she was my liaison with the sergeant at arms office, the senate service department, the senate computer center, an extraordinary amount of work, and she performed the endless tasks that all of us here understand are critical to enabling our offices to be able to work. much more complex than obviously the average citizen ever sees. she wrote the emergency evacuation manual for my staff after 9/11. she trained the staff on emergency procedures and she restructured and ran what i think is one of the best intern if not the best internship program in the united states senate. for which the summer interns at the end of the summer got to have a terrific intern pool party at her home. office managers all over the senate constantly consulted her on how to run an effective intern program and she was always ready to help because she understood how important it was for young interns to have a positive experience, and part

of that came out of the fact that she was only 17 when she came to work full time for the united states senate. younger, obviously, than some of the interns who come here and work with us. when i said she could do the impossible, she helped me move my office not once by twice, which is an enormous undertaking here in the senate, and she has worked for the senate, mr. president, since 1981. in those 31 years i will tell you she's become a fixture on capitol hill, well known by everybody, perhaps legendary with some. if you needed a room at the last minute, to host a function, people would call mary tarr from outside of our office, i might add. if you needed a desk repairs or a light repaired or air conditioning working, just mention it and mention mary's time naim and people would say right away. printing, my legislative director tells me a story of how went to get printing done and the folks at the print office

said did mary okay this? extra ice cream at the cries grays ice cream party we have may at the dirksen buffet, she would say ask for the mary special and they made it. everybody seemed to know mary. from the hundreds of former interns who are working government or public service to bill gates, who once conveyed a hello from mary to a former colleague in patty murray's office. so hundreds of american soldiers, i might add, stationed abroad have received care packages from mary. the daughter of a wounded vietnam veteran. mr. president, in my senate offices i have a shelf of scrapbooks filled with emails, letters, and photos from soldiers who have received care packages, christmas stockings, easter baskets, halloween candy, all of which mary has organized and shipped year after year.

in the words of those soldiers underscore how important mary has been to them. our former intern, army second lieutenant rory mcgovern wrote "it always thoaps have a piece of home come in the mail." jacob add cins, "i appreciate the fact that someone i don't even know supports me enough to send a care package. you make me proud to serve." from marine chaplain captain pat opp, "little things go a long way. send more lemonade. the troops mix it with water as the temperature is very hot. army sergeant james maloney after receiving clothes and personal grooming items to share with a women's clinic in afghanistan wrote "it has done wonders for our interaction with the local population." all of that organized every time by mary tarr. one of my favorite emails in the scrapbooks comes not from a

soldier but from a marine's mother, kathy levin, whose son ryan had received one of our care packages. kathy wrote to tell mary that she can finally get a good night's sleep because of the message she just received from ryan. and ryan wrote it's almost time to take the candle out of the window, mom, i'm coming home, i love and miss you. so how did mary tarr come to spend a care package to ryan? so typical of mary. she was in massachusetts attending the funeral of a friend and while there, she went into a shop and to buy a gift for h.r. mother and father. mary chose a marine corps kite for her dad who satisfied purple heart in vietnam and ryan's mother was in the shop and asked mary if she had a marine because of what she was buying. mary told her she was a barn corps brat and the kite was for her father. but she asked if kathy had a marine and when kathy told her about ryan, mary immediately

wrote the information down, got his address, and then seeing her job through like every single one she's ever undertaken she stayed in touch with ryan until he came home. i think -- you know, i personally know how important those packages are, and i will tell you that one of the things i'm proudest of is what mary has done on behalf of her country and certainly those of us who make decisions to send people into combat. and i'm proud of her. mr. president, she may be retiring but she's got enormous plans ahead of her. she and her husband brian are planning to move to roswell, georgia, where her daughter angela and her husband daniel live and mary jokes they may be the only two democrats in the town of roswell so the arrival of mary and brian will double our party's strength there. but angela is going to have a baby in october so there's hope

even for roswell, yet. her plan is to babysit her grandson for a few years and eventually she and brian are going to retire to florida where daughters chrissy and lindsay are in college. so no matter where she goes or how far from capitol hill, she is always going to be a very special part of the family here, the extended senate family. she has always represented our senate well. she's extremely hard-working, honest, conscientious, knowledgeable and has handled her responsibilities with great dedication. i think she has viewed every challenge as an opportunity to herself and -- to prove herself and has done it again and again. as she departs my my staff today, the principles that represented her in her work and the standards she established are going to remain for along time as a guide for those in our office and here in the senate and we say thank you to her for all she has done for our

country, for the state of massachusetts and me personally and i wish her and brian and her family the very best as they take on a new chapter in their lives. thank you, mr. president. again, i thank my colleague from montana. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: i just want to compliment the senator from massachusetts for taking so much time to praise a person who clearly deserves praise, who has worked so hard for him and for the people of massachusetts and for her country. clearly mary is an incredible lady. mr. president, my mary is maureen. maureen, too, was someone who started working for me when she was very young, 17 years old, 1974, 1975, i don't know exactly when.

i was hiring people, this little young girl came to my office. i could tell this young girl knows the meaning of work. she is catholic, irish catholic and this lady knows the meaning of hard work. i hired her on the spot. she is my office manager. she is with me even to this date. she is tough, she's smart, she organizes, she's the glue. she's a super, super lady. we all have our marys and our maureens and i just want this moment to just praise mary and maureen but all those who work so hard for us in so many different capacities. mr. president, the renownsd poet -- renowned poet and author maya ang alo lieu wrote "history with all its unending pain cannot be outlived but faced with courage need not be lived again." i stand here today to once again lend my strong support, voted

for as the majority of our colleagues did, for the violence against women act. nearly two decades ago, the congress underwent an exhaustive investigation on the extent and severity of domestic violence and sexual assault toward women in this country. in hearing after hearing, senators heard from experts, including prosecutors, victim advocates and physicians and real-life stories of women that were the victims of these crimes. in response, congress passed the violence against women act in 1994. this law quite literally changed the culture of our country. it changed how we view and address domestic violence and sexual assault. states across our country began to enact laws making stalking a crime, and strengthened criminal rape statutes. congress provided states with resources to train law enforcement and coordinate

services related to domestic violence and sexual assault. but despite the progress we have made, our work is not done. one in every four women will experience domestic violence during her lifetime. in my home state of montana, 98 people 2k50eud from domestic violence died between 2000 and 2010. these are not simply statistics. they are our mothers, our sisters, our daughters, our friends. they are people close to us. since the passage of the violence against women act, women reporting domestic violence has increased by 51% and the rate of nonfatal intimate partner violence against women has decreased by 53%. congress renewed this critical legislation in the year 2000 and again in 2005. both included improvements and both those passed the senate

unanimously. we are here today to reiterate our commitment to addressing violence against women, including domestic abuse, sexual assault, dating violence and stalking. i was struck recently by the story in "the billings gazette" of maria martin. maria was a victim of partner abuse. in the year 2005 the man she was dating went into a jealous rage and held her hostage in her own home with a knife to her throat. he also threatened to kill her three daughters. charges were filed, this man is now serving a 61-year prison term. maria went on, she went on to earn her master's degree in rehabilitation and mental health counseling. she now helps others who find themselves in a situation she was in a few short years ago.

