cuts should not be made to feca benefits until g.a.o. completes a more comprehensive study now under way, which examines the impact of benefit reductions on first participants. the senate has not considered feca legislation since 2006, and the only hearing was the one i held last year. the federal workers' comp program, like most state programs, allows injured workers to continue receiving compensation as long as the injury lasts. even if that is past normal retirement age. this is necessary because disabled workers on feca don't earn social security credit and

cannot participate in the thrift savings plan, and they miss out on normal wage growth. we must make them whole for their injuries by making up for lost wages and the inability to save for retirement. it is simply not the case that workers over retirement age who still receive feca benefits are somehow scamming the system. in fact, in 1974, congress dshes the presiding officer: the senator is notified we're under a previous toured move to executive session at 5:00 p.m. does the senator seek more time to conclude his remarks? mr. akaka: yes. let me wrap up here. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. akaka: in fact, in 1974, congress repealed an earlier

statute to allow a reduction at age 70. congress cited concerns about the hardship the reductions caused on senior citizens as well as concerns about age discrimination when repealing the past, less severe version of this legislation. no matter a person's age, they have every right to that benefit. i want to say, mr. president, that the chairman of our committee, joe lieberman, and the ranking member has worked hard at this, and my whole effort here is to deal with many of the workers of the federal government who are not in the postal service as well, and i

ask that my amendment be considered. thank you very much. mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i wonder if i could ask unanimous consent for just three moments to speak on this amendment? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. president, i want to thank senator akaka for coming to the floor and speaking on behalf of his amendment. he's just one of the most hardworking, constructive members of our committee, the committee from which the underlying bill has come. he's one of the finest people i've ever met. i have just the greatest admiration and affection for him. so, like senator collins, it is with some reluctance that i must say i oppose this amendment. i want to just be very brief because senator collins has spoken well on it. i think the current system goes beyond really taking care of those who need workers'

compensation and it's come to a point where it is unfair not just to those who are paying for the system but to others who are working in the postal service today, and i do think that -- i thank senator collins -- she's worked very hard on this, very thoughtfufully. the proposal she made turned out to be so balanced and constructive that folks in the obama administration who had been working 0en a similar proposal for -- without objectioning owithoutobjection similar proposal asked that we extend it to all federal employees. dare i call this a collins-obama proposal? i don't know. i just raise that prospect. in any case, i support the underlying bill in this regard and very respectfully and affectionately oppose the akaka amendment. i yield the floor.

i thank the chair. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, brian c. wimes of missouri, to be united states district judge for the eastern and western districts of missouri. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will now be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the snoer from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i see the distinguished senator from missouri on the floor, senator blunt. i know that he has a republican leadership meeting to get to. why don't i yield such time as he needs on the republican reserved time and with the understanding that when he finishes, it will go back to meevment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: i thank my good friend -- the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: thank my good friend for yielding and for

taking consideration of my schedule. i rise to support judge brian wimes as the nominee for the eastern-western districts of missouri. he's spent his entire career working in the public sector. he's been involved in many groups and organizations dedicated to serving disadvantaged individuals. he was born in kansas city, missouri. he earned his bachelor's degree in political science from the university of kansas. we don't hold that against him. he got his law degree from the thurgood marshall school of law, texas southern university. when he graduated, he became the attorney advisor for the litigation branch of the federal bureau of prisons in the department of justice here in washington and judge wimes represented the bureau in civil actions by inmates throughout the country. in 1995 he left the bureau and became an assistant prosecuting attorney for the jackson county prosecutor's office in kansas

city. beginning in 2001, judge wimes served as the jack son jackson y drug court administrator for more than five years. the drug courts in our state and other places have served a good and ingtsand integral role in cg drug use. it allows nonviolent, first-time offenders to participate in an outpatient program rather than face prosecution and more than 1,200 people have graduated from the jackson county drug court. more than 96% of those people were conviction-free after five years from their graduation. as a prosecutor, judge wimes received national honors, including he was named rookie prosecutor of the year during his first time in his first year in the jackson county prosecutor's office. in 2002 he was honored as a

member of ingram's magazine's 40 under 40. in 2009, the "call" newspaper recognized him as one of the 25 most influential african-americans in kansas city. he's been deeply involved in big brothers and big sisters and the hope house domestic violence shelter. he is a member of st. monica's catholic church. in 200 p judge wimes was appointed by my son, governor matt blunt to serve on the 16th judicial circuit court of jackson county, missouri. if matt blunt made any mistakes as governor, this wasn't one of them. judge wimes has continued not only to serve on the court but to serve on boards in kansas city for the kansas youth court, which is affiliated with the umky school of law as well as the criminal justice advisory board of the penn valley community college in kansas

city, the mental health association of the heartland. i believe his experience makes him a highly qualified judicial nominee and he will serve the american people well in this job, and i am supportive of him, mr. president. and, mr. president, i have a statement on another matter that i also mentioned to my friend from vermont that i would make while i was here, and i'd ask that it appear separately in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: i want to talk just a few moments about chuck colson, who was a friend of mids and founder of prison fellowship. he died on saturday at 80. before he was 40, he was counselor to the president of the united states, richard nixon. at about that same time, about the time he was 40, he pled guilty to offenses related to the daniel elsberg break-in.

and when he did that, i'm told that even though his lawyers advised him not to plead guilty, he said that pleading guilty wae price i had to pay to complete the shedding of my old life to be free to live the new life." in june of 1974, he began to serve his prison sentence. and what was the new life? in august of 1973 chuck colson's good friend tom phillips had counseled with him and that was the good thathe noament moment k said his life would be as a christian, that he surrendered his life to the christian view, the christian belief. he told me that it was t.s. elliott's writings, "christianity" that became the intellectual basis for his faifnlg but his faith initially was he needed more than he

clearly understood he had and he found that in his faith. it was an active faith. mr. president, i'm constantly amazed that an act of god can take the bad decisions that people make and while god wouldn't have wanted those to be the decisions people make, can really turn them into incredible opportunities. and the life of chuck colson, that incredible opportunity became the founding of prison fellowship and the impact it had on so many other lives. 20 years ago i became the first chair of a missouri prison fellowship, as chuck colson was trying to reach out and see how this idea would be an idea that would sustain itself perhaps in the future. within states, ten years ago i hosted as a house member a series of -- a speakers series that was the chuck colson

speakers' series and was able to spend time with him virtually every week for two or three months, as we had people come in and visit with house members in a great speakers' series. i personally benefited from lots of advice and discussions with him. and just to sum up a couple of things about him, as i reach a conclusion here, that doesn't begin to express the impact he had on people's lives, he founded christian fellowship ministries in 1976. he founded justice fellowship in 1983. they have both grown to serve literally thousands of prisoners in this country and around the world. and prisoner prisons around thew chuck colson walk into them to try to help people. he won the templeton price for

religion. in 1994 he was instrumental in drafting the publication and publishing a gowment called "evangelicals and catholics together." in 2008 he was awarded the presidential citizen medal by president george w. bush. and he is surviveddably a family he cared -- that cared about him and lots of friends. i'd say, mr. president, for almost 40 years, starting with athe mike wallace interview as i suppose only mike wallace could interview someone, there were doubters and skeptics who questioned his faith, who questioned his change in his life beginning in 1973 but of course they questioned it less so every year. and i would say here in 2012 that chuck colson passed any test about who he had become. the test is both pas passed and pavment the race is won. lives continue to be changed.

