the public does not even know
6:06 pm
who is spending millions to influence our elections. here's how my home state newspaper, the providence journal, explained the citizens united decision: the ruling will mean that more than ever big spending economic interests will determine who gets elected. more money will especially pour into relentless attack campaigns. free speech for most individuals will suffer because their voices will count for even less than they do now. they will simply be drowned out by the big money. i think events have proven "the providence journal" correct. senator john mccain recently described these events. he said, "i predicted when the united states supreme court, with their absolute ignorance of what happens in politics, struck down the mccain-feingold campaign finance law, that there would be a flood of money into
6:07 pm
campaigns, not transparent, unaccounted for, and this is exactly what is happening." if you look at the 2006 and 2010 congressional elections where there wang a presidential race going on -- there wasn't a presidential race going on, after citizens united, in 2010 there was a fourfold increase in expenditures from super pacs and other outside groups compared to what occurred in 2006. with nearly three-quarters of that political advertising coming from sources that were prohibited from spending money in 2006 -- three-quarters of it. also in 2010, those 501-c-4 and 501-c-6 organizations spent more thank $135 million in unlimited
6:08 pm
and secret contributions. anonymous spending rose from 1% of outside spending in 2006 to 47% of outside spending in 2010, nearly half of the money spent through these outside organizations is anonymous and secret. if you look at the 2012 race that we're in right now, a presidential race, and compare it to the last presidential race, we are already seeing similar ominous signs about the influence of money. the federal election commission predicts that over $11 billion will be spent on the 2012 elections, about double what was spent in 2008. super pacs mostly linked to individual candidates spent about $100 million through the
6:09 pm
supertuesday contests in the republican presidential primaries. again, about twice what was spent over the same period in 2008. in the two weeks leading up to supertuesday, outside pacs that supported the republican president dense candidates spent three times as much as the candidates themselves. our campaign finance system is broken. immediate action is required to fix it. americans of all political stripes, whatever your persuasion, are disgusted by the influence of unlimited, anonymous corporate cash in our elections, and by campaigns that succeed or fail depending on how many billionaires the candidates have in their pockets.
6:10 pm
editorial boards across the country decry in new pollution of our politics. republicans like former governors mike huck abee and tom ridge declare that superpacs are "one of the worst things that ever happened in american politics." seven in 10 americans, including a majority of both republicans and democrats, believe that super pacs should be illegal. countless rhode islanders are fed up with the influence of corporate money in elections. i hear them at my community dinners. i read their mail. charles in little compton wrote in to me, "it is wrong that someone who shouts louder should drown out another person because they have more money. corporations have no problem
6:11 pm
getting their views aired." hope wrote, "just the idea that a corporation is considered an individual in regards to politics goes against everything american to me. they've become the emperors, as they have the financial ability to be heard everywhere. i'd be willing to bet that a majority of their own employees do not agree with their political representation." elizabeth in wakefield wrote, "big business should not control our elections. it is bad enough that they deeply influence our politicians through lobbyists." but because of a 5-4 decision by the conservative judges in citizens united, congress cannot prohibit super pacs from drowning out the voices of ordinary americans in our elections. that leaves us with one weapon left in the fight against the overwhelming tidalwave of money from special interests, and that
6:12 pm
weapon is disclosure, daylight, iinformation. today, along with 34 other senators, i am introducing legislation that will shine a bright light on these powerful, shadowy interests. with this legislation, every citizen will know who is spending these great sums of money to get their candidates elected. i'm delivering this speech at a time when senator bennet, the distinguished junior senator from colorado, is presiding, and i'm very conscious and aware, as i deliver it, of the immense amount of work that he has put into the process of preparing this legislation, working on a strategy for going forward, working with our leadership to commence that strategy, and i am grateful to him and to the other senators who i'll mention later. but since the senator from colorado is presiding, i'll give
6:13 pm
him the lead. in 2010, under senator schumer's leadership and guidance, we came within one vote of passing his original disclose act. since then, the problem of anonymous and unaccountable corporate money has become dramatically worse. and americans are losing faith in our political system as a result. more and more people feel that their government responds only to wealthy and powerful corporate interests, as they see their jobs disappear and their wages stagnate and bailouts and special deals for the big guys. they lose faith that their elected first of all, ar -- they lose faith that their elected officials are listening to them. this trend must not continue. we must redouble our efforts and pass the disclose act of 2012. the bill we're introducing today has been trimmed down so that it
6:14 pm
just does two simple things: one, if you're an organization, like a corporation, a superparks or a 501-c-4 group, spending money in an election campaign in support of or in opposition to a candidate, you have to tell the public where that money came from and what you're spending it on in a timely manner. that should not be a controversial idea to anyone. at least to anyone who's not seeking special influence. if you are a top executive or a major donor of an organization spending millions of dollars on campaign ads, you have to take responsibility for those ads by having your name on the ad, and in the case of an executive appearing in the ad yourself. that saidthat's it -- disclosura
6:15 pm
disclaimer. these are reasonable provisions that should have wide support from democrats and republicans alike. the disclose act of 2012, the disclose 2.0 act, trims down the original disclose act in another way. we have raised the threshold for donations that require disclosure from $600 to $10,000. now, it may sound like $10,000 is a ridiculously high threshold, that that's just an awful lot of money. but when you look at what's happening in these super pac's, $10,000 in this particular world is no big deal. 93% of money raised by super
6:16 pm
pac's in 2010 and 2011 that can be traced to specific donors came in contributions of $10,000 or more. so we will catch probably 93% of the money in this reporting provision while leaving smaller donations and dues payments to membership organizations private. the act also does not require the disclosure of nonpolitical donations, affiliate transfers, business investments and other transfers of money that have nothing to do with electioneering. at the same time, however, the bill also contains strong provisions to prevent the use of dummy organizations or shell corporations to hide their donations from public view. the way this bill is drafted, if somebody sets up a phony organization to take a contribution and in turn make that contribution to another
6:17 pm
phony organization and in turn make that contribution to another phony organization before it finally lands in the super pac that is benefiting a candidate, we will be able to trace that series of transactions. so it's a good law, it's a simpler law, it's an effective law. it only goes after high dollar givers, and passing it would prove to the american people that congress is committed to fairness, that we are committed to equality and that we are committed to the fundamental principle of a government of the people, by the people and for the people. in closing, let me thank senator schumer for his exemplary leadership and determination on this vitally important issue, as well as senators michael bennet,
6:18 pm
al franken, jeff merkley, jeanne shaheen and tom udall, all of whom have worked very closely on this legislation. i would also like to thank the act's other cosponsors, all 35. let me understand that the legitimacy of our democratic process and the integrity of our democratic elections are at stake. i look forward to working with any of my colleagues here in the senate, any, who feel that the voices of american citizens should be defended, and i hope that all will join me in supporting this critical piece of legislation to restore integrity to our elections. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, i rise today along with so many of my colleagues to pay tribute to senator barbara mikulski, an
6:19 pm
extraordinary woman, an extraordinary senator, someone who has become the longest serving woman in the history of the senate, indeed in the history of the united states congress. she surpassed on january 5, 2011, the record of republican of maine senator margaret chase smith as the longest serving senator, and just this saturday, she became the longest serving woman in the history of congress, surpassing the tenure of edith nourse rogers, the representative from massachusetts. she is the first female senator to be elected in her own right. she was elected in 1986. she is a woman of many firsts. she is indeed the dean of the senate women.