maria told the reporter that programs created under the violence against women act provided her with the resources and support to overcome her situation. the act helped her find the courage she needed to make sure this painful experience did not have to be lived again, counseling and shelter for abused women and law enforcement counseling so law enforcement can be more sensitive to women who are victims of domestic violence. the bipartisan reauthorization renews grants programs critical to montana including those that support law enforcement, victim services and prevention programs. and the bill consolidates 13 programs, many of which overlap, into four. this consolidation reduces administration costs and adds efficiency, acknowledging the current fiscal realities, the bill reduces authorization levels by 17% overall.

it's more effective and costs less. it also addresses the pervasive domestic violence occurring in indian country. native americans represent about 6% of montana's population, about 6%. yet native women account for over 13% of victims reporting domestic violence in my state in the year 2008, more than two times. according to the department of justice, native women are two and a half times more likely to be a victim of rape or sexual assault compared with non-native women. however, it is the federal courts, not the tribal courts which have jurisdiction over many of these crimes including misdemeanor cases. with federal prosecutors stretched thin, especially large, rural states like montana, many cases go uninvestigated and criminals walk three-free to continue their violence with no repercussions.

chairman leahy's bill carefully crafts a measure to extend jurisdiction to address the issue of domestic violence and partner abuse exurpg exurg in indian country. these will give travel courts narrow jurisdiction to prosecute violence occurring on tribal land. the bill, however, safeguards those who might be defendants, provides safeguards to ensure defendants receive all rights guaranteed by the united states constitution. this includes fourth amendment protections against search and seizure, fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination and sixth amendment right to counsel, all guaranteed in this statute. 50 law professors from across the country including the university of montana wrote in support of theetz provisions and congress' constitutional authority. these provisions will begin to

address the violence against native women that has reached epidemic proportions. maya angelou is right. we cannot erase the past, and what happened to maria and others like her. but maria's courage is proof we can change these circumstances for others to see that no one has to live through this experience. maria said -- and i'll quote her -- "i'm alive today because i'm a strong, intelligent woman. i need to stand up, step out and be in front of this issue for others who can't or are not yet able to do it. at least not yet." end quote. i urge my colleagues to support me in making sure that this act follows through in negotiations with the house and we get this reauthorization passed. it is so important to so many people in our country. i yield the floor. is en mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, after months of working to ensure student loan interest rates don't double this summer, i think we finally reached a consensus that that position is absolutely correct, that middle-income families in america can't afford a huge increase, a doubling of the interest rates on student loans. those who were previously opposed or indifferent to our proposal now are in favor of stopping a doubling of rates. the most prominent, of course, is the former governor of massachusetts, mitt romney, who said "i fully support the effort to extend the low interest rate on student loans. " i think that is the consensus. i submitted the legislation in january and now we reached that consensus. the debate now is how to pay for it. what i have proposed has been to

close the loophole that has allowed a self-selected few to avoid paying their fair share of payroll taxes. the alternatives proposed on the other side go to critical health care benefits to low- or middle-income families. it seems to me entirely unfair to try to provide help to middle-income families by taking away their access to health care. for families that are struggling, education and health care are not something that are, can be avoided, can be traded one for the other. mr. president, congress should not raise the interest rate on these loans. we've reached that. it's a fact, a de facto tact for middle income families and we have put forth a plan for student loans.

we are offering a short-term solution but we have to begin and do it quickly. if we don't act before bijuly 1 these -- by july 1, these loans will double. our proposal, and i think it is important because we proposed to close a loophole that the general accounting office identified as glaring and, frankly, not substantiated by any need. this loophole involves "s" corporations. when you say "s" corporations, tongue must be the local -- you think it must be the local manufacturer or hardware store and think how can we put more costs on these job creators? this is not the situation. what has happened is that a very clever and bright group of people figured out a way to use the "s" corporation to avoid payroll taxes. it's a small subset of corporations that are doing

this. and our proposal is targeted, is targeted only to those "s" corporations that derive 75% or more of their gross revenue from the services of three or fewer shareholders or where the "s" corporation is a partner in a professional service business. essentially, this is a small group of people who derive 75% or more of their gross revenues from services. it's lawyers, accountants, lobbyists and folks like that. the proposal only applies to "s" corporations and partnerships in the fields where virtually all the earnings are attributable to the peformance of services. this is not the local manufacturer, not the local hardware store, not the local dry cleaners or gas station. these are people who perform essentially professional services. they are avoiding their payroll taxes, and we don't think that should be the case. furthermore, this proposal exempts "s" corps shareholders

or partnerships with modified adjusted gross incomes below $250,000 for joint filers and $200,000 for individuals. so it is targeted within the small subsection to an even smaller group, those who are making $250,000 as joint filers or $200,000 as sole filers. this proposal prevention professional service income for being mischaracterized to avoid taxes. legitimate passive income, if the "s" corporation is earning income from rents, dividends and certain other gains, that would be essentially treated as such and will continue to be exempt from payroll tax. so, mr. president, what we have done is close a glaring loophole, done it in a way in which we don't impact anyone making under $200,000, anyone, frankly, who is involved in a corporation whose principal activities are not professional

services. and i think this is a responsible way to do it, and this is a way that can in fact respond to the need to responsibly fund this provision for student interest. the g.a.o. found that in 2003 and 2004 tax years, individuals used this loophole to underreport over $23 billion of wage income. the median underreported amount was $27,127. for most people that would cover tuition. let me say that again. what the g.a.o. found was that using this device of an "s" corporation, people were able to transform what normally would be $20,000 in payroll wages or salary that would be subject to payroll taxes into a distribution for the "s" corporation, avoiding payroll taxes. this is a loophole. there is no other word for it.

and we're closing it. and we're closing it in a way that is responsible and that will have virtually no impact on the businesses on main street u.s.a. in fact, i think if you tried to explain to anyone running the local store that there are some folks out there that were using "v" corporations to a -- s" corporations to avoid their payroll taxes they would be if not shocked, raise objections to that practice, frankly. closing this loophole will fully offset the $5 billion offset. it's a win-win proposition. in fact, according to citizens for tax justice, in their words, closing this loophole will actually help most small businesses which are currently subsidizing the minority who abuse it to avoid payroll taxes. and so i think this is not only the right thing to do in terms of the policy of not doubling

the interest rate on student loans, this is an appropriate way to do it, an appropriate way to pay for it. now, even governor romney recognizes that at times "s" corporations have to pay their fair share. and this is a quote from the -- january 6, 2008. when mitt romney became governor in 2003, subchapter s corporations that were owned by massachusetts business trusts were taxed at 5.3%. by the time romney left office the tax rate on these corporations climbed to 9.8% with romney declaring the tax increase to be merely 'closing loopholes.'" we are urging that the governor be consistent both in his support for avoiding the increase in student interest rates and closing loopholes in

chapter "s" corporations. both parties must work to find a way to do this. the good news is that there is now a consensus that it must be done. i am prepared and i hope my colleagues are prepared to work for a way to pay for it which is fair, which does not take from one middle-class program to offset another middle-class program. we should work together to get this done as soon as we return. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, i have obviously been very fortunate to have the opportunity to give remarks from my desk from the floor of the united states senate several times since the people of missouri sent me here in 2006. and i don't think i've ever had a speech that i was going to give that was easier and harder than this speech. easy in that i'm talking about somebody i love.