and i would just say, mr. president, i thank god for chuck colson and i thank my good friend from vermont for giving me a few moments here on the floor. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, retaining -- or regaining my time on this side, i appreciate the senator from missouri speaking about brian wimes. i agree, this is a judicial vacancy in the u.s. district court for the western-eastern districts of missouri. it has support of both home state senators, senator mccaskill and senator blunt. it was voted out favorably by the judiciary committee four months ago. there's really no justification to have taken this long. in the past, whether you had democratic or republican presidents, a nomination like

this would be routinely done by advicvoice vote the week it camt of committee. the senate is still so far this year only considering judicial nominations that could have and should have been confirmed last year. it is not the fault of the president. it is the fault of the senate. i know the majority leader, senator reid, are has tried to get them up. i wish the other side would stop block them. we should get them done. we'll conclude the first four months of this year having only considered judicial nominees who should have been confirmed last december. i don't want to hear anybody on the other side say, look how fast we're moving judges this year. we're not. these are all from last year. they were blocked last year and they should have been done last year. we have yet to get to any of the nominees we should be considering this year because republicans objected to move quickly. i ask consent my full statement

be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and, mr. president, i still have the floor. i note that today marks the beginning -- and i ask that these remarks be as in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: i ask also, though, it not so delay the time. in fact, i'd ask consent that the vote still be at 5:30. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: now, today marks the beginning of the 31st annual national crime victims' rights week. it's the time to recognize the losses faced by victims of crime and their families, acknowledge the efforts being made to help them recover and rebuild their lives in the wake of tragedy. it's a time to reflect on what what -- all that we've accomplished but then focus on what we have to do -- yet do to help victims. of course, one of the best tools for delivering that help is the

crime victims' fund. now, unfortunately, in recent months, some have sought to violate the victims of crime act. they want take money out of the trust fund for purposes and programs not authorized by the victims of crime act. i've worked with senators from both sides of the aisle and we've been able to stop this raid on crime victims' funding. and i want to commend senators mikulski and hutchison, the chair and ranking members of the commerce-justice-science appropriations subcommittee for their important efforts in this regard in the appropriations bill we reported to the senate last week. the senate appropriations committee, on which i serve, has reported a bill that preserves the crime victims' fund. we succeeded in increasing the funding next year for victims' compensation and assistance to $775 million. to be able to increase federal assistance by $70 million from last year's cap is extraordinary

in these economic times. but it's an indication here in the senate of our commitment to crime victims. it's a matter on which i worked with senator crapo as well as senator mikulski over the year, and i appreciate their leadership in this effort. you know, the crime victims' fund is not taxpayers' money. it comes from penalties and fines, it comes from wrongdoers, and we design it to help victims of crime. we all know the states are being forced to tighten their belts, and when they do, victims' services are being cut all over the country. without the federal assistance from this trust fund, victims' compensation programs, victims' assistance programs and services are going to be unavailable to many. now, currently pending before the senate is the majority leader's motion to proceed to the violence against women's

act, s. 1925. it's legislation i introduced with senator crapo last year. we have 61 bipartisan cosponsors, both parties. the bill we debate this week based on the recommendations of victims but also the tireless professionals who work with them every day. april is also sexual assault awareness month and our bill takes the important step of focusing increased attention on sexual assaults, including those who are among the most vulnerable among us. as i listened to senator feinstein, senator murray, senator shaheen, senator gillibrand, after i spoke with senator hagan last week about the pending motion to proceed to the vawa reauthorization legislation, i thought how fortunate we all are to serve with them. i remember when nine women senators joined together to

contribute to the book "nine and counting" about their paths to the united states senate. these women have served as role models for many other young women and young girls. even as senator clinton has gone on to become our secretary of state and there have been other changes, six of the nine senators who were subjects of the book in 2001 still serve with us today. they've been joined by nine additional women senators from around the country. you know, this book "nine and counting" is kind of a title looking to the future. today, 17 women serve in the united states senate and that is a great step forward. we have further to go, of course. it's a lot better when i came to the senate. we had no women serving. 16 of them have joined from both sides of the aisle to bring their leadership and their

strong support but also their experience to the violence against women reauthorization act. and our bill includes a number of provisions that they've championed and suggested. give you one example. our bill includes the provisions that senator klobuchar and senator hutchison had suggested, introduced as the stalkers act of 2011. that provision is new to vawa. now, it would not have been included if we simply put in a one-sentence reauthorization of vawa rather than a comprehensive bill. we did a comprehensive bill because it makes many improvements like the bill senator klobuchar and senator hutchison, the stalkers act of 2011. now, in the spirit of national crime victims' rights week, our vawa reauthorization bill takes steps to recognize victims whose needs are not being served, helps us find ways to help them.

now, that approach is not radical or extreme. the fact that the bill reaches more victims shunted be a basis -- should not be a basis for partisan division. it's something we ought to celebrate. you know, i've said on the floor, a victim is a victim is a victim. mr. president, when -- in my earlier career when i'd go to a crime scene with the police as the chief law enforcement officer of our county and i'd go there at 3:00 in the morning, you might have a badly battered woman, if she survived. sometimes they did not survive. i never heard the police say, "well, if we're going to do something on this, we have to figure out whether this victim is a democrat or a republican." or "we have to figure out whether this victim is gay or straight." or, "we have to figure out..."

no, they said, this victim, let us finds out who did this and let's get them and let's see what we can do, if the victim was still alive, what we can do to protect the victim. that's what the violence against women act has always done and what i've tried to do for crime victims for many years. this bill reaches out to help more victims by taking responsible -- incidentally, we've done this on every reauthorization bill. we've learned from past experience how to make it better, and now we make it better by taking responsible and moderate steps -- in this case, protect immigrant and native women, and ensuring services to victims regardless of sexual or orientation or yearned identity. again under the mantra -- a victim is a victim is a victim. and since its introduction last november, more than 700 state and national organizations have written to endorse the violence against women reauthorization

act. 200 international organizations, 500 state and local organizations, the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence, the national association of attorneys' general, the national district attorneys' association, the national sheriffs' association, the international association of chiefs of police, federal law enforcement officers association. 25 religious organizations. the mayors of three of the nation's largest cities -- new york, chicago and los angeles -- wrote to the senate. they urged us to pass vawa reauthorization. we've heard from 47 state attorneys general, republican and democratic alike, urging senate pessage of this legislation. -- senate passage of this legislation. and that's because they recognize this federal law is meaningful and that this reauthorization addresses the ongoing unmet needs of victims in their states.