6:20 pm
i would actually say probably the dean of the senate. with her great energy, her great eloquence, her great passion, particularly for those who are often overlooked in our society. she comes at it honestly. she was a social worker in baltimore, helping at-risk children and educating seniors about medicare before she got elected to the united states house of representatives, and she has taken that concern for the vulnerable and a particular passion for the state of maryland forward every day she has served in the house and senate. she has served on numerous committees. she is a subcommittee chairperson on the appropriations committee, commerce, justice and science. she has devoted herself to those issues and many, many more. she has served on the select committee on intelligence.
6:21 pm
she has been a key member of the education committees of the united states senate. she has left her mark on a broad range of programs that touch each and every american family. she has been particularly active in improving women's health, ensuring that women were included in n.i.h. clinical trials, where in the past they were ignored. but since you can't ignore barbara mikulski, that's virtually impossible, she made it the reality that you can't ignore women at n.i.h. trials. she required -- for mammography. she ensured that uninsured women have access to screenings for heart and cervical cancer. she has increased research dollars for alzheimer's research. she has enhanced the older americans act. she has been since her first day at the united states house of representatives at the forefront in advocating for better health
6:22 pm
care, better education, particularly for the most vulnerable of our society. she has championed national service, understanding that in a great country, you have to contribute as well as benefit. and she said that she is most proud of, in her words, strengthening the safety net for seniors by passing the spousal antiimpoverishment act. this important legislation helps keep seniors from going bankrupt by paying for a spouse's nursing home care. again, a fitting and representative sample of her extraordinary work. throughout her service, she has maintained national priorities but she has never taken her eye off maryland. she commutes home every evening to baltimore. she works very, very hard to ensure that the people and the state of maryland benefit because of her actions and activities. now, i also want to thank her for the kindness and help that she has given to me personally
6:23 pm
in so many different ways. her concern, for example, with the fishing community in rhode island under her jurisdiction on the appropriations committee and in other ways. she has been terribly important and terribly kind to us. she was instrumental to help us to secure funding for hope six project in newport, rhode island, which created extraordinarily beneficial housing for a mix of incomes in newport, and it's one of the most attractive as well as one of the most stable communities i think anyplace in the nation. she has been there to help us constantly and consistently. now, i could go on and on, as my colleagues have said. i simply want to say at this very special moment in barbara mikulski's career, we thank her, we admire her, we respect her, and she has set the example for us. in the days ahead, she will not only continue to inspire and
6:24 pm
sustain us, she will continue to inspire, sustain and lead her state and this nation. with that, mr. president, i would yelled the floor. -- i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent that my -- the beginning of my remarks be placed alongside other comments like senator reed's about the senior senator from maryland. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. some time ago, i was reading a book about the beginnings of the interstate highway system in our country, and i came across a paragraph when highway builders in the federal government were going to run the interstate highway -- run an interstate highway through some of some stable middle-class, working class neighborhoods of baltimore, and the highway
6:25 pm
administration was greeted by an organizer who on behalf of citizens of this neighborhood said this is not the place to put this highway, and she was successful in convincing them that the highway should go elsewhere so it wouldn't be so disruptive of so many homes and well-established small businesses and the cohesive community in that part of baltimore, and that woman who led that effort several decades ago was barbara mikulski. she was not yet on city council. she was a citizen who spoke up for her neighbors, and she has continued to speak up for her neighbors, first as a sitting member of the city council and then a member of the united states house of representatives and for many years since, for three and a half decades, of the united states senate. we heard senator reed and others earlier in the day talk about senator mikulski, the first female democrat to serve in both the house and senate, first female to be elected to the senate without succeeding a
6:26 pm
husband or a father, first woman to chair a senate appropriations subcommittee, and perhaps most importantly, setting this -- helping to blaze this path in 1970, only two female senators. one was the daughter from kansas, the daughter of a presidential nima generation earlier. the other barbara mikulski today. there are 17 female members of the senate. it doesn't look like america yesterday, and this body surely doesn't look like america. it doesn't have anything close to the number of minority members as a percentage of the population, as a percentage of the senate that our population does. i hope that changes. i think it will. and it doesn't have anything close to representing the -- the gender makeup of our society. but to go from two female senators when senator mikulski first came to 17 today, and if i could predict elections, which none of us can and should certainly not even try, i think there is a pretty good chance and i know the presiding officer thinks this, too, that there will be a number of
6:27 pm
additional -- there will be additional, significantly more women in this body at this time next year. but i want to say a couple more things about senator mikulski on a less serious note. i want to talk about something else. i have been privileged to serve on two committees with senator mikulski, the health, education, labor and pension committee during the health care legislation. she was so helpful to so many of the causes that we care about and justice in this country and on the appropriations committee where she cuts a wide swath of involvement for the state of maryland and for -- and for this country. she championed -- of course she champions women's health. many have talked about this earlier today. she cares so much about national institutes of health, not just because the national institutes of health is located in maryland but because it matters so much for scientific research, for curing a whole host of diseases and preventing a whole host of
6:28 pm
diseases, and the work that -- the number of jobs n.i.h. creates, not just government jobs but the jobs that come out of commercialization of scientific research. my state is one of the leaders in whether these jobs come out of cincinnati children's hospital, southwest ohio or case western reserve university and its medicals, and the medical center around cleveland, we see that kind of commercialization. she is also -- i call barbara mikulski often coach b. because she -- as someone who has been around here a long time, she is always willing to advise newer and younger members. she has been following her especially in my state for what's important in my state, in addition to health care. and my state is one of the leading -- has some of the leading health care institutions in the united states of america. also what she has done with the space program. the only -- the only -- the only
6:29 pm