hard because this person i love is going on to a different place and a brighter future, and i'm going to miss her terribly. this person's name is angela ellbury, and she has a job that people outside of congress don't fully appreciate. she's called the scheduler. but for anybody who does this work, they appreciate that somehow that title just doesn't do it justice. now, i don't know what the right title would be. i can think of several: in charge of my life. hand holder. the nicest person that has to say "no." multitasker. mother to the entire office.

disciplinarian. jokester. there are so many things that a good scheduler does that makes our lives work. angela came to this work having worked for the governor in missouri in a similar capacity. she actually joined my campaign and was one of the first ones through the door. she came from a place that, frankly, hadn't had a lot of people that were elbow to elbow with governors and united states senators. she came from a small town called madison, missouri, and i think there is maybe just north of 500 people that live in madison. so not only did she begin the campaign and do a lot at the beginning of the campaign, keeping us organized and allowing the schedule to work; she came to washington and really has done remarkable work. her work is so remarkable that everybody kind of thought it was

easy. and that's the mark of a really good scheduler, because it is the hardest job -- the hardest job in the office. not only does she have to put up with the frustration of me when the hours are long and the meetings are back to back, and there's not time to get a breath. she has to put up with everyone in missouri that can't understand why i can't be five places at one time and why it's not possible for me to vote one hour and be in rollo, missouri, the next hour. and she does all that with incredible grace and intellect and a smile on her face. she's just a very, very special person. and, you know, the thing about these jobs is there are days i get worried about our democracy, and then i look at the resumes of the young people, whether it's the great pages that serve us morning noon and night here

in the chamber, or whether it's the amazing people that i work with in my office, and these are people that could go other places in the private sector and make a lot of money. they choose to come here. they're drawn to this. they're drawn to their government. they're drawn to public service. and so, as a result, i mean, what do i love about my job? let me count the ways. but one of the things i love most is being surrounded by patriotic, intellectual americans that want to do the right thing and don't care that they have to still live like they're still in college, that don't care that the idea of buying a car is a fantasy because it's just too expensive, that don't care that they have to have an hour commute in order to get housing that they can afford. they want to be a part of it. i am surrounded by a team like that. in the driver's seat, how to make the car go where it needs to go and making sure it doesn't

get broken down on the side of the road has been angela. i'm not sure how exactly this car is going to navigate without her. i have a feeling we're going to have a few bumps. there may be an out-and-out collision. there may be some scrapes and some wailing and some hollering about people who are upset or it doesn't work. i do know this: that we always say somebody's shoes are hard to fill. these shoes, they will be very hard to fill. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to give this speech in full. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, i rise today to discuss the important -- the impending tax hike which if allowed to occur will raise taxes on practically all americans come january 1, 2013. that is eight months from now.

in february "the washington post" called the approximately $500 billion tax hike, tax-maggdon and federal reserve chairman ben bernanke described it as a massive fiscal cliff when testifying before congress. this tax hike will affect virtually every single federal income tax payer. remust not allow that to happen. america is slowly recovering from one of the greatest recessions in modern history. it is beyond irresponsible for president obama to sit idly by and allow this scheduled $500 billion tax hike to occur. congress needs to act now in order to prevent this tax hike on americans. first we need to focus on the tax extenders. just look at the first line, tax extenders. we've had hearings, no markup,

no floor debate on that. tax extenders are temporary tax provisions affecting rveg from individuals and advice -- everything from individuals and businesses, charitable giving, energy, and even disaster relief. my colleague from montana, senator baucus, and i held a hearing in late-gentlemannen to discuss these -- in late-january to discuss these tax provisions and the fact that congress extends these tax provisions without a thorough review of each of them. some of these provisions are worthy of being extended such as the research and development tax credit. i have introduced legislation with my friend from montana to make this provision permanent. but when it comes to tax extend,we need to have a real debate where the senate decides which provisions must be extended and which should be allowed to expire. second, we need to address the alternative minimum tax, 2012 a.m.t. tax. we haven't had hearings, a

markup, any floor debate on it. the alternative minimum tax was initially drafted to provide some type of guarantee that the higher-income taxpayers who owed little or no taxes under the regular income tax due to tax preferences would still pay some taxes. there were 155 of these at the time. today we're approaching well over 30 million people who could get stung by this particular tax. yet over time i've just said this tax has grown into a monster, potentially ensnaring more and more middle-income families every year. to avoid the consequences of the a.m.t. on the middle class year after year, congress has patched the a.m.t. we've indexed it so that middle-income families do not end up paying this tax. not only must we patch the a.m.t. for 2012, we must eliminate the a.m.t. in the long term. it really doesn't deserve to

exist. now, third, we have to focus on death tax reform. that's very, very important. taxing people's assets upon their death is just plain wrong. the death tax affects thousands of small businesses' owners every year. this year alone it is estimated that 3,600 estates will be affected. in ten years approximately 83,200 estates will be hit with this tax according to the joint committee on taxation. the president likes to talk about how his policies will help small businesses. well, if current law expires, the number of small business owners who will face the death tax will rise by 900%. the number of farmers who will face the death tax will rise by 2,200%. that's right, 2,200%. many individuals worked their entire lives to build a business and they reasonably want to pass

that business along to their families. iinstead of being rewarded for their work and the work of their families, this is what they face come january 1, 2013. as you can see, uncle sam will take over 50% of their assets, 55% to be exact. the survivors will be forced to sell their assets of the business in order to meet this liability. let me be clear, nobody should be forced to sell a single asset in order to meet the arbitrary tax due date. company assets should not have to be sold to pay taxes. the market should determine when things are bought and sold. that is the best measurement. when a willing buyer meets a willing seller and they agree on a price and time when a company should be sold. currently the law states that

there is an exemption equivalent of $5 million and a tax rate of 35% on the remaining estate. in 2013 the exemption equivalent will drop to $1 million and the tax tax rate will be -- the top tax rate will be a full 5%. that's a 57% increase in taxes. the truth is that we ought to repeal the death tax in its entirety. the whole thing must go. and i am working hard to make that a reality. unfortunately, with the current composition of the senate, that is going to be an uphill climb. yet at a minimum we must extend the current provisions to keep the tax hike from occurring on these job creators. and i have to say, it is a pity that farmers and small business people have to -- their survivors have to sell the farm or the small business in order to pay the death taxes. it's pitiful that we allow that -- we don't get that much revenue