and i ask at the conclusion of my remarks, mr. president, i ask consent that these letters be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and, in fact, today i was advised by bruce cohen in my office that we've received the statement of administrative position. it's a very strong statement from the white house and a strong statement in support of the violence against women reauthorization act. and i ask consent that be placed, the statement, in the record at the end of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: so i'm -- i'm glad that we're finally moving to this. you know, the last two reauthorizations, each one an improvement on the one before, passed this body unanimously. mr. president, we should do the same.

you know, it's not a partisan issue. i'd ask senators, if you haven't talked with victims of abuse, talk to those who have. talk to your police chiefs. talk to the people who have to deal with this. talk to the people who've survived some of these horrendous attacks. ask them if they think this is needed. or ask those who have been protected, who've been protected from further abuse because of the steps we can take in the violence against women act. ask them if we need it. mr. president, you and i and the other 98 senators come in this building, we're protected by police, one of the finest police forces there is, the capitol police force. we don't have to worry.

nobody's going to attack us. mr. president, in your state and my state and all the other states, unfortunately, there are thousands of people who cannot rest easily that way. they know their attacker has often attacked them before and is waiting to do it again. we can easily stand up and say here in the senate, "no, we won't stand for this violence against women." let's take our step, the thing we can do, the men and women in this body, let's take the step that we can do to stop the violence. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. leahy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, have the yeas and nays been requested? the presiding officer: they have not. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? seeing none, on this vote, the yeas are 92, the nomination is confirmed. oh, the nay are 1. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate will resume legislative session. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. choab cloab i risms. klobuchar:o discuss th the financial challes facing our postal service and our need to ensure that it

remains a viable resource for our country. the american postal service was created over two centuries ago as a function of the federal government, acknowledgin acknow- being a nounalled in the united states constitution. in those last 220 year, th way e send mail has changed dramatically. you no longer need a stamp or envelope. you can shoot an e-mail, sign onto facebook. no matter who you are or where you live,ed odds are that the post office place a role in your life. seniors rely on the postal service to receive their medications,bitions rely on it to shift ship and receive goods. countless jobs hinge on it. no matter how far we've come with technology in this digital age, there are some things that simply can't be sent by e-mail and that is why reliable, timely mail service is something that all americans should be able to

count ofnlt i have heard from numerous people in my state about the negative impacts of the closure of certain post offices or mail-processing facilities would have on their communities. i have heard from state and local leaders about the impact of closing the mail-processing facilities in duluth and bemidji. i have heard from farmers who get their goods and ship their products through those mail-processing centers and that's why i've worked with senators sanders and roughly 25 of my colleagues in the senate, including senator durbin, one-fourth of the entire u.s. senate should negotiate changes to this original bill. i want to thank chairman lieberman and senators carper for their greater leadership. i am glad about some of the changes they have maivmentd the substitute amendment would in fact keep at a minimum 100 mail-processing plants that are currently scheduled to close and

would remain open for at least three years. overnight delivery standards in regional areas will be protected. a large number of rural post offices that are being studied for closure will remain open. i am a cosponsor of the amendment to the legislation which would provide important safeguards before closing mail-processing facilities, and i a also cosponsored the mccal consist merkley amendment thald that would establish a two-year moratorium on closing rural posts and recognize the concerns of rural residents. there is no doubt, madam president, that changes need to be made to the postal service to make it more competitive in the digital world. i think a lot of those changes are contained in this substitute amendment. we can even make it stronger and i strongly believe that we can preach a balance that makes -- reach a balance that makes necessary reforms while maintaining the consistent service that americans have come to rely on. i yield the floor.

mrs. murray: madam president, i come to the floor this evening to express my strong opposition to the resolution of disapproval that was filed by senate republicans that seeks to overturn critical new nlrb rules that will protect workers across america and i strongly urge my colleagues to oppose it. madam president, some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle frequently complain about how we spend our time here on the senate floor. well, today i have to say i'm disappointed that we are being forced to spend valuable time on this issue. middle-class families across america are continuing to struggle in this very tough economy, and it's hard to understand why senate republicans want to spend time attacking an agency whose mission is to protect workers and employers and which is critical to protecting access to middle -- protecting access for the middle class to workers and

families. our economy seals to be stepping back from the precipice but for so many workers today, paychecks still have not caught up, benefits continue to slip away, hours are getting cut, and job security is eroding. that's why i was very glad that at the end of last year the national labor relations board voted to adopt modest commonsense rules that would makhelp bring the nlrb into the 21st century. these new rules aren't going to solve every problem. but they are a good step in the right direction. they will help our workers and families across the country. the new nlrb rules will strengthen and streamline the voting process by reducing unnecessary litigation and intentional delays. it will streamline pre- and postelection procedures and facility the use of electronic communications and document filing. those are all commonsense steps

that should not be controversial. so, madam president, i am extremely disappointed that senate republicans want to now eliminate these rules and roll back the clock on worker protections. the resolution that we're going to be asked to vote on would eliminate steps to standardize and add transparency to the employees' election process. eliminate steps that reduce frivolous litigation and create a more cohesive and productive workplace for our workers and businesses and it would fundamentally weakening nlrb processes ans procedures that workers and businesses rely on when they're trying to settle disputes. madam president, it's bad for business, it's bad for working families, it should not pass. workers across this country deserve a fair process in the workplace, and the nlrb rules this resolution would eliminate remove some of the unfair and unnecessary roadblocks so many

workers face every day. and, madam president, i just have to say, while we're here discussing this issue, i want to express my disappointment and anger at the recent report from the inspector general about improper and politicized activities by a current republican member of the nlrb board, an individual who previously worked for another board member who is a former staffer for a republican member of the senate. that report details multiple instances of ethics misconduct, including the sharing of confidential information with outside parties. i am hopeful that that issue will be fully investigated. i'm deeply worried about the actions some people will take to undermine an agency whose mission is to protect the rights of workers and employers, and, honestly, i find it to be a sad statement about the nature of our politics today. because, madam president, the

nlrb is doing a lot of good work for workers in america and it shouldn't be tarnished with this sort of ethics issue. this agency has borne the brunt of political attacks over the last year from special interest groups and elected officials trying to score political points at the expense of workers and families. many of these attacks have been inaccurate, many have been unfair. some have used the case involving boeing and workers in my home state of washington to weaken the agency even while the nlrb work is what allowed the two sides to come together and find a solution to that challenge. so i think this is wrong and these attacks should end. the nlrb election rules are modest, they're commonsense steps towards a fairer system for workers and businesses and will help us move towards a system that works for everyone. and they'll help make sure our workers can simply exercise their rights to bargain for fair wages, for benefits, and

equitable treatment under the law. that's what our workers expect, it's what they deserve, and it's what the nlrb is working to deliver. so, madam president, once again, i urge our colleagues to vote against that resolution of disapproval. it is the wrong way to go for workers. it is the wrong way to go for businesses. and for the middle class. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, let me join in the remarks by the senator from washington. this national labor relations board rule which will be voted on by the senate tomorrow is one that was needed. the rule change was needed. and the effort on the floor, of course, is to undo this decision by the national labor relations board f. they say that justice is denied -- board. if they say that justice is denied, look at the current situation when it comes to a vote by workers on collective bargaining. if delayed at every potential opportunity -- and sometimes it