nasa -- the only nasa facility north of the mason-dixon line is in cleveland with a satellite near sandusky, ohio, named nasa glenn after astronaut and former u.s. senator john glenn. what coach b., what senator mikulski has done is one of the strongest -- as one of the strongest advocates in this country, in this senate first space program and science, technology, research and development, has been particularly helpful to me as i fight for the kind of work that nasa glenn does in cleveland, ohio, and i'm so appreciative of senator mikulski for that. mr. president, i ask for unanimous consent to separate the rest of my -- my remaining words. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i rise today to talk about a new record that has been set. it has nothing to do with the number of votes the highway bill garnered last week in the senate. it has nothing to do with length of service of senator mikulski. this year for the first time in
6:30 pm
history, one state, one state has four teams in the sweet 16 of the ncaa men's division one basketball tournament. that's the state of ohio. special congratulations to highway state university in columbus, the university of cincinnati in hamilton county, ohio university in athens, ohio, and can xavier -- xavier university in cincinnati. for their outstanding runs in making our state proud. i'm hosting for the fifth time an annual highway college presidents -- ohio college presidents next week. we bring in 50, 60 college presidents to meet with each other and meet with me and we bring in in people from the administration, we bring these 55 or 60 college presidents in from ohio for a day and a half from two-year public and private institutions, two-year community colleges, four-year colleges and universities. they lerp best practices from
6:31 pm
one another, they make -- they build relationships that help all of them, all 55 or 60 of these college presidents do better. perhaps we'll talk a little more about college sports this year because of these four ohio teams that made the sweet 16. and we also know that another point of reference for ohio this year, march madness started in dayton in what's become an important tradition in the miami valley and the country. the oregon district hosted the first four festival where 15,000 people crowded local restaurants and bars, listened to live music and watched games on big screens. a few days later, president obama and british prime minister david cameron came to dayton, joined the and their fans from across the country to watch the first rounds of the ncaa
6:32 pm
division 1's tournament, division 1 tournament at the u.d. arena. the arena holds the national record for the number of ncaa basketball games, tournament games held in a single venue. the business community in dayton, one of the most active in the country, the dayton development coalition, rallied together to make sure military families from wright-patterson air force base were able to attend. $3.5 million was pumped into the economy, showcasing the miami valley's world-class tourism infrastructure, hotels and, parks and recreation and entertainment. we saw it in the arena district of columbus where the city hosted games on the opening weekend. local columbus leaders and businesses hosted teams from st. louis and north carolina and michigan, new york, tennessee, california, and washington with their fans. the city expected a $10 million impact on the local community with tens of thousands of people staying in hotels, eating in restaurants and enjoying one of the fastest growing cities in
6:33 pm
america where i might add, the presiding officer once lived. we saw a boost in tourism in northern ohio where bowling green hosted the first and second rounds of the women's basketball tournament of the ncaa. organizers in bowling green said the games were more about basketball, about people from across the nation coming to town and boosting the sales of small businesses. all the excitement and economic activity goes to show ohio is a tremendous attraction of basketball tourism and basketball talent as the tournaments continue and ohio teams continue to win, i look forward to working with our communities and business leaders to further leverage our assets and tourism and recreation to create jobs throughout our state and promote economic development. mr. president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
6:34 pm
6:35 pm
6:36 pm
6:37 pm
6:38 pm
6:39 pm
6:40 pm
6:41 pm
mr. durbin: mr. durbin: mr. pre. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask following morning business on thursday, march 22 the senate resume consideration of h.r. 3606, the time equally divided between the leaders or their designees, at 12:30 the postcloture time be considered spired and the senate proceed to vote on the following, merkley number 1844 as amended if amended and passage of h.r. 3606 if amended. there be two minutes equally eqy divided and controlled by in the usual form, that upon digs position of h.r. 3606 the senate
6:42 pm
proceed to consideration of the house message to accompany s. 2038, the stock act that there be four minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by in the usual form prior to the motion to invoke cloture in the house message to instur s. 2038, if cloture is invoked all postcloture time be yielded back, the amendment be withdrawn and the motion to concur agreed to. the motions relative to the above items be laid and laid upon the table and after all after the first vote be ten-minute votes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein are up to minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. durbin: i ask te following the disposition of the stock act the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc, calendar number 441, 46
6:43 pm
, and 463, that there be two minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form, upon the use or yielding back the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on calendars 441, 462, and 463, that the motion his to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, no further actions be in order and any related statements printed in the record and the president immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate preexpwhriewm legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask the senate proceed to s. res. 403 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: to authorize testimony, dowment production and legal representation in the united states versus richard f. dickey scruggs. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the resolution
6:44 pm
resolution, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent h.r. 3036 be discharged from the committee on energy and natural resources and referred to the committee on environment and public works. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent it be printed as a senate document a compilation in tribute to member barbara mikulski and members have until thursday, march 29 to submit such tributes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business it it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on thursday, the morning business be deemed expired and the time for the two leaders reserved for use later in the day. following any leader remarks the senate be in morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled by between the leaders or their
6:45 pm
designees with the majority rolling the first half and the republicans the final half. following morning business the senate resume consideration of the i.p.o. bill, further the that the filing of second-degree motions to the reed motion to concur with the stock act be 10 30bg a.m. on -- 10:30 a.m. on thursday. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: there be a receivers up to seven roll call votes tomorrow beginning at 12:30 p.m. including completion of the stock act, the i.p.o. bill and three judicial nominations. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order, following the remarks of senator wyden and landrieu. the presiding officer: without objection.