from death taxes. fourth and most important, we've got to prevent -- we've got to prevent the 2013 tax hikes. now, we have to extend the tax relief signed into law by president bush and extended by president obama. this may be the most crucial piece of legislation congress passes this year, if not during the entire 112th congress. if we allow these curt cuts to e scheduled at the end of the year, almost every federal income tax payer in america will see an increase in their rates. some will see a rate increase of 9% while others will see a rate increase of 87%. let's take the average american family of four earning $50,000. this family will owe an additional tax of $2,183. democrats insist that that is fair. that is just more people that

are paying more of their fair share. but to whom and for what? what this means in reality is that instead of taxpayers using their $2,183 to pay for their children's education, save for retirement, buy a new home or invest in a new business, they will be forking that $2,183 over to the federal government and after winding its way through the federal bureaucracy, some pit tanpittance of that will bet son a federal program that too often have a zero-demonstrated success. let's not sugarcoat this. in the supposed interest of fairness, families will have an additional $2,183 taken from their wallets mured to serve big -- in order to serve bigger in order. that's people earn $50,000. that's president obama's redistributionist agenda. looking at this more broadly, economists sthaiment if these -- estimate that if these current policies are allowed to spierks the economy could contract by

approximately 3 percentage points. that would be a large hit to an economy that is still weak and recovering from the fiscal crisis of 2008. adding another fiscal crisis by not extending these tax policies definitely won't help and will likely do further damage. so, mr. president, preventing this tax hike is what we must focus on. congress should have a laser focus on preventing this looming disaster. yet at a time when we should be working to prevent a massive tax increase, president obama and his democrat allies are spinning their wheels trying to raise taxes on politically unpopular groups. these tax hikes are already scheduled to go into effect. congress doesn't have to do anything and everyone will pay more taxes come 2013. now, that's not a good sign given that some people have called this a do-nothing senate.

now, let's just go to the senate democratic leadership tax legislation "to do" list. i am a sure that some people are a tired of the mantra among conservatives that democrats want to raise your taxes and republicans don't. well, we say it because it's true. all liberal -- you know, all liberal think tanks at their liberal think tanks, their employees go to work every morning and think about how they can raise taxes so they can spend more. my friends on the other side of of the aisle, knowing that their constituents already feel overtaxed, spend countless hours devising ways to raise taxes that hit only politically unpopular groups. the president is devoting his entire reelection campaign towards tax-hiking in the interest of fairness. here in the senate we have already voted twice on my colleague from new jersey's proposal -- senator menendez's proposal -- to raise taxes on oil and gas companies.

that's the first line in this chart. we've had hearings, we've had the no markup, and we have had floor work on this. first we had hueerings in the senate finance -- first we had hearings in the senate finance committee last year. that was nothing more than a dog-and-pony show and everybody knew it. then leadership brought the bill directly to the floor skipping the process of a markup. last week we voted for the silly buffett tax. that's the second line in this -- in this democratic leadership tax legislation "to do" list. this is not serious tax policy. the buffett tax is a statutory talkingpoint and not a very good one at that. first, the president said that it was all about deficit reduction. when we pointed out to him that it raised only $47 billion in revenue over ten years, a drop in the bucket given the president of the unitethepresidt

spending, the white house shifted gears. now it was about fairness. when we pointed out that his redistributionist scheme if directed to a lower tax bracket would only yield $11 per family tax rebate, he criticized republicans for demonizing him as a class warrior. the president needs to come clean about what the buffett tax really is. it is nothing less than a second and even more damaging a.m.t., alternative minimum tax, one that would force many small business owners and job creators to pay a minimum of 30% of their income in taxes. as "the wall street journal" said on april 10, quote, "the u.s. already has a buffett rule, the alternative minimum tax that first became law in 1969. the surest prediction in politics is that any tax that starts behighting the rich -- by hitting the rich ends up by hitting the middle class because that is where the real money is." unquote. what is really rich about the

buffett rule is that mr. buffett would be able to avoid his own buffett tax. so what is the president doing? why with taxmageddon around the coarch, are they dithering with these increases? the answer is simple: politics. president obama has read the polls. he knows he's in trouble. his approval rate something declining and he does not have a single positive accomplishment to run on for a second term. the $800 billion stimulus, a failed policy that has not kept the unemployment rate under 8%, obamacare rejected soundly by the american people, it might now be rejected by the supreme court, is one of the biggest unconstitutional boondoggles in our nation's hoart. what else does he have in absolutely nothing. his admirers moit not know it

but mitt romney is in the cat bird seat. president obama is appealing to all he has left cloosh core, left-wing supporters, one step from an occupy wall street encarchlt who love class warfare. before the buffett rule, democrats proposed six different pieces of legislation that in one form or another raised taxes on millionaires. here they are. that's the third line in the chart. millionaires surtax hike bill. you notice, no hearings on the buffett rule, no hearing on millionaire surtax hike bill, no hearing omarkup on the menendezn gas tashing hike bill or buffett rule or millionaire surtax hike bill but all plo brought to the floor. let's not pretend that all of these redistributionist tax policies or tax plans comprise serious policy.

now, let's not forget that every minute democrats spend goofing around with these plans is a minute that we do not spend preventing the largest tax increase in american history. mr. president, senate democrats are fiddling while rome burns. they have failed to address the deficit, spending surged 24% under president obama when he took office, all of the tax hikes he and his allies have proposed do little if anything to pay down the deficits and debt. it is time for senate leadership to get serious and to focus on making the lines of middle-class families easier, not more difficult. the policies from the other side do nothing of the complete if anything, they make them more difficult. taxmageddon is coming. congress can prevent it and extend tax relief for the middle class. that is where my focus will be for the next eight months. i hope my completion will join me in securing the benefits of

tax relief for all americans. now, you can see here this stimulus proposal. we just list six different stimulus proposals. school repairs, infrastructure, et cetera. number two, school repairs, infrastructure. number three, payments to unionized teachers. number four, infrastructure. number five, payroll tax holiday. number six, smaller payroll tax holiday. these are proposed marginal tax hikes. 5.6%, 0.5%, 0.7%, 3.25% and 1.9%, for a total of 11.9% plus deduction limitations. it's pathetic. and they don't seem to have an answer other than let's tax more, and we republicans have filed through the years -- have found through the years that if we go along with any tax increases, instead of getting the cuts that are always promised, they just spend the

money. put us deeper in debt. now, as you can see, it's time to end this type of foolish behavior, and i hope that -- i hope that our friends on the other side will work with us to do so, because this country's in real trouble and there's no reason for it. we can turn it around in a very short time if we got serious about economics, if we got serious about the tax situation in this country. and i believe it's time to get serious. i believe that if we don't, we are risking the future of the greatest country in the world. mr. president, i -- i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: mr. president, i come to the floor today to talk about the action that was taken here this week by the united states senate to make sure that the postal service has a good chance to return to solvency, to