happens -- workers have to wait, on average -- average -- 198 days. that's 6 1/2 months. to have a simple vote deciding if they would be represented by a union. in some extreme cases, they've been forced to wait 13 years for the right to vote on collective bargaining. one in five workers who openly advocate for unions during an election campaign is fired. as a result of these tactics, 35% of workers give up and withdraw from the election before a vote is held. the proposed nlrb rule changes will remove unnecessary delays in the process, cut down on unnecessary litigation, and provide workers a meaningful vote in a reasonable period of time. the proposed rules will apply the same way to workers attempting to decertify a union as it does to workers trying to form a union. so from the business side, if they think that workers no longer wish to belong to a union, there will be a timely vote on that as well. it applies the same way, to

unions and employers. it is fundamentally fair, and that's why i encourage my colleagues to join with me and senator murray and many others in vogue against this effort by senator -- in voting against this effort by senator enzi to overturn the proposed national labor relations board rule. i ask consent my statement in its entirety be entered into the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, at a separate place in the record, i ask consent that my following remarks be shown. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: this wednesday, the supreme court is going to hear a challenge to arizona's controversial immigration law. i thought about this law over the weekend in springfield, illinois. there's an annual event where a special award is given to those sons and daughters of illinois who have done great service to our state and nation. admiral thunman, one of my neighbors in springfield, was a graduate of springfield high school, enlisted in the navy, worked his way up to the rank of admiral in the united states

navy and at one point commanded our submarine fleet. to think of this young man from the middle of the midwest ending up in charge of our submarine fleet is a great test meant to his ability -- testament to his able and to the opportunity that the navy gave him to serve his country. when he got up to receive his award, this lincoln award, he said, "i stand here humbled by the memory of my father who was an i illegal immigrant to this country from norway, who came here jumping off a ship as a sailor and lived in the united states illegally until the time that he was prepared to volunteer to serve our nation in world war ii." admiral thunman tells that story over and over, and what a reminder it is that the sons and daughters of immigrants to this country, as well as those immigrants themselves, have literally made america what it is today. 101 years ago, my mother arrived on a boat from lithuania. her boat came to baltimore,

maryland. and my grandmother took her and her sister and brother to east st. louis, illinois, where i grew up many years later. that's my story. it's an american story and it's one that's repeated over and over again. immigrants are part of america. it is the diversity of america that gives us our strength. and those who hate and loathe immigrants have always been here , probably as soon as the mayflower landed, they looked over their shoulder and said, "we hope nobody else is coming." but the fact is, people have been coming from all over the world and they still would rather come to this country than leave it, which is quite a testament to this great nation. senator lieberman made that point on the floor the other day. so this week, the supreme court 's going to take up an important question on immigration, the arizona law. under the arizona law, any undocumented immigrant can be arrested and charged with a state crime, an arizona crime, solely on the basis of their immigration status. and it's a crime for a legal

immigrant in arizona to fail to carry documents proving their legal status under this law. under our constitution, states don't have the right to pass their own laws preempting federal laws on immigration. that's why the justice department filed the case the supreme court will hear this week. let's be clear, it's wrong to criminalize people because of their immigration status. that is not the way we treat immigrants in america. it is not right to make criminals of people who go to work every day, cook our food, clean our hotel rooms, care for our aging parents in nursing homes, and care for our children as well. it is not right to make criminals of those who worship with us in our churches, synagogues and mosques and people who send their children to the same schools as our children. here's the reality. this approach that arizona law suggests will not help combat illegal immigration. law enforcement doesn't have the time or resources to prosecute

and incarcerate millions of people. making undocumented immigrants into criminals will simply drive them further into the shadows. the arizona association of chiefs of police took a look at the new arizona law and came out in opposition to it. they said it makes it more difficult for them to maintain order and enforce law in arizona. immigrants, because of this law, the chiefs of police said, will be much less likely to cooperate and they need their cooperation to continue to fight crime. there's another troubling aspect to the arizona immigration law. according to experts, the law encourages racial profiling. i chair the senate judiciary committee subcommittee on constitution, civil rights and human rights. last week at a hearing on racial profiling, we had the first hearing on the subject since 9/11/2001. one of the subjects we examined at the hearing is the spate of federal, state and local measures in recent years that under the guise of combating illegal immigration have

subjected hispanic americans to an increase in racial profiling. the arizona immigration law is a prime example, and let me explain to you why. arizona's law requires police officers to check the immigration status of any individual if they have -- quote -- "reasonable suspicion" that the person is undocumented. what is the basis for "reasonable suspicion"? arizona's guidance on the law tells police officers to consider factors as -- such as how someone is dressed and their ability to communicate in english. two former arizona attorneys general, joined by 42 other former state attorneys general, filed a brief in the arizona case and they said -- and i quote -- "application of the arizona law requires racial profiling." one of the witnesses in our hearing was ron davis, chief of police at east palo alto, california. chief davis, along with 16 other

current and former chief law enforcement officers, the major cities chiefs of police association, and the police executive research forum, filed a brief in the arizona case. here is what the brief filed in the arizona case before the supreme court by the chiefs of police said. "the statutory standard of reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence in the united states will, as a practical matter, produce a focus on minorities and specifically latinos." let me be clear, i believe, i think most americans would share this belief, the vast majority of law enforcement officers in america perform their jobs honorably and courageously. when they wake up in the morning and put that badge on, they literally put their lives on the line for you and for me and for all of us in america. unfortunately, the inappropriate actions by a few who engage in racial profiling create mistrust and suspicion and that hurts all

police officers. the evidence clearly demonstrates as well that racial profiling doesn't solve crimes. it just doesn't work in law enforcement, and that's what the chief of police, ron davis, told us as well. that's why so many law enforcement leaders strongly oppose racial profiling and the arizona immigration law. instead of measures that harm law enforcement and promote racial profiling, like the arizona immigration law, we need to support practical solutions to fix america's broken immigration system. if i could say one word in defense of arizona, it is the fact that our failure, congress' failure, washington's failure to deal with immigration has brought on this effort by many states and localities. we have our own responsibility and let me where i think we should start. we should start our reform of immigration with the dream act. 11 years ago i introduced this bill, legislation that allows a

select group of immigrant students with great potential to contribute to america. the dream act would give these students a chance to earn legal status and ultimately citizenship if they came to the united states as children, are long-term u.s. residents, have good moral character, graduate from high school and complete two years of college or military service in good standing. russell pierce, the author of the arizona immigration law, had this to say about the dream act -- and i quote -- here's what mr. pierce said. "the dream act is one of the greatest legislative threats to america's sovereignty, national security, and economic future." well, i see it differently. and so do people like general colin powell and former defense secretary robert gates. they support the dream act because it would make america a stronger nation. giving these talented immigrants a chance to serve our military and improve and prbt to our