6:46 pm
6:47 pm
the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to vacate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president, i've been able to listen a bit to the wonderful tributes of the last few hours to senator mikulski. we all know of her wonderful service all these years, the record that is being shattered,
6:48 pm
a very special record. and i was struck, as i listened to some of the comments, that tributes usually come in the united states senate when one of our colleagues is leaving office or sometimes one of our colleagues passes away. and what i'm struck by this afternoon is how glad i am, and colleagues on both sides of the aisle are, that senator mikulski is very much alive. and next week and next month and in the years ahead, she is going to continue to bring this kind of wellspring of conscience and energy and passion and expertise to the united states senate. and i'm going to have more to
6:49 pm
say in terms of a lengthier speech, but she and i have had a special relationship for really almost three decades. we served together in the other body on the energy and commerce committee. we would often show up at meetings together -- and this is still a trajectory carbon -- stn that conditions now because we both have the -- that continues now because we both have the honor of serving on the select committee on intelligence, and smart mikulski and i would walk in together and she would smile and she said, "now the long and short of it are arriving." and i guess that's true in a literal sense, but while senator mikulski may be modest in
6:50 pm
stature, she has one very large record on behalf of the public interest. and i'm especially grateful for all that she has done for people without power and people without clout. when we think about what has so angered the american people -- and i've heard the senator from colorado, the president of the senate, talk about this -- is people feel so disconnected from government. that you can have a community meeting in oregon or colorado or maryland or some other part of the country and somehow there's this sense what goes on in washington really has nothing to do with people in their home communities. well, senator mikulski doesn't practice public service that w
6:51 pm
way. senator mikulski has always fe felt, since the days when she was a community organizer and they were dealing with those community problems and where you were going to locate a freeway or something of that nature, she always felt that public service and community service was always about being connected to people. she understood right away what people may say at a town hall meeting now in colorado or oregon about government being removed from their lives. and for decades, she has practiced a very different kind of public service, and she did it when she was a community organizer, she did it in the house of representatives, she continues to do it today. very often when we take the subway to a vote and i ask her what she's done over the weeke weekend, she'll talk about fishing families. she knows that i was codirector of the gray panthers for many years before i was elected to
6:52 pm
congress so we'll talk about aging issues. and everybody knows what she's done in the aging field and her interest in fighting alzheimer's. so it always comes back to people and that connection that she brings to public service that is so lacking from what americans see as the big problem in government today, that much of what goes on here is simply disconnected from their lives. and i think what i see in barbara mikulski is the real measure of what we want in a public servant. we want someone who's conscientious, we want someone who's smart, we want someone who's got good values, and someone who always tries to be a coalition builder.
6:53 pm
i've watched senator mikulski in lots of instances -- we had one just recently where senator mikulski was trying to find a balance on a difficult and contentious issue between industry and the environment, and i watched how she was trying to listen to both sides. maryland's got some communities where they've got older plants, and if she can't take steps to protect those plants and have the workers keep their jobs, a lot of people are going to hurt. and senator mikulski always tries to keep that from happening. she also said, clean air and the environmental laws are importa important. and that last quality of trying to bring people together -- i've heard the senator from colorado talk about it -- is what senator mikulski's public service career is all about -- has been all about. so tonight and through the day
6:54 pm
we've heard colleagues, you know, pay tributes. i made mention of the fact that so often i hear these tributes when a colleague is leaving the united states senate. i just want to close these brief remarks by saying that i'm especially grateful and the cause of good government is enhanced by the fact that senator mikulski is very much alive, this is not a tribute to someone who's leaving office. this is a tribute to someone who's going to be here next week, next month, in the years ahead, continuing to shatter those records as she advocates for people who don't have big lobbies, who don't have lots of political clout and can't go out and hire p.r. firms and well-paid and well-tailored advocates to walk the halls of
6:55 pm
the united states senate. she's there for those people who don't have a voice. she's been there for those people ever since she was a community organizer in those early days in baltimore. and when i think about trying to give public service a good name, i think about barbara mikulski, our wonderful friend, senator barbara mikulski, the senior senator from the state of maryland. we thank her for giving public service a good name. we thank her for taking on the battles and the fights that she has in the past. and we're all especially grateful that at the end of this tribute, she will be back at her post a few seats from me standing up for those values and standing up for those causes that are so important to the well-being of this country. madam president, with that, i yield the floor. i would note the absence of a quorum. and i think our distinguished colleague from louisiana, senator landrieu's, on her way. and with that, madam president,
6:56 pm
i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
6:57 pm
6:58 pm
6:59 pm
7:00 pm
quorum call:
7:01 pm
7:02 pm
ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: are we in a quorum call in. the presiding officer: we are. ms. landrieu: i would like to ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: wowcts. ms. landrieu: madam president, i rise to speak -- and i may be the last speaker of the day, but i did not want to leave the chamber or the building without taking a moment to come to the floor, as so many of our colleagues did today, to honor one of our own, one of our favorites. not only is she a favorite to us, but i'm certain beyond a shad dove a doubt -- beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is one of the favorite senators ever to represent the state of maryland. she's respected, she's beloved,
7:03 pm
and she is admired by millions of her constituents from maryland, but i can promise you that is true of constituents in louisiana, potentially in your home state, madam president, and really throughout the world. last saturday our friend and colleague, senator barbara 34-b- barbara mikulski of maryland, became the longest-serving woman in the history of the u.s. congress. and i can only say that we have come a long way since the first woman was appointed, as i recall being back in the 129 20's. she was only allowed to serve one day and was not going to be give an paycheck. but insisted that she be paid for her service. i think she might have been paid $1 for her service. and, of course, the record of that one day on the floor speaks for itself. we've come a long way since that day.