be relevant in the 21st century, and to continue to provide a valuable role in helping to support 78 million jobs in the united states of america. i think i -- mr. president, i think i'm going to put that on hold for just a moment and recall the words of a former president, one who left office, not very popular, harry truman, but in retrospect is regarded by many as one of the best presidents of the last century. harry truman, you will remember, used to say the only thing new in the world is the history that we forgot or never learned. i just want to go back a few years in history, reflecting on the words of the preceding speaker, and just say what can we learn from history? one of the things we can learn is that the last time we actually had a balanced budget in this country, we had actually three of them in the last three years of the clinton administration. he became president in the middle of a recession and left our country with the strongest economy of any nation on earth, the most productive work force

on earth, and turned it over to a new president, george w. bush, one of my colleagues who was a former governor, and gave to him balanced budgets, a strong economy, and eight years later we had accumulated more debt, and those eight years from 2001- 2009 were accumulating more debt i think than maybe the previous 200 years combined. and president bush then turned it over to president-elect obama a trillion-dollar deficit and an economy that was in freefall, the worst recession since the great depression. that's where president obama and vice president biden start up in january of 2009. just keep in mind, the last six months of 2008, this country lost 2.5 million jobs. the first six months of 2009, this country lost 2.5 million jobs. and that's sort of like where they took the hand off.

i am not -- i would never attempt to characterize my colleague's comments a few minutes ago, but i think a little bit of history is not a bad thing. interesting enough, a balanced budget amendment was negotiated by president clinton's chief of staff erskine bowles. that's a name we have heard a whole lot in the last year and a half. erskine bowles was asked by this president to try to negotiate a deficit reduction deal. along with alan simpson, former republican senator from wyoming. the two of them were asked to add up a -- head up a deficit commission of very smart people. 11 out of the 18 after working at it for just about a year came back and said here is what we think is a good way to take $4 trillion or $5 trillion out of the deficit over the next ten years. the deficit commission led buyer skin bowles and alan simpson recommended that we do so by working on the spending side and on the revenue side, and for every three dollars of deficit

reduction on the spending side there would be one dollar of new revenues, not by raising taxes but by lower somewhat the personal income tax rate, the corporate income tax rate, broadening the base of the tax structure, broadening the base of that income which can be taxed. that is seen by a lot of people as like the grand compromise. democrats agree to compromise on entitlement program reform in an effort to try to make sure we have social security, medicare, medicaid, 50, 60, 70, 100 years from now. republicans agree to compromise on tax reform that actually lowers the rates, but enable us to generate some additional revenues. one dollar of new revenue for three dollars of spending reductions for deficit reduction. i think that's a smart plan, and i know that people have come forward with their plan since then. i think that's a smart deficit reduction plan. i think that's a good jobs bill. my hope is by the end of this year when the smoke clears, maybe the elections are over, we will come back to that and use that as maybe our north star to get us back to fiscal responsibility in this nation.

that's not, mr. president, why i came here but i thought it was maybe appropriate on the heels of my friend and colleague to maybe just set the record straight a little bit. ironically, mr. president, yesterday, 62 senators voted for postal reform legislation. i appreciate the support of the presiding officer and other colleagues, democrat and republican, and that legislation was almost immediately attacked by some of our republican friends over in the house of representatives. our presiding officer, my colleagues, i am not a real partisan guy. i never have been in this role, as governor or any of the roles i have been privileged to play in delaware. but our bill was attacked almost immediately by our republican friends over in the house, and for -- because it didn't do this or didn't do that or whatever it might be. ironically, we say, well, where is your bill? how about let's compare our bill to your bill. they haven't passed a bill. yet, they feel at liberty to take all kinds of shots.

i don't think they are entirely fair shots, all kinds of shots at our bill. i had an encouraging conversation this afternoon with the chairman of the relevant committee over in the house, urged him to make sure that they actually move a bill and not just criticize what we have done. there are provisions in our bill that i am frankly not happy with, and i'm sure there will be provisions in whatever bill that the house passes that he won't be that comfortable with. but at the end of the day, they have to move a bill. they have to say this is what they are for. we have already said this is what we want to have as sort of our negotiating point in conference, going forward. now we need the house to do the same thing. sooner rather than later. and i am encouraged that the house is going to take something up by the middle of may. if they can do it before that, god bless them. i want to take maybe five, six, seven minutes, mr. president, to talk just a little bit about what we are trying to do with respect to postal reform. we're trying to rightsize the industry, much as the auto

industry rightsized itself coming out of bankruptcy. we're trying to modernize the postal industry. and we're also trying to help the postal service, encourage the postal service to find new ways to use their existing business model. every community in america, 33,000 post offices, going to every front door, every mailbox five or six days a week. how can they use that business model to make more money, to raise new revenues? what are some of the ways they can do that? our legislation really focuses on that. rightsize the enterprise given the reduction in mail, the diversion of mail to the electronic media because of facebook, twitter, internet, all of the above. we just communicate differently than we used to. we have to help them rightsize their enterprise and modernize and find new ways to generate revenues. that's really the heart and soul of what we want to do that. how do we do that? as it turns out, by luck, the postal service in recent years

has overpaid its obligation to the federal employee retirement system by a lot. it turns out by about $11 billion. there is no argument they have overpaid the money. they are owed, the postal service is owed that money by the federal employee retirement system. the postal service would like to take that money and use that money for two things. one, to incentivize about 100,000 people, postal employees who are eligible to retire to retire. not fire them, not lay them off. say look, if you will retire, here is another $25,000, or if you're close to retirement, we'll give you some extra years of credit, but we would like for you to retire. second, the postal service has more mail processing centers than they need. a couple of years ago, they had maybe 600 or so. today they have a few less than 500. they would like to get down to about 325 over the next year or two. that would be almost cutting in half the number of mail processing centers that there are around the country because they don't need them. they don't need them given the volume of mail today. they need mail processing centers but not as many as they

have. and when the postal service would close another 150 or so mail processing centers, some people will not be able to work in those mail processing centers, but the postal service says we'll find other jobs for you. you can be a letter carrier. you can work in another part of the postal service. you're not going to get fired. we want to encourage people eligible to retire to retire. the postal service also wants to take most of that reimbursement from the federal employee retirement system to pay down their debt to the treasury. right now, they have gone on a $15 billion line of credit. the postal service would like to take most of their federal employee retirement system reimbursement and pay off that debt, take care of it. another thing that they would like to do, a lot of folks around here have been real concerned about the closure of post offices. there is the fear that as many as 3,000 or 4,000 post offices in rural places around the country where maybe the post office is the center of the town. folks are concerned that their post office is going to be closed and people have been left