economy -- contract to our economy. tens of thousands of highly qualified, well educated young people would enlist in the armed services if the dream act becomes laws. and studies have found that dream act participants would contribute literally trillions of dollars to the u.s. economy during their working lives. the best way to understand the need for the dream act is to meet the dreamers. today i want to introduce you to a dreamer from arizona. here she is. her name is dolce matos. she was brought to the united states by her parents from mexico as a young child. at carl hayden high school in phoenix, arizona, dolce became a dedicated member of the school's robotics explub she found her true -- club and she found her true love, engineering. she went on to graduate from arizona state university -- you see her standing there with the mascot -- and earned bachelor's degree in electrical engineering. as a senior, dolce received an

intership to work on the nasa space station. but after she graduated, reality set in. because dolce is undocumented -- one of the dreamers -- she can't work as an engineer in america. she can't become licensed in any state. she news country. in 2008, dolce cofound pped the arizona dream act coalition, an organization of more than 200 dream act students in predicaments just like hers. she continues to volunteer at the high school that she attended. today, dolce is 27 years old. just last week, this amazing young woman was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by "time" magazine. "time" published a profile of dolce written by the actor eva longoria. here is what the profile said, and i'll quote -- "dolce represents the finest of her

generation. an undocumented latina confronted with legal barriers to pursuing her engineering dream. she chose to fight for the right to contribute to the country she has called home since she was very young. dolce takes on powerful opponents with grace and conviction, saying we are americans and americans don't give up." dolce is right. americans don't give up. we have been fighting for the dream act now for 11 years. we're not going to give up until it's signed into law by a president of the united states. i am honored that this president , president barack obama, when he was a senator was a cosponsor of my legislation. i know where his heart is when it comes to the dream act. unlike the arizona immigration law, the dream act is a practical solution to a serious problem with our broken immigration system. i hope the supreme court will strike down the arizona immigration law, and i again beg my colleagues to support the dream act. it is the right thing to do and

it will make america a stronger nation. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. earlier this month, or late last month, i brought to washington 55 or so college presidents from ohio, presidents of two-year and four-year private and public colleges and universities, to discuss a whole host of issues, and one thing that always comes up when you talk about young people, when you talk about college, when you talk about universities is access to higher education, that far too many of our young people simply can't afford to go to college. my wife, a graduate of kitt state some 30 years ago was privileged in those days, even

though nobody in her family had ever gone to college. her dad was a -- carried a union card, a utility worker in ashtabula, ohio, working as a maintenance worker in the local power plant. she was able to go to school because in those days, college was more accessible. pell grants, some loans and tuition was significantly lower, and she was able to be the first in her family to go to college. went to kent state university. today it is much harder. tuition is far too high. pell grants haven't kept up with the cost of education the way they might have 30 years ago. now, one of the options we have, the subsidized stafford loan, which is available to students based on need, is often the main pathway to college for a number of them, are under stress, if you will. if we do nothing, if congress doesn't do anything, the interest of these critical loans will double for borrowers beginning july 1, 2012.

so the interest rates will actually double on those students if congress does nothing. the interest rates right now are 3.4%. that's why they are called subsidized stafford loans. we know that investing in our young people this way, giving them an opportunity to go to college if they couldn't otherwise, could make such a difference in their lives. i don't think, obviously -- many people don't -- a number of people don't want to go to college. that's fine. those that want to go should have that opportunity. student loans, student debt has reached in this country about $870 billion, exkeyeding credit cards and auto loans. as more and more students continue to enroll in higher ed, balances are expected to continue climbing. this means fewer of our young adults will be able to buy a home, start a business or continue on to graduate school. already, students graduate from four-year colleges and universities in ohio with on average about $27,000 in student loan debt. if the interest rate is doubled, it will add another $2,000 in

debt for the average borrower, as much as an additional $5,000 for the neediest borrower of subsidized stafford loans. a number of this institution in the senate on the democratic side are trying to convince our colleagues how important it is that we stop this interest rate from doubling. we must act before july 1. and just as we have an obligation to keep college affordable for middle-class americans and working class americans, we have as great an obligation to keep college accessible to american veterans. this year, 500 -- more than 500,000 service members and veterans are expected to take advantage of the post-9/11 g.i. bill, a bill we passed out of the veterans affairs committee to ensure that all veterans could afford the rising cost of college. the v.a. is expected to spend some $11 billion in education benefits and other g.i. bill benefits this year alone.

we know in the 1940's and 1950's what the first g.i. bill did. signed near the end of world war ii, how it created a whole generation of prosperity and a strong middle class. we know that the g.i. bill of rights which the house and senate passed, i believe, three years ago has begun to help large numbers of veterans. again, unfortunately service members and veterans are often aggressively recruited by some educational institutions that use misleading information. for instance, if you visit the web site gibill.com, it directs a veteran to enter his or her personal contact information to obtain information about the g.i. bill's educational benefits. it looks just like a government web site but it's not. it turns around and sells that veteran's information, often to for-profit colleges. earlier today, i was welcomed at a v.f.w. post in cleveland by jason plezko, the commander of

that post. i met with brad sonnenstein, a u.s. air force veteran, and josh cuiter from kent state university. brad explained how he was inundated with offers and letters when he was exploring how to utilize his well-earned g.i. benefits. those offers overwhelmingly came from for-profit colleges. he said that he were more interested with their own -- in their own bottom line than helping those who served on the front lines. that's simply not right. no one is in a better position to make a decision. what's best for them is the veteran and the veteran herself and the veteran himself. we can play a role in assisting them. the g.i. bill consumer awareness act provides veterans with more and better information about their benefits, calls for improved education counseling and gives colleges new resources to hire people like joshua rider that help returning veterans. requires all institutions of higher education to disclose

critical information like the average student loan debt, the transferability of credits and accurate job placement data. we do that at our state universities, we do that at most of our not-for-profit private schools, we do that at our two-year community colleges. those using the g.i. bill tend to be older than the average student population. they choose to serve our nation often right out of high school rather than going straight to college, and because of this, many have families and careers in other challenges that -- and other challenges that their classmates don't have, giving our veterans the tools to make the best possible decisions, benefits, all of them. that's the importance of the g.i. bill consumer awareness act. i thank particularly senator murray, chair of the veterans committee for her work on this legislation. this body should pass it immediately. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island.