7:04 pm
but barbara mikulski was first elected to the u.s. house in 1976 and then to the u.s. senate ten years later. when she first entered this chamber, there was only one other woman here, her friend and her good, strong supportive colleague, nancy kassebaum, a republican from kansas. so a democrat from maryland and a republican from kansas, but the two of them were quite a team, and barbara mikulski speaks fondly of her days with senator nancy kassebaum. today now there are 17 of us, and proudly we continue that tradition of respect and bipartisanship set in large measure by two of the women that we greatly admire. the late-representative edith nourse rogers of mos massachuse, who served from 1925 to 1960,
7:05 pm
had previously held the record for the longest-serving member of congress. breaking this record is only one of the many milestones that senator mikulski has accomplished during her tenure in the senate. but as she would so quickly say, madam president, it is not how long you serve but it's how well you serve. it is not the length of your service, as she said to us so many times, but the quality of your service. we could not have a better role model in terms of effectiveness, strength, tenacity, courage, boldness than in our own senator barbara mikulski. she was the first female democrat, the first in the history of our country, to serve in both chambers of congress, the first female democrat to be elected to the senate without succeeding a husband or a father, and the first female to
7:06 pm
chair an appropriations committee. now, i serve on the appropriations committee. it's one of the most powerful committees in our congress. when i think about that it took us over 225 years for a woman to get the gavel on just one of the 14 subcommittees -- that number has changed over the decades, but if you think about it, from the beginning our country's history, those early days, through the expansion out west, through the civil war, post-civil war history, the early part of the 1900's, world war i, world war i i, never did a woman mold hold a gavel to we one budget for one country in the entire world until barbara
7:07 pm
mikulski received one of those gavels. i can tell you our country is a better place in health, in welfare, our space program, our science and technology programs because barbara mikulski has used that gavel, not to promote herself but to promote the people that she serves and the principles that she fights for. she is well-respected for her wisdom, for her tenacity, and her strength. she's respected by female and male peers that serve with her. as most of my female colleagues in the senate have also experienced, senator mikulski took me under her wing when i was the first woman sworn in to a full term as a united states senator from louisiana. she extended her hand to help me in every way possible to help me find my footing here as a
7:08 pm
senator, and to navigate through the intricacies of the senate process. she was never too busy to put out a helping hand or a pat on the shoulder. she was always willing to give that extra advice and, i might say, was always willing to suggest that you might have made a mistake, try it a little different way the next time. not one to mince words, but as a good big sister would takes under her wing and help us out, as any good big sister would do. in addition to that wonderful, helpful, and thoughtful gesture she shared with me and so many, she has been an inspiration to so many women, particularly young women, that have looked up to here, trying to follow in her footsteps. so, in conclusion, i can only say that this senate and this congress, the people of
7:09 pm
maryland, the people of our country, and women throughout the world have been really blessed by her leadership. what has touched me, i guess, the most about watching her is the fearlessness in which she serves. she just doesn't back down. she knows herself. she's comfortable in her own skin. she doesn't try to be someone that she's not. she's proud of her polish-american background, always proud to talk about the bakery that her parents owned, her immigrant background, and always so willing to share really from her heart as well as her mind some of the things that she believes in. she's been nothing but an inspiration to me and to many, so i'm so glad that i could come to the floor today. i'm so glad that i think almost every one of our colleagues has made it to the floor to honor her, and, you know, when god
7:10 pm
made barbara mikulski, he threw away the mold. i don't think there will ever be one like her. there most certainly isn't anyone in politics today that is like her. and that's good to be unique in that way. she will be long remembered. i hope she'll serve here for many wonderful years to come. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned under senate stands adjourned under
7:11 pm
[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]
7:12 pm
[roll call] [roll call] >> any other members wishing to vote or change their vote? if not the clerk shall report. >> mr. chairman on that vote the ayes or 13 and the no's are 20. >> the no's have it. the amendment does does not agree to. i now yield to ms. bonamici. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> go for. >> an and amendment relating to wall street. >> i'm proud to offer this. >> do you want to do the 15 are
7:13 pm
the 10? >> how about 12? >> we can to have. >> i think i need a 15. >> okay, no problem. you are recognized for seven minutes. spam span pedro guzman in support of the securities and exchange commission the consumer financial protection bureau. a critical part of rebuilding our economy is restoring consumer confidence. by ensuring a fair and level playing field. we do this and part by putting into place appropriate rules of play in a referee to enforce these rules. in a republican budget proposal it's the assertion that the free enterprise system is being stifled by a federal bureaucracy fixated on depriving citizens and businesses of their ability to make social and economic decisions. according to what is best for their own needs and interests. now i say respectfully to my colleagues, we have seen what happens when we take the referees off of the field and allow wall street to pursue policies and practices that focus purely on what is best for their own needs and interests.
7:14 pm
we are now digging ourselves out of an enormous economic ditch because we had inadequate rules and we were not clear about enforcing them. the securities and exchange commission and the new consumer financial protection bureau play a critical role in protecting against a repeat of the very problems that cause the financial crisis. my amendment technologists they are of importance and supports the president's request for funding the sec and supporting the work of this cfpb. the cf this cfpb is a relatively new yet it has started begun the important work as a watchdog for an educator of consumers across all walks of life from student loan borrowers to seniors to servicemembers. now i've done a lot of work in the area of consumer protection and i understand the value to consumers of the work that the sec and the cfpb are charged to carry out but i also understand and urge all of my colleagues to
7:15 pm
consider the importance to businesses and the economy as a whole. clear and fair rules and consistent enforcement of those rules are critical in fostering a robust economy and creating a level playing field. now the vast majority of businesses follow the law but a lack of structure and enforcement put them at the mercy of the unscrupulous players they gain an unfair competitive advantage. now the work of the sec in the cfpb is critical to our recovering economy. rather than cutting their budget or tempting them to preventing them from tearing out their responsibility the responsibility congress should support the critical mission. my amendment does is by recognizing their importance in supporting their efforts. it is now my pleasure to yield to ranking number mr. van hollen for one minute. i yields to mr. doggett. >> i i thank the gentlewomen for an important amendment. this is a law-enforcement amendment. this is a policing amendment.
7:16 pm
it is about providing basic consumer protection to families that sometimes get caught up in a cycle with payday lending, perhaps with a reverse mortgage, perhaps with a bad credit card deal, perhaps a victim of one of the giant wall street banks with their auto signing and mortgage traps or some of these were the result of an individual getting in over their heads through no fault of anyone but their own. some of them were the result of misconduct, misinformation, hidden traps in the loan agreements and the consumer financial protection bureau is about providing effective law enforcement and it is vital that it be fully funded. those who oppose setting it up in the first place are doing everything they can to undermine and weaken this agency by defunding it. this amendment assures that it has the resources to enforce our
7:17 pm
laws and protect our consumers. i urge adoption of the amendment. >> i thank the gentle ben and i killed one minute to my colleague ms. moore. c. thanks for yielding. ms. domenici. >> this is really important and as my colleagues to serve who serve on the financial committee and also serve on the financial services committee know that it's extremely important since we have greater transparency now, you know and the market globally has crashed because of a lack of oversight. in anticipation of what you all are going to say in your rebuttal, let me say this. you do not reduce the amount of enforcement agents and agencies and money because they did not enforce it before the last debacle. i know what you are going to say. you are going to say they didn't