without postal service. as it turns out, that isn't going to be the case. what the postal service is going to do under our bill is to say to communities across the country, what they are going to say is we would like to offer you a menu of options, we would like to offer you a menu of options in different communities, and among that menu of options we would like to offer to these communities are these. number one, we're not going to close your post office. you can keep your post office open. whether it's a place we're paying the postmaster $50,000 a year to sell post offices and make $15,000 worth of stamps, that doesn't make much sense. why don't we do that? if the postmaster is eligible to retire, incentivize that postmaster to retire. let them go off, get their pension, their benefits, let them come back and work on a part-time basis. run the post office in that

community. if that's what the community wants, that's what they get. some communities might rather put the post office in the supermarket there in their community or maybe in a drugstore, a convenience store that's open not just eight hours a day or six days a week. open 24/7 maybe. that would be an option to the community. in some communities, they may have like a town hall and some other state or local government businesses. maybe they could co-locate those with the post office. put them under one roof and everybody would save some money, share some space. another option in some places around the country, maybe minnesota as well. we have rural letter carriers in delaware, other parts of our state. offer people the opportunity for rural mail delivery. they wouldn't have to come into town and collect their mail at the post office. they would be delivered to wherever they live. the idea there is to say to folks in communities who might be adversely affected, you pick from among this menu of options. pick what works for you. and you can even vote by mail and pick their favorite choice.

so those are -- in terms of rightsizing the enterprise, reducing the head count, reducing the number of mail processing centers by -- further by another third, and finding ways to provide more cost-effective mail service in communities across the country, those are not the heart and soul of what we're trying to do, but they are very, very important. i will mention one or two others, if i could. the postal service pays twice for health care for the retirees i'll say that again. the postal service pays twice for the health care of their retirees. they pay into medicare and they pay into the federal employee health benefit plan. twice. the employees don't get the full benefit of that money. the postal service certainly doesn't get the full benefit of that money. most companies in this country, big companies and small ones, when their employees retire, a lot of times they will continue

to provide health care benefits for them until age 65. at age 65, the company will say to the retiree we want you to get your primary medicare, your primary source of health care, and we'll provide a wraparound, a medigap program to fill in the gaps for you. that's how a lot of companies do it. my wife is retired from dupont. when she turns 65 in about another 30 years -- well, maybe not -- maybe a little sooner than that, but when she turns 65, medicare will be her primary source of health care and the company will provide a wraparound or medigap plan. what the postal service would like to do is have a similar kind of opportunity. in the end, i think the retirees will benefit, the postal service will benefit and the taxpayers i think grewably would benefit. those are just a couple of things that are in our legislation. have we passed a perfect bill? by no means. by no means. as i said earlier, there are

some things in the bill that i don't like, and i hope that we can make the bill better in conference. in order to get the conference with the house, the house has to pass a bill. it's not just enough for the house to criticize what we have done. we say what have you done? it's turned out so far not much at least in terms of passing a bill and being able to appoint conferees and see what we can work out here. my hope is that they'll do that. my home is they'll do that sooner rather than later so we can stop saying, well, the postal service lost $25 million today and they did it yesterday and they'll do it tomorrow. they can't -- that's not sustainable. that's just not sustainable. and they need to be put in a position where they can be successful. question help them there. and to the extent that the postal service becomes vibrant and solvent, they can help support the 7 million, 8 million jobs that are tied in, interconnected with the postal service. that's what we're trying to da. and with that having been said, i bid you adieu and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

i you

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico.

a senator: i would ask to waive the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: mr. president, it's good to see you in the chair today and know that alaska as well is represented having you in the chair and presiding over the senate. i very much appreciate that. mr. president, i wanted to come to the floor today and rise to commend one of new mexico's most celebrated authors, rudolpho ania. this year marks the 40th anniversary of professor ania's acclaimed novel "bless me ultima." this beloved book is an iconic part of chicano literature history. it has been read by thousands of high school students and the general public. it tells the story of a young boy growing up in a small new mexico town during world war ii ." bless me ultima "is a classic

portrait of chicano culture in a particular time and place, but it also resonates with universal themes -- the search for identity, the conflict between good and evil. literature expands our horizons. it increases our understanding. as president kennedy said, art establishes the basic human truths which must serve as the touchstone of our judgment. for 40 years, rudolpho ania's work has explored the human condition. the university of new mexico organized a reading marathon to commemorate the publication of "blues me ultima" and i was pleased to take part. rudolpho ania was born in 1937 in the small new mexico village of pastura. he grew up in santa rosa and in albuquerque. when he was only 16, he suffered a terrible accident. his injuries required years of

rehabilitation. he has commented on that painful time in his young life and how those events affected his sensibilities as a writer. he obtained his b.a. and m.a. from the university of new mexico." bless me ultima "in 1972 was his debut novel. it was the beginning of a remarkable literary career. he is also the author of "tortuga" and "albuquerque" among many other works. he was a professor of english at the university of new mexico from 1974 until his retirement in 1993. professor ania was awarded the national medal of art in 2001. he received the award for his exceptional contribution to contemporary american literature that was -- that has brought national recognition to chicano traditions, and for his efforts to promote hispanic writers. rudolpho ania has been a prolific writer and a dedicated

teacher. he has made a lasting contribution to american arts and letters. i'm pleased today to congratulate him on the 40th anniversary of "bless me ultima" and i wish him the very best in his future endeavors. mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. bennet: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: mr. president, i rise today to talk about the importance of the passage of the violence against women act. as a husband and as a father of three young daughters, this issue is especially personal to me. this piece of legislation provides extremely valuable federal resources to help victims of domestic and sexual violence rebuild their lives, whether it comes in the form of an emergency shelter, legal assistance, a crisis hotline or advocacy, this bill provides the assistance that victims need, especially in the most vulnerable time.

domestic violence, spousal abuse and sexual assaults represent enormous public policy challenges. because of the very personal nature of these crimes, it can be extremely difficult for victims to come forward to get the help they need, let alone call out those who have committed these heinous crimes, but since this bill was first enacted, the annual incidents of domestic violence continues to drop. additionally, domestic violence reporting has dramatically increased and victims are receiving life-saving assistance to help them move forward with their lives. in my home state of colorado, we continue to make great progress reducing the number of domestic and sexual assaults that occur, but we must continue to do more. in 2010, the national center for injury prevention and control published a report that estimated that 451,000 women in colorado were victims of rape in their lifetimes. it also estimated that 897,000

colorado women were victims of sexual violence other than rape in their lifetime. that same report said that 505,000 men had been victims of sexual violence in their lifetimes. these statistics are staggering, in my view, and they make the case for why we had to pass this bill and continue to strengthen the programs that provide life-saving services. the violence against women act also includes invaluable programs to coordinate community efforts to respond to incidents of domestic and sexual violence by training police officers, judges and other members of the criminal justice system. the legal system in our country is already stretched so thin, so the resources provided by this bill will help law enforcement and court officials track down and bring to justice those who commit these crimes.