mr. whitehouse: thank you, madam president. i want to first express my appreciation to the senator from ohio for his work on these education issues, particularly the importance of the stafford loan and avoiding the interest rate jump that is scheduled to take place, and i would point out that had we passed the so-called buffett rule bill so that americans who earn well over a million dollars a year will actually all pay a fair share of taxes. that would have created somewhere between $47 billion and $163 billion, i believe, in revenues, and that would readily pay for keeping the student loan rate down. so i hope we can find another way to do it but that would be one good way. the reason i'm on the floor this

evening is because i was at wick ford junction in rhode island earlier today where a new commuter rail station has been built, largely through the energy and effort of my senior senator jack reed over many years, and secretary lahood, the u.s. secretary of transportation came to be present at that event, and that reminded me, of course, of the highway bill, which is probably the biggest jobs bill that we could pass here in congress. we tend to talk a good game on jobs. recently, we even referred to a bill as a jobs bill. it had kind of a trick. it was actually called a jump-start, j., our, o., business, b., start-up. jobs. they made an acronym so it

sounded like a jobs bill when it really allowed people to market stocks without the usual safeguards to protect investors and consumers. so we do a lot to try to convince people that we're working on jobs here in congress, but the one bill that indisputably is really, really going to be helpful to the american economy to provide jobs would be the highway bill that the senate passed. 2.9 million jobs protected or created. in my state of rhode island, it's 9,000 jobs. and i promise you, madam president, we could use those 9,000 jobs in rhode island right now. the bill passed the senate with flying colors, with every kind of credit that you could associate with a piece of legislation. it passed 74-22. a 75th senator indicated that he would have supported it but he was called out of town for a funeral, and obviously with a 74-22 lopsided vote, his vote was not necessary. but in effect, 75 senators are on record supporting that bill, which in this senate, as

everybody knows, is a really considerable landslide of the majority. 2.9 million jobs, that's a serious thing in this economy. 9,000 in rhode island we desperately need. and the bill left not only with the support of a unanimous environment and public works committee where it came from originally. i want to commend both senator boxer and senator inhofe, the chair and the ranking member for pulling that together. as people who watch the senate know, senator boxer and senator inhofe come from hear different political persuasions, and yet they were able to agree on this and bring a bill out of the committee unanimously. it then came to the floor and went forward. we had five weeks of floor debate. we added 40 amendments either by vote or agreement. it was very bipartisan, it was very transparent, and we ended up, as i said, with that 75-22 expression of support by the senate for that bill.

a rather different support on the house side. they knew that the march 31 deadline was approaching. it had been a matter of law for a long, long time now, and they blew the deadline. they had no bill going into it. they tried several times to come up with something. they couldn't do a thing. they had no bill at all. so without a bill, one would hope that they would have passed the senate bill. they certainly had the votes. all they had to do was call it up and pass it. democrats and republicans would have voted for it, and we would be getting those jobs out there right now. but instead, they had no bill and they chose to pass an extension. the extension is actually pretty harmful. they actually passed two. they are both harmful. the first short-term extension, i spoke to my d.o.t. director in rhode island, and he was at the wickford junction as well and we have done a couple other events in the past week or so to try to bring attention to this. he has a list of roughly 95, 96

projects that they want to get done in rhode island in the summer building season, the highway construction season. he estimates that probably 40 of those jobs are going to fall off the list because they don't know what their long-term funding is and they can't commit to those jobs until this gets settled. so these short-term extensions are very harmful. they cost jobs. they are job killers. and yet, the house has passed two of them to make it even more complicateed, they threw on the last one a requirement that the keystone pipeline be bulldozed through all the regulatory and environmental reviews that are necessary. say what you want about the keystone pipeline, it is a completely con ten shus controversial issue here in congress. they did not make an effort to resolve it on the house side. this was not something where they brought people together, came to a resolution on the keystone pipeline and then added to the bill. no. they just took their republican version of it without any effort

to be bipartisan and stuffed it into the highway extension. so they've missed the chance to pass really good bipartisan legislation out of the senate. they've passed a job-killing extension that is very harmful to folks doing highway work around the country and they've complicated it further by throwing a controversial issue on top. if you're serious about jobs, we talk about it a lot in the senate, if you're serious, we should stop that nonsense, take up the senate bill and pass it in the house and get everybody to work. in the absence of that we need to make sure that we move to conference very quickly, that we appoint conferees and we get going. this is important to rhode island. as i said, we desperate lay need these highway jobs so i'm going to continue along with many of my colleagues coming to the senate floor to continue to put the pressure on to do something that is very simple, pass a highway bill. this is not complicated. we have been doing it since

eisenhower was president and the fact that we can't do it now says a lot about the capacity for governance of the house of representatives under this speaker. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: after our work on this important bill to reform the postal service is complete we will be turning to another important bill, one that has a long history of bipartisan support. that bill, the violence against women act act is law that has changed the way we think about violence against women in the united states. the violence against women act is one of the great legislative success stories of this generation. since it was first passed in 1994 and i will tell you that then-senator biden was involved

in that -- drafting that legislation, led that effort and someone who we miss very dearly in minnesota, paul wellstone and his wife sheila were also involved in getting this important bill passed. since that time, annual domestic violence rates have fallen by 50%. as communities nationwide have stopped looking at these issues as family issues and started treating domestic violence and sexual assault as a serious crimes that they are. before i came to the senate, madam president, i spent eight years as a chief prosecutor for minnesota's largest county, hennepin county. during that time, both prevention and the prosecution of domestic violence were one of my top priorities. we were very proud of the domestic violence service center which was really cutting edge in the nation which was with one shop where people could go when they were victims of domestic violence, a place for their kids, shelters, prosecutors would be able to charge out

complaints, police would be there for protective orders, and it was a way to help people who were really at the point where they thought no one was there for them. for women to be able to come in and find one place that was safe for them to be. but as we all know, there is still a lot of work to be done. according to a recent survey conducted by the centers for disease control and prevention, 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking. approximately one in four women have experienced severe physical violence by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime and 45% of the women killed in the united states every year are killed by an intimate partner. every year close to 17,000 people lose their lives to domestic violence. these statistics mean that domestic violence and sexual assault and stalking are still problems in america. as far as we've come, we can still do payroll.

that is why it is such a good thing that we passed the vawa, the violence against women act reauthorization out of our judiciary committee and the bill now has the support of 61 senators, including eight republicans. i'm hope thankful we will be able to pass this bill quickly after we take it up later this week. it has taken too long. combating domestic violence and sexual assault, it's an issue that we should all be able to agree on. many of the provisions in the reauthorization bill make important changes to the current law. the bill consolidates duplicative programs and streamlines oops. it provides greater flexibility in the use of grant money by adding more purpose areas to the list of allowable uses. it has new training requirements for people providing legal assistance to victims and it takes important steps to address the disproportionately high domestic violence rates in the native american communities. the bill also fills some gaps in the system and i'm pleased to

say that it includes the legislation that i introduced with senator hutchison to address high-tech stalking, cases where stalkers use technology like the internet, and bugging to stalk their victims. sadly, we're seeing more of this. this bill will give law enforcement better tools for cracking down on stalkers. just as with physical stalking, high-tech stalking may foreshadow more serious behavior down the road. it's an issue to take seriously and we literally in law enforcement must be as sophisticated as those that are trying to break the law. that's why we need to update this law. we also shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the vawa reauthorization has strong support from law enforcement. the fraternal order of police support this bill. the federal law enforcement officers association support this bill. the national sheriffs association support this bill. and the international association of chiefs of police support this bill. recent events in my state have