7:18 pm
catch these criminals or catch these folks before so why increase the amount for oversight? that is a ludicrous argument. not only that, we have a brand-new framework where there is greater transparency not only here but with the regulators overseas. we definitely need to make sure that the integrity of these stay in place so that we don't have a global meltdown. we may not make it through it next time. >> i thank the gentlewoman for her comments and seeing that our ranking member has not returned i yield back one minute of my time. >> the gentleman from new jersey for seven minutes in opposition. >> thank you. to the clairvoyant comment from the gentlelady from wisconsin, you are wrong about what you are about to say so too is the gentlelady of the sponsor of this bill wrong in the end result was the implication of carrying forth your bill. you said that you were involved
7:19 pm
with consumer protection in the past. what you are trying to do is more consumer financial protection but you know you really don't have any consumer financial protection if there aren't going to be as many financial products moving forward and that is the outcome of the work of the cfpb and additional work by the sec here. if you lower down the potential for the industry to produce financial products. when i talk about financial products, consumer loans, mortgages, home equity loans, car loans and student loans and the like. if you allow these entities to go about the course you are suggesting they should go to that is the end result. just today i had a meeting with some local community bankers. at a meeting with local credit unions and i would suggest that you talk to them to see what are the real effects of the cfpb? they will tell you that with the actual outcome of it is instead of going out of hiring more loan officers, they are going out and
7:20 pm
hiring more compliance officers and instead of being able to say more people will get in the front office of your local bank so your constituents can go out there and actually get a loan, instead of hiring more people so your constituents are not going to endorse the auto loan or student loan or car loan, home loan, they are hiring compliance officers to comply not only with what you are talking about here come the cfpb but with the 2000 pages of dodd-frank and 300 pages, 2300 pages at the end of the day. i don't think that is the direction your constituents really want to go. the entire talk up to this point was hardly help middle class and the poor? the way we help the middle class and the poor is to create jobs. how do you allow them to get jobs if small businesses pay can't find liquidity in the marketplace? how do you do that and allow for the bank, about for the small banks, the community community
7:21 pm
banks, allow for the credit agencies, allow for the credit unions rather, to be able to start instituting loans again? your bill, when it comes to the issue is harman's -- as far as how much money is for consumer protection already lets look at the numbers. funding has grown 50% since 2008, 50%. more than 3800 full-time employees work at the sec. they make on average to utter thousand dollars per employee over there. the president's budget, which you support, requires $1.6 billion in 2013, an increase of 10%, 20%, 30%? know, an increase of 77% of 2008 levels and on top of that dodd-frank increases the budget by 40% which would increase it to $2.25 billion for fiscal year 2015 so the answer is not throwing more money into it. the answer is not more
7:22 pm
regulation on top of it. it's to make sure we do a couple of things. one drivers of fannie mae and freddie mac which this administration fails to do and secondly try to avoid war of hazard in the as well which this amendment and this administration failed to do and finally to return to the rule of law so that we have what? certainty the marketplace of businesses can know what the rules of the road are and get into the credit market and provide liquidity in the marketplace. marketplace. with that i will yield as much time as you may consent to mr. flores. >> thank you. the real problem here, the real failure was not wall street and the banks. the real villain was congress. the real villain in the meltdown was because congress didn't police to agencies that helped create, fannie mae and freddie mac. and they allow the executives of those two organizations to make hundreds of millions of dollars into paid millions of dollars to
7:23 pm
lobby congress and what they got for it was protection, protection from the other side of the aisle. there were several requests made to further reform fannie mae and freddie mac and they were all rebuffed by the dumb a time a cretz in this congress. and then you pass dodd-frank and dodd-frank shot all the innocent victims including dozens of community banks in my district and just like was said earlier, and they are having to hire people to track regulations instead of to make loans. the other victims in this process are the poor. because of the cost of compliance has gone up so much for bank accounts, low dollar bank accounts, tanks will no longer take or set up bank accounts for the poor. so they have been forced by dodd-frank to use payday lenders. that is not what we should be doing. we should have gotten control of fannie mae and freddie mac, and
7:24 pm
for the person who proposed this bill, to say that we have underfunded the cfpb and the sec flies squarely in the face of the facts. hilo hugo party heard the facts. mandatory spending on the cfpb is going to be $5.5 billion. the sec funding has gone up as you heard i 77% and got unelected bureaucrats that made close to $200,000 a year, four times the average american salary. this is not the solution. the solution is to repeal dodd-frank and put in regulations to make fannie mae and freddie mac be accountable and with that i yield back. >> the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close. >> thank you mr. jan thank you colleagues. i do want to say that i agree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle who said it's important to return to the rule of law and that is exactly
7:25 pm
withism and does. is critical that we support this important amendment to the sec in the cfpb. as transactions have become more and more complex is important for consumers to be able to understand them and the cfpb is doing important work of increasing consumer financial education. this is an important amendment that is going going to help ensure a level playing field for investors and consumers. i urge the support of this amendment and i yield back any time. thank you mr. chair. >> the question is on agreeing to the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the no's have it. a roll call vote. let's call the roll. bo. [roll call]
7:26 pm
[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]
7:27 pm
[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> any members wish to change their vote? anybody wish to vote? hearing known the clerk shall
7:28 pm
report. >> mr. chairman the ayes or 13 and the nose or 18. >> the no's have it. the amendment is not agreed to. we now move to the last amendment in tier 2, mr. schiller. >> ivan amendment. the clerk will report report the amendment. >> an amendment offered mr. schiller relating to deficits. >> the gentleman agree to 10 minutes. the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. the gentleman is recognized. here we are again back at the budget markup. first of all thanks to the committee staff on both sides because a lot of hard work goes into this. we have gone through this exercise for several years now and we haven't come up with something that could be placed into law. democrats have tried. you guys are trying now. and there has been no success. and so i am putting forth an
7:29 pm
amendment that is pretty easy. i can read it out to you. it's sent to the house that this and future resolutions should enable that is a reduction in a balanced and responsible manner through spending cuts and tax reform without jeopardizing the nation security's security, economy and competitiveness. we have some point, we have to start coming together and realize that there are certain issues that may not be able to agree on, but maybe there is a way that we can come to some conclusions and get to that deficit number and i have always said, just like the bowles-simpson 4 trillion plus. i think that number every day we wait has to go out, up-and-up. we are closer to the 5 trillion-dollar mark. what that means, i'm not talking about dynamic scoring. i'm talking about true accounting. what that means, when it talks about spending cuts, that may
7:30 pm
mean entitlements. when i'm talking about tax reform, that may increase revenue. we have to ultimately get to the point we can't do one without the other. every expert that has come before this committee and elsewhere, we have all realize we can't do one without the other and maybe i'm only going to get two votes like they did last year but i'm hoping that we have more people that have really understand and spoken to their constituents that everything must be on the table. i have only got two minutes left so i will yield to the ranking member. >> i want to thank you mr. shuler for this amendment. i think everybody on this committee knows he has worked very hard on a bipartisan basis to try and tackle a very important issue of deficit reduction. i commend him for offering this amendment which i think is pretty straightforward.