in my opinion, we can't do enough to get these criminals off the streets. for instance, we need to ensure that we support protection and prevention services such as training judges and police officers on how to identify and respond to abusive situations. we can significantly decrease domestic violence fatalities and the number of displaced families if we have better trained officers in our legal system and health and human service arena. finally, i'd like to thank chairman leahy for his tireless efforts to move this critical piece of legislation forward, senators murray and klobuchar for their continued leadership on behalf of women and children all across the nation. with a big bipartisan vote today in the united states senate, we came together to make sure that the violence against women act was passed. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a

quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations -- calendar number 263, 502, 566, 567, 572, 624, 653, 654, 656, 657, 658, 659, 666, 667, 668,

669, 670, 671, 672, 673, 683, 684, 685, 686, 687, 688, 689, 690, 691, 692, 693, 694, 695, 696, 697, 698, 699, 700, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705 and all nominations placed on the secretary's desk in the air force, army, marine corps and navy. that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, no further nominations be in order to any of the nominations, that any related statements be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. mr. reid: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that on monday, may 27, 20 12-rbgs at 4:30 p.m., the senate proceed to executive session to consider the nominations of calendar number 508, 568, 569, there be 60 minutes for debate that be equally divided in the usual form, that upon the use or yielding back that have time, the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed, the motion to consider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, no further motions be in order, that any related statements be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. mr. president, in case i misspoke, i -- i -- it's hard to believe but i ask that we take a look at this again. i ask unanimous consent that on monday, may 7, 2012.

so everything else i said is valid. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: another 20 days. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business, senatorsal to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to calendar numbers 371-381, all post office name bills, and we do it en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. mr. reid: i ask concept the bills be read a third time, passed en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc, there be no intervening action or debate and nay related statements be printed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent that we proceed to calendar number s. res. 419.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 369, senate resolution 419, expressing the sense of the senate that public servants should be commended for their dedication and continued service to the united states during public service recognition week. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate and nay read statements be printed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to s. res. 441, 442, 43, 444, and -- 443, 444, and 445. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolutions being agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate and any statements related to the resolutions be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s.

con. res. 43. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 43, providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the senate and an adjournment of the house of representatives. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i further ask, mr. president, that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reauthorization bill consider be laid on the table, there be no intervening as or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that thursday, april 26, through monday, may, the majority leader be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the upcoming recess or adjournment of the president, the president of the senate, the president pro tempore and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two houses or by order of the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: finally, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn and convene for pro forma sessions only --

mr. reid: mr. president, i again ask unanimous consent that when the exphat completes its business today, it adjourn and screen for pro forma sessions only with no business conducted on the following dates and times , that following each pro forma session, the senate adjourn until the next pro forma session, monday april 30, at 10:30 a.m., thursday, may 3, at 8:30 a.m. and that the senate adjourn on thursday, may 3, until 2:00 p.m. on monday, may 7, unless the senate has received a message from the house that it has adopted s. con. res. 43. which was -- which will be the adjournment resolution. and if the senate has received such a message, the senate adjourn until may 7 at 2:00 p.m. urn the provisions of s. con. res. 43. following the prayer and the pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that the senate resume consideration then of the motion to proceed to s. 2343, the stop student loan interest rate hike

act. and at 4:30, the senate proceed to executive session under the previous order. mr. president, just so everyone understands why we have in this the pro forma sessions possibility, i'm confident the house will adopt our adjournment resolution but just in case they don't, that's why we have that in there. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, there will be three roll call votes, then, on monday, may 7. there will be confirmation of three judicial nominations and one circuit nomination. there will be confirmation of three judicial nominations which consists of one circuit court and two district courts. so, mr. president, if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask we adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 10:3 a.m. on monday, april 30, 2012, unless the house agrees to senate concurrent resolution 43.

and next today's white house briefing with press secretary jay carney talked about possible terrorist plots tied to the anniversary of osama bin laden's killing and what the president's security team is doing to assess those threats. this is 45 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. thank you for coming to the white house for your daily briefing. we have a group of haitian journalists here visiting. i want to welcome you to the white house briefing room. i have a couple things i would like to read out to you before i take questions. first, i wanted to mention thanks to the affordable care act insurance companies must spend 80% of your premium dollars on health care and not overhead, bonuses and advertising to reach insurance companies fail to meet that standard as you know they must provide a rebate to the

consumers thanks to the president's health care law, 15.8 million americans will receive $1.3 billion in rebates come average rebate of $127 per enrollee in the individual market. today's news is yet another sign of how the affordable characters all the strengthening the health care system for millions of americans. on the second matter i just want to. as part of the briefings on homeland security and counterterrorism the president met with members of the national security team to review the threat as we head into the anniversary of the bin laden take down. at this time we have no credible information the terms organizations including al qaeda or plotting attacks in the u.s. to coincide with the anniversary of bin ladens's death, however we assess the affiliate's and

allies remained intent on conducting attacks in the home and possibly to avenge the death of bin laden but not necessarily tied to the anniversary. the president thinks the team and directed them to continue taking all necessary measures to protect the american people. with that i will take your questions. ben. >> thanks, jay. on investigations i know the question about the investigation to them but i'm wondering has there been an understanding that there might have been? >> as you know the president was briefed by director solomon. i don't have a point by point readout of the meeting. he was briefed on the investigation specifically into the incident in colombia. that investigation is

continuing. action has been taken with regard to a number of individuals. i don't have anything more for you on that. i would work for as a relates to the reports you just mentioned to the secret service. i don't have anything further for you on that estimate the president instructed the investigation to be forthcoming senator mccain said today the secret service seems to be forthcoming in his review but as it relates to the military members, he says the pentagon has completely stonewalled. >> i would refer you to the defense department. i'm aware of the reports of what senator mccain said but i'm not familiar with the briefing they've received. the president's position, as he explained it when he was taking questions in colombia it's that he believes that every american who travels abroad representing

the united states should behave himself or herself in accordance with the higher standards of propriety and dignity and i think that applies to the representatives from all different branches of the government and agencies within the administration. >> one other question on student loans. you've talked about how this issue shouldn't be partisan, but it is. speaker boehner says the president has turned this not just by pushing the idea that by traveling to the campuses. one of his quotes plus today the biggest job in the world i've never seen a president make it so small. i wonder if you have a reaction to that and more broadly do you think we are at another one of

these low plants? >> i understand speaker boehner and republicans on the hill are busy backing and filling, trying to explain how they can support -- how they now support fixing the student loan interest rate problem when they all voted in favor of the republican budget, the rise and budget, the document that explicitly took another course of action and would have allowed interest rate loans on the stafford loans to double. so they can't have it both ways. we are absolutely pleased the because the president has raised this issue and he's taken out of the country and he has talked to students and others across the country about the need to ensure it the interest rates don't double republicans are now saying they agree. they suggest even though they voted for the republican budget they made it a fact they were to