shown me and really the entire population of minnesota in the worst possible way just how closely domestic violence is linked with the safety of our law enforcement officers. i don't think people always think of that. i think they realize when police are driving out on the road, drink drivers are driving on the road they're at risk because they're constantly on the road. what they don't realize is one of the leading cause of death of officers is domestic violence-related incidents. a couple of months ago, madam president, i attended the funeral of sean schneider, a young police officer from lake city, minnesota. officer schneider died responding to a domestic violence call. a 17-year-old girl who was being abused by her boyfriend. when officer schneider arrived at the scene, he was shot in the head. the girl survived, but officer schneider literally gave his life to save another. i attended that funeral and i

will never forget the heartbreaking scene of his two young sons walking down the church aisle with the little girl, his daughter, in a blue dress covered with stars. i think it reminds all of us that domestic violence just doesn't hurt the immediate victim. it hurts entire families, entire communities. this has never been a partisan bill 34579s. -- madam president. it is crucial to pass this bill. we've made a lot of progress over the years and we've been able to work across the aisle to build on vawa's success. that's something that means a lot to me and it certainly means a lot to the millions of people who are victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault every single year. so i urge my colleagues to support our efforts to bring this bill to the floor quickly. he weembg pass it -- we can pass it's this week and provide desperately needed help to victims of domestic assault and other such crimes. madam president, i yield the floor.

i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of s. 1789 but no earlier than wednesday, april 25, the senate adopt the motion to proceed to consideration of calendar number 312, s. 1925. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to a period of morning business, senators allowed to speak for up to tenpin in its each. the presiding officer: -- ten minutes each.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: there's a bill at the desk. i ask for the its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 2338, a bill to reauthorize the violence against women act of 1994. the presiding officer: i now ask for a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar but i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is her. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when -- the presiding officer: the bill will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. reid: sorry for interrupt, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today i, the senate recess until tuesday, april 24, at 10:00 a.m. that following the prayer and the pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 1925 and that at 10:30 a.m., the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. j. res. 36. and at 12:30 p.m., the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 1925. further, that the senate recess

from 12:50 until 2:15 p.m. to allow for weekly caucus meetings. finally, at 2:15 p.m., the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. j. res. 36. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, the first vote will be at 2:15 p.m. tomorrow on the motion to proceed to s.j. res. 256. after that there will be several votes to complete action on the postal reform bill at 2:15 p.m. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it recess under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands in recess until senate stands in recess until

there is room for positive government policy. it's the private sector that drives development, the really fuels' it. always in our history we've had some vision where we are going and encouragement and policy by the government, and if we need that it's right now we have this over to nettie creating infrastructure you the 21st century. this year's studentcam video competition asks students to creativity of telling us what part of the constitution is most important to them and why we read today we take you to cherry hill new jersey to talk with second prize winner matalin, and a freighter.

hi, madeleine. why did you choose women's suffrage as your topic? >> i had considered actually giving the first amendment for my documentary. however, i felt the women's suffrage was the topic i would be able to do well. it was also a matter of resources i had come and i had chosen a topic of of the same time my parents decided we would take our family vacation near seneca falls which is where the first women's rights convention was held. >> why did you think the founding fathers included women's suffrage as part of the original constitution? >> it's been created when the humans rights for a radical idea and at that time there were already some controversial issues that were being brought up such as slavery for example

faugh in the creation the introduction of the women's suffrage would not have gone over well. while there were some that might have supported women's suffrage at the time it was such a controversial radical issue but it wouldn't have gone over well. estimate there were a couple of leaders in the movement. can you tell us who was susan b. anthony? >> she played a role in the women's suffrage movement during the 19th century. she found the national women's suffrage association and wrote what is now with the 19th amendment. you know, she dedicated her life to women's suffrage with her friend and she held demonstrations and gave speeches and she played a pivotal part in the women's suffrage movement. >> what who was alice paul? >> alice paul dedicated herself

to the movement during the 20th century, and she organized the march and she created the national women's party and held demonstrations outside the white house and she won the sympathy of the nation as women were arrested and brunelli ed debbie joost and she continued fighting for the women's rights which didn't pass in congress. >> what were some of the of the things women did to fight for their right to vote? >> during the 19th century, it was largely the convention and speeches. they traveled all over the country so in the 20th century it got much more militant while peaceful it was much more -- not as passive. >> what can we learn from the women's rights movement today?

>> we can learn one person or a small group of people with great conviction can make a change to the entire nation. so the women's rights movement we begin to see the parallel between the women's rights movement and the civil rights movement because susan b. anthony showed resistance to tyranny, which is very similar to martin luther king's quote dimond cooperation is much more obligation as the cooperation of the good. so you begin to see the parallels that were involved which is the peaceful resistance, then on violence. >> congratulations again. here's a brief portion from the documentary titled vote for women. 1872 she voted and argued the 14th amendment and nailed her to vote.

she was jailed at the national attention. despite her logical defense, she was charged with illegal voting and would have been able to vote under the 14th amendment. the 14th amendment didn't include the women but it specifically excluded them. it appeared in the constitution but the women argue that it was for two people. but in the 14th amendment it appears and refers to the gender. estimate it was largely diverse and they didn't have a unified voice to work together. there were differing opinions and different personalities. >> she formed the national women's suffrage association through an amendment to the federal constitution. henry blackwell obtained of the women's suffrage to the individual state constitution.

>> you can continue the conversation on c-span facebook and twitter pages. >> in his new book she recounts his life in the days and years following the video recording of his beating by the los angeles police on march 3rd, 1991. mr. kaine earlier today the senator susan collins came to the senate board to talk about changes to the u.s. postal service. she says she believes there's no transfer of tax payer dollars authorized under the proposed u.s. postal service reform bill. senator collins currently serves as the ranking member of the

ction, s it's 40 minutes. islamic mr. president, let meof start by responding to thettee ranking member of the budget with him more that it is absolutely unacceptable that we have not had a budget pass in the senate for more than 1,000 days. that is totally unacceptable. it's one of the reasons that we are in such a financial crisis in this country. so, i completely agree with senator sessions that we should be doing a budget resolution on the senate floor. and i wholeheartedly agree with his comments that it is absolutely irresponsible for us to be proceeding without a budget resolution. and as a member of the

appropriations committee, i would say to my colleagues that it makes it very difficult for us to carry out our work due to the cooperation of the chairman and ranking member of that committee. we are operating under allocations for each subcommittee. but it would be far, far preferable if there were a budget resolution that passed, and it should have passed last year, the year before. and it should be passing this year. so we're in complete agreement on that point. and i know that's been a great source of frustration for the senator from alabama, as the ranking member of the budget committee. having said that, mr. president, let me explain a few facts. first of all, there are no tax dollars being authorized by this reform bill. there is no transfer of taxpayer

money to the postal service. what we have here is a very strange and unusual budget situation, and the score that c.b.o. has is incredibly misleading because the postal service, oddly enough, is part of the unified budget of the united states, even though most of its accounts are off-budget. but it participates in federal employee retirement systems and the health benefits systems and the workers' compensation systems, where postal dollars that come from postal employees and from ratepayers, postal