7:31 pm
>> the simpson-bowles commission and the bipartisan commission it as an example of how you go about taking a balanced approach to the deficit reduction. as the gentleman said, every credible plan that has been put out there that shows a path that can reasonably get the job done in a fair way involves cuts and it also involves revenue. you can of course generate revenue through tax reform as simpson-bowles does. in other words they put in place a tax reform bill but they also say that we need to use that opportunity to generate some revenue that can be scored by the national committee and it is not totally make the leaf. so again, i hope that given the benefit of the last year, all of us recognizing we are going to
7:32 pm
do something big that also is balanced and again i commend the gentleman for adoption of the amendment. >> i yield back. >> mitch mcclintock you are recognized for five minutes. >> i will yield to the chairman for one minute. >> two things i'm trying to do here. didn't we want to do a you see on section 67 and subtitled a to remove those? >> i ask unanimous consent that they amendment be remote. >> without objection. i just wanted to make sure you did that. i want to clarify a question because i think mr. van hollen and yourself, when you say reform you are talking about raising revenues on a -- basis correct? >> raising revenue, not texas. >> i understand that so if you look at the president's budget and we all know the tax policy in there -- >> i am talking about this
7:33 pm
policy would be tax reform which in order for us to get to that point a balanced budget in a responsible way over a longer longer period of time, it made me increase on a static basis but there may be increases in revenue. >> i just wanted to get the clarification. that's important. bowles-simpson brings the revenue line to 40% of gdp. that's a full percentage point higher than the president's budget doesn't revenue so i think it's important people understand what that means. that's all and i yield back. >> i thank the chairman. we have already had this discussion. we have heard the siren song many times before. ronald reagan's succumbs to this song for a balanced approach and got the taxes. he never got the cuts to his lasting regret. george h. w. bush fell for the same line with the same result. he never got the cuts but he got
7:34 pm
the tax increases. a recession debate and live to regret that decision in his retirement. i'm going to repeat these numbers again and i hope they sink in. in. and the last decade from 2002 to 2012 inflation increased 35%. revenues increased 33%. that's including the tax cuts from last year. that's including the recession. the problem is spending increased 76% in the same period. spending has been out of balance for more than a decade. with the gentleman is serious about a truly balanced approach or requires us to bring spending back into balance with population inflation growth over the past decade. with apologies to the clinton campaign, it is the spending, stupid. that is what is killing us and that is where it has got to be addressed. i now yield to my colleague from
7:35 pm
indiana mr. stutzman. >> thank you mr. mcclintock and mr. shuler i always appreciate your efforts because i know you've are really trying to find a solution and i appreciate that. you know i hear this from people back home that the spending is the problem but some people say do you know what? i've pay more in taxes if i knew it was going to go to pay down the deficit. people don't trust washington. people don't trust the fact that taxes would increase on one bracket or another and it would actually go towards deficit reduction. and so that is why i think we have to focus. we may have to take one step at a time rather than trying to do comprehensive, one big package together because people don't trust washington right now. and until we start reducing the deficit, i think that it's very difficult to do this in a comprehensive way.
7:36 pm
i appreciate it, i really do because i think we need tax reform badly and i think it has to be a part of the process to get our economy growing and people starting to trust the fact that when decisions are made in washington is not going to pull the rug out from underneath people and i believe we have to focus on reducing spending, reducing the deficit and focusing on tax reform. in the package that is in this watch it will start fixing that solution so again i appreciate your effort and applaud it but i believe right now people are looking for washington to get spending under control before we can start tax reform. i yield back. >> revenues are important but there is a healthy and unhealthy way to generate revenues. the healthy ways to reduce the tax and regulatory burdens that are crushing this economy. it is to follow the advice we have been given by one expert after another for the last several years and that is to
7:37 pm
broaden, lower and flatten our tax rates. that produces explosive economic growth in every country that has taken that advice. >> well the gentleman yield? >> no. that is what this budget does. the unhealthy way of jet -- generating revenue is increasing taxes in a portal economy. what ends up happening is we do so much damage to the economy we generate less and i yield back my zero zero . >> the gentleman from north carolina for one minute. >> thank you serve and just to re-clarify since you didn't listen the first time i read this, through spending cuts, so i -- is a matter fact that was the first thing i said but sometimes it's very difficult to hear when it's all about partisanship and someday you are going to realize when i'm gone out of his body which stanko goodness i have already announce retirement come you guys are going to say you know that shuler guy was right after all. he actually had it right when
7:38 pm
your constituents look at you someday and realize that partisanship is getting our country nowhere. and we are responsible for that. so just wake up someday and you will realize that working together, we will put our country back on the right path and i will yield 15 seconds to the gentleman. >> i just want to make that point on the whole reagan issue. you act like he -- record one-time. he raised taxes 11 different times and you said it was early on. he did it in 85 twice, 86 and 87 in toys and 88. he didn't get schnittker. it was the responsible thing to do. >> the question is on the agreement of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the no's have it. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]
7:39 pm
[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]
7:40 pm
[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]
7:41 pm
[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]
7:42 pm
[roll call] mr. chairman on that boat the ayes are 15 and the nose or 15. >> we are now entering tier 3. tier 3 is five minutes. because the clock does not go into 32nd increments, what i will do is watch the clock and police it and remember their time and when we are at the 32nd mark. no, it is five total, four minutes.
7:43 pm
unanimous consent we go to four minutes. one, two and one? no, it says five. five minutes total. it is five total. alright,. >> why don't you do six? three and three? >> it says five right year, total. it is written wrong. this is written incorrectly. [inaudible] >> i don't want to take your full five minutes so i yield five minutes. if we could in that case try and
7:44 pm
shave the time to six minutes. >> three on each side? unanimous consent, default is six minutes, three on each side. if a member wants 10 minutes, that member request 10 minutes, that member will get 10 minutes, five on each side. is everybody okay with that? without objection. so default, it will be two minutes, three minutes, one minute to close unless the member the author of the minute request for full time which would be four minutes, five minutes in one minute to close. now, who is number 18? who is the author? we don't have the author's name on here. >> i believe i am up next. >> number 19. who is the author? ms. bass, okay. ms. bass is recognized. >> thank you and i better request the whole time. >> that is fine. that is your prerogative.