become law that the student interest loan rates would -- student loan rates would double the were going to fix it. there was always there plan they just didn't 21. they were going to announce that, spring it on the american people late in june. i know none of you believe that, and in fact, there was a vote in the committee on this issue during the of liberation's over the republican budget where a democrat on the committee offered an amendment that would have fixed the problem and ensured the lower interest rates continue beyond july 1st. republicans voted unanimously against that selena with the position was. we are glad they changed it. and they changed in large part because the president took his argument out to the country and they felt that pressure. the american people understand. and in a way i guess the speaker

doesn't that education is an essential element of the american economy. making sure that our kids get a quality education is telemental not joost to their future but the future of the american economy. that's why it's so important and the president is out there pushing this issue and that's why she is happy to see republicans now a little johnny-come-latelies supporting the position that he's taken. yes. >> falling one of things speaker boehner said today on student loans [inaudible] that doesn't amplified to reduce it going up that extra cost would change [inaudible] wondering if you could discuss

the engaging directive having the president to go to capitol hill to north carolina. >> i think we saw it in the payroll tax cut the issue debates there resulted in republicans doing the right thing and making sure that millions of americans didn't, hard-working americans didn't have their taxes go up this year when the american public is behind an idea the congress responds at least some occasions and that hopefully is the case here. we are not there yet. there's an effort to politicize this and refile the of the local levels and rather than just acknowledge this is the right thing to do and working together to get it done. again, i want to go back to the fact that the suggestion that

this is a manufactured battle is belied by the overwhelming support that republicans have avenge for the budget which uses the money the would be gained by doubling these interest rates as part of their -- part of how they provide access to the wealthy and to reduce spending overall. so you can't have it both ways. you can't say that america has the equivalent of the stage 3 socialism because of all kind of stuff that has no business can bring in, congressman republican from missouri referring to this policy and the president's position on the need to take action to ensure the rates stay low. it's just not credible.

>> you are referring a lot of that the democrats' proposal would have paid this through the loopholes on the oil subsidies to the oil companies, as when you took a look at all the ideological fights it seems the battle here is over how to pay for this. the democrats' proposal. why is the white house objecting to the republican proposal? >> let's be clear the fight here is there is a negotiation that should and hopefully will take place to decide how to pay for this in a constructive way that everyone can agree on. but your assessment if republicans heretofore huffpost -- if there was evidence of any national debt to lower the interest -- >> [inaudible] >> they said that after the president made an issue of it. it is not in the zero ryan republican budget there was a

committee vote with an objective effort to ensure these interest rates stay low. to the republican party and every leader in the party supports so you can then say you're always for it. second, on the pay force, we support the senate democratic proposal as an alternative. there are other options to pay for it. many of them are available in the president's budget proposal. we are willing to negotiate this. the briefing is about the billions of dollars the savings the americans have received because one provision of the affordable care elected yet republicans want to somehow because they've lost this battle over the need to ensure students of have their interest rates doubled, to kind of messy the

water, stir up the water by making it about health care, having it pulled out of the affordable care act we've seen this before. we watch it during the payroll tax cut debate. it didn't end well for them and that's because the american people overwhelmingly support this action and overwhelmingly supported the force that we propose and they need to -- we know what the republican position is. they want to repeal. they have no alternative but they want to -- hold on. they want to repeal it. we understand that. they will argue that in this campaign. they will argue insurance companies once again would be able to dictate to consumers the rules of the road in their insurance health care coverage. they would argue the benefits i just talked about the top of the briefing shouldn't be given to the american people and that's fine. let the election decide that. let's solve the student loan

rate problem now and focus on those of our reasonable index of trouble. >> the president said it led to the loan rates doubled overnight if they really cared about this issue. the president's belief republicans really don't care about this issue? >> we saw the other day in a statement by the house republicans, the speaker of the house when he suggested that the president was talking about this issue to avoid talking about the economy, to avoid the economic record and i think it's unintentionally revealing perspective about what the economy is in stark contrast to what the president's respect it is. education is essential to our economy and essential to our economic growth. the economy is not just the tax rates of the wealthy individuals, hedge fund managers, partners and big corporations pay.

its average folks out there trying hard to make a living. people try to get an education so they can start a business or be a teacher r-tn engineer. that's a perfect inadvertent declaration of the difference in perspective that we have about this. so, yes, the education is essential, ensuring that the kids don't have their interest rates doubled and the president is going to keep pushing it. so many hands. >> on the taxpayer dollars can you talk about -- >> i will respond to that with alacrity. a couple things. one, all the questions so far in the briefing prove we are talking about a policy issue that needs to be acted on bye

congress. the president's support in congress needs to act on it because the efforts of the president to go out and talk of this and raise awareness about this looming deadline and the potential for payments this students have to make to go up. this has gotten a lot of attention, and congress hopefully will act because of that. so i think it is eminently obvious that the president was out talking about a policy issue. this is official business, and he did it effectively. it is also to me ironic that the argument comes from people that know we follow all the rules in terms of the delineations

between campaign trouble and officials travel just as our predecessor did. and i would note that the speaker of the house, one such critic praised the trick by president bush to ohio in 2004 to talk about education as absolutely the right thing to do there's an effort to politicize this and hide the fact that they have a policy problem their hands. but our interest, the president's interest is ensuring that it be taken care of on behalf of the american college students read yes, in the red tide. >> to clarify this, when speaker boehner says the president is campaigning on this issue and when he says the president should take back this issue with is the response from the president and the white house? >> my response is what i just

gave. we follow the rules by the book. the same rules although there's been changes that have been written about that you could argue are not even advantageous to us, but we follow the rules and the same rules that were in place when president george w. bush was running for reelection the same the was in place on president clinton was running for reelection in 1996. it is a simple fact as republicans have acknowledged when there's been a republican president in office when you are president, your president 24 hours a day come seven days a week. you do not leave office behind. when you make campaign trouble, which this president has and will, you have to travel first and have security and communications requirements that come with the office and staffing requirements that come with the office. that is an essential part of it.

but all of the rules the we follow are the ones that our predecessors follow, and when it's going back to this trip i think as the discussion shows very clearly the president was arguing on behalf of a policy that he believed was essential. he was calling on congress and will continue to act to fix a problem that if not fixed would negatively affect millions of students across the country, and he will continue to do that as part of his job. it's an important part of his job. >> was the president aware of this before the news report this morning? >> i don't think so. i doubt. i don't know that any of us were aware of it until we read the

reports. >> my question is if we are learning about this from the media is it not possible that the secret service didn't actually do any federal investigations of the previous incidents as well? >> i would refer you to the secret service for questions about their investigations. we said when that investigation is complete and they may have things to say about questions regarding the overall culture or issues with service if there are any that extent beyond this in colombia but certainly for the time being, we are not going to comment on the unconfirmed report in the newspaper about potential instances. the secret service is handling this and that is where you should direct your questions. >> are they looking into other -- >> we should ask them