ratepayers, are commingled, if you will, with tax dollars that come from other federal agencies into the retirement system, the workers comp system and the health benefits system. and that creates this odd situation which makes it very difficult for c.b.o. to score this bill correctly. now, the inspector general of the postal service puts a -- it far more bluntly. the inspector general says in a february 22 report from this year called "budget enforcement procedures and the postal service" -- and let me quote. the i.g. says, "the postal service's off-budget status

exposes the postal service to, quote, an inappropriate and illogical application of the scoring process that threatens its ability to reform and heal its financial condition. scoring and budget enforcement were created for a good purpose, but they are undermined when the scoring process assumes that unlikely or inappropriate inflows to the treasury must occur." end quote. let me give you a couple of examples because it's incredibly important that we walk through the score so that our colleagues can understand the unique on-budget, off-budget status of the postal service. particularly in the area of reducing payments to retiree health benefits or recovering

overpayments to the fers system and how the c.b.o. scoring method obscures the true savings achieved by refunding the fers payments. now, again, let me repeat. since 1971, the postal service has received no federal subsidy to operate other than some very minor appropriated dollars for functions that the postal service is legislatively mandated to do, such as mail for the blind and overseas ballots for our troops. that's it. prior to 1971, there was a taxpayer subsidy year after year to the postal service. that ended with the postal reform act in that year.

so from the sale of stamps, the cost of shipping packages, the rates that mailers and magazine publishers, newspaper publishers pay to get the print versions delivered comes the revenue for the postal service. and even the money that the postal service uses for retiree benefits comes from the combination of the contributions the postal workers make and the money that the postal service invests. so there is, as i mentioned earlier, a significant overpayment into the federal employees retirement system, and we, along with the administration, the g.a.o., the independent actuaries, the postal service inspector general all have proposed that that

overpayment be returned to the postal service. and it would be used in part to finance these buyouts and retirement incentives to reduce the size of the postal workforce. now, let's look at how c.b.o. scores this particular part of the bill. first of all, c.b.o. gives this bill no credit whatsoever for the buyouts, and here's why: c.b.o. argues that the postal service already has buyout authority. but, mr. president, as you know better than anybody in this chamber, our bill changes the status quo in two critical ways.

first of all, the postal service has no cash right now to do these buyouts. that is one of the reasons that we're so eager to get the money from the overpayment to fers refunded to the postal service. second, in our bill, in our substitute bill, we specifically direct the postmaster general to use a portion of this money to entice 18% of the current postal workers to accept this offer. that is a big difns. so there is -- that is a big big difference. so there is a mandatory move to reduce the workforce by 18% and

there's the cash to allow tom offer buy -- to allow him to offer buyouts to do that. now, why c.b.o. doesn't do that as a savings to the postal service is beyond me. now, there's another way to reduce the workforce, and again the funds for this would come from the fers refund. and that is, our bill provides new authority to the postal service to offer one or two years of credited service toward a pension annuity so that some worker who's just lacking a year or two in -- to reach the number of years necessary for retirement could be credited with that extra year or two of service, depending which retirement system the worker is in. unfortunately, the c.b.o. gives

-- makes an assumption that only several thousand employees would take advantage of that offer and credits the bill with savings of only $643 billion over ten years. since these kinds of service credits have never been offered before, it's not clear how the c.b.o. came up with this assumption. this is a know precedent for it. there are no data for the c.b.o. to use. and, again, our original bill did not include the hard requirement for the 18% reduction. but our substitute does. and yet c.b.o. does not recognize that change. now, the postal service has told us, as the presiding officer

would attest, that these requirements and this new authority and the funds to -- for the buyouts and the service credit would allow them to reduce their workforce in the neighborhood of 100,000 employees and saves them $8 billion a year. that is not reflected in the estimate. so i use that example because it shows how strange the scoring is. this is a quirk of the budget scoring rules because when there's a transfer of postal service money -- not taxpayer money, postal service money -- from one account in the treasury, such as the retirement

account, into an off-budget postal operations account, the c.b.o. makes this assumption that savings are not going to occur. so, when you transfer the $11 billion overpayment, the refund, from the pension account to which the postal service has been overcharged into a postal operating account, it gets credited as $5.5 billion instead of $11 billion. that means an on-budget account loses $11 billion, as c.b.o. looks at it, and the off-budget accounts only gains $5.5 billion. this is very complex because it's so obscure and because,

frankly, it's so illogical. the result is a net score in the unified budget of $5.5 billion, as a cost to the treasury. and that simply not the reality. again, these aren't taxpayer dollars. -- again, these aren't taxpayer dollars that went into the overpayment in the first place. so here we have a provision that's being scored as a $5.5 billion cost to the treasury when in fact they aren't tax dollars, and it's only because this is a unified budget where some of the accounts are on-budget, some of the accounts are off-budget that we have this anomalous result. it just doesn't make sense.

let me give you another example. the c.b.o. acknowledges that our reforms of the federal workers' compensation program would save $1.2 billion, but c.b.o. doesn't count this reduction as a savings because of the way that the department of labor charges agencies for participation in the workers' compensation program. again, that just doesn't make any sense when the c.b.o. itself acknowledges that these are real reforms that are going to save $1.2 billion. yet we only get credit for $200 million of the reforms.

mr. president, there's -- there's another issue here. the c.b.o. does not account for what would happen if the postal service allows service to continue to deteriorate. instead, because again the c.b.o. doesn't recognize the reality that all the big mailers and small mailers tell us, which is that revenue will be driven out of the system if the service cuts associated with plant closures and wholesale closures of post offices are allowed to proceed. the bottom line, mr. president, is that were it not for 50%

discounts being applied over and over again to the savings that we achieve for five-day delivery, retiree health care, the pension refund, on the basis of these strange behavioral assumptions and reflecting the odd combination of off-budget and on-budget accounts being brought together in a unified budget, the bill would have scored approximately $24.6 billion more in off-budget savings, making the bill a net saver of $14.8 billion. this is so frustrating, mr. president, because it is so complex. but i think if our colleagues

just look at the example of the fers overpayment, it becomes very clear because there are no taxpayer dollars involved and yet it is scored at -- as a cost to the treasury of $5.5 billion. how can a refund of an overpayment that involved no tax dollars end up being scored as a cost to the treasury of $5.5 billion? that is how illogical and quirky this estimate is, and it is because of the unique status of the postal service and how its various accounts are reflected in the budget. but, mr. president, in addition to my absolute conviction that

this score is very misleading, let me make another point, and that is, if we do not proceed with this bill, if this budget point of order brings down this bill, the postal service will not survive as we know it. and, again, we are not providing a taxpayer subsidy in this bill. in fact, i would argue we're preventing a taxpayer bailout in this bill because later this year, if the postal service cannot meet its payroll and, thus, is unable to deliver mail, i think the pressure for the taxpayer bailout will increase

substantially. and i do not want to see us return to the pre-1971 era where the taxpayers were on the hook for the postal service. and our bill would avoid that outcome.