7:45 pm
do you have an amendment on the desk? staff will distribute. >> an amendment offered by ms. bass relating to student loans. >> ms. bass is recognized for four minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i offer this amendment with several of my colleagues to present -- prevent the cost of college education from crossing crossing -- crushing graduates with a debt that will take a lifetime to repay. these are set to double from 3.4% to 6.8% if we do not act to seize the opportunity now. with little more than three months until the interest rates double, students are worried that help from congress will not come in time. already facing pressures from student loan debt they are taking on, college students cannot afford to absorb a few thousand extra dollars to take on new loans if they rates double. last week students from all over the country rallied on
7:46 pm
capitol hill to deliver over 100,000 letters urging republicans and democrats to stop the interest-rate hike. unfortunately i am concerned that their call for help might have fallen on deaf ears. the budget before the committee today fails our students and the promise of college access and affordability. the budget clearly doesn't do anything to stop the interest rates on subsidize student loans from doubling in july. that means the average students taking out loans for the next school year will eventually dig even deeper into their pockets to the 10 of $2800 to pay them off and it's worse for those students who take out the most money, those houbara the maximum 23 grand and subsidize student loans will see their debt load up by five grand. as states cut higher education budgets, colleges and universities raise tuition and grant aid diminishes, more and more students are relying on loans to pay for college and today interest rates on these loans are at their lowest level
7:47 pm
in history, thanks to the 2009 college cost reduction act passed in a 110th congress. i urge my colleagues to let's redouble our support to tackle college costs by extending the current low student loan interest rate. let us preserve the current interest rate and protect these affordable loans. i would like to yield a minute to my colleague from florida, congressman wasserman schultz. >> thank you ms. bass. this amendment will provide critical relief to college students by preventing need-based didn't loan interest rates from doubling, doubling on july 1, 2000 well. is a member of congress and as a parent i'm committed to improving like we all should be committed to improving college affordability for all students. american college students are alrady in debt. the average student faces more than $25,000 in loans upon graduating. and a current economic climate is more important than ever that
7:48 pm
we do all they can to keep college affordable and accessible. this amendment assets to make a choice between investing in american students are continuing to shell out tax breaks to the big five oil companies. which trace we make will reveal strikingly different priorities and visions for america's future. on behalf of the thousands of college students in my congressional area and the country i urge my colleagues and in both sides of the aisle to allow our students to graduate with a better education and less debt as the best way to ensure america remains competitive long into the future. thank you. i yield back. >> mr. on mosh. >> thank you mr. chairman. for the last few hours it seems like we have been debating various versions of the same amendment. amendment after amendment has been offered to increase federal funding on the department of education. each time we hear from the proponents of the latest subsidies going to guarantee our
7:49 pm
children a quality affordable college education. i bet if i sat in this very chair 10 years ago i would have heard the same thing. if i had been sitting here 10 years ago or 20 years ago or even 30 years ago i would have heard a similar argument. 30 years ago i would have heard the debate but i'm not sure i would have understood much of it because i would have been 1-year-old but putting that technicality aside here's what i would have heard. well-meaning congressmen would have stood up and argued for a new spending program for post-secondary education or a new tax credit aimed at making college more affordable for the middle class but instead of a more affordable college education and the price of college has increased at double the rate of inflation for the last three decades. this begs the question, where have all the billions of tax dollars gone? there is a good argument that the university administrators insulated from market forces such as parenting comes our student future earning potential have not needed to be focused on
7:50 pm
spending each tuition dollar efficiently. we cannot keep taxing the american people in running up the federal debt to hand money to university administrative. encourages the kind of tuition spiraling we have seen over the last three decades and in the end that makes it makes college education less affordable not more affordable for the poor. instead of one year gimmicks which are meant to score political points more than solve the college affordability problem, we need to reform our federal education programs. we need to simplify the more than dozen different federal credits for tuition. and when possible we need to incurred safe solutions is that a federal fixes to these problems. i now yield to the gentleman from indiana. >> i thank the gentleman from michigan. i would just simply ask the question i have asked before, the eternal question without an answer and that is, why do the children of tomorrow have to pay so that we can have more on our
7:51 pm
plates? it has nothing to do with thinking that education is not important. it quite frankly is. but that is not fair. when you're federal government borrows 42% of everything it spends, the children of tomorrow, those who don't have a say in any of this. why? as was referenced earlier, they don't have a float. they get stuck with the bill and that among so many other things is what is wrong with the federal government's involvement in this. i also associate with the gentleman from michigan regarding the fact that we are doing nothing more than creating education bubble when you throw more money at it. he is simply and needlessly raise the salaries of professors, raise the tuition of colleges and distort the fair market. we need more competition in education and this doesn't do it. i yield back. >> mr. chairman i yield back.
7:52 pm
>> the young lady has the right to close. >> i would like to use the chart, that last charge a close. you know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, i really think that this is the responsibility of our generation and i wonder my colleagues who have kids who are in college, exactly how they are meeting this challenge. i can imagine this is about paying university professors more. this is about kids who graduate college today who essentially are heard and with debt that was equal to what a mortgage would be a couple of decades ago and it is not as though this is not paid for. we do have an offset for this and i just think it's unconscionable that this generation would not allow the younger generation to go to college. i ask my colleagues for an aye fod. >> the afloat, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
7:53 pm
those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the no's have it. a roll call vote is requested. the clerk shall record the float. [roll call] [roll call]
7:54 pm
[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]
7:55 pm
[roll call] mr. shuler? [roll call] >> it any others wishing to vote or change their vote? if not the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman on that vote be ayes are 14 and the no's are 20. >> the no's have it. the amendment is not agree to. next we will recognize i believe ms. castor. >> i have an amendment amendment on the desk. >> the clerk will report. >> an amendment offered by ms. castor related to privatization. >> it is six minutes. are you okay with that?
7:56 pm
the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. >> this is a straightforward amendment that will disallow privatization of social security and protect workers and retirees. my amendment is an insurance policy in case the republicans move to privatize the social security and budget reconciliation and in doing so, guard against a raid on social security trust fund to reduce the deficit. because any form related to social security should benefit our neighbors who paid in. those are their benefits and they should not be used to reduce the deficit or finance special-interest tax funds. so we must guard against, we must guard social security and in doing so avoid the higher deficits and higher taxes that social security privatization would bring. at this time i will yield to my good friend from pennsylvania, ms. schwartz. >> i want to support this amendment, given that, i know we
7:57 pm
are obviously still in some challenging times on the fiscal side and that the republican includes privatization of social security. i endorse this amendment is a good way to ensure our future retirees have access to their social security. while we recognize there's work to be done it should be done in a bipartisan way with full agreement and not subject their future retirees to the enormous risks that risk that could come with privatization. we know that most seniors do rely on with $14,000 on average a year and has been successful in keeping seniors in this country out of poverty and i support the amendment and i yield back. >> mr. mulvaney is recognized for three minutes in opposition. >> if we have established anything today, there
7:58 pm
there is nothing in reconciliation and in fact it's against the rules to support
7:59 pm
anything regarding social security so again there's plenty we can disagree on and we don't need to be making things up a fight over so i would encourage a no vote. ..

102 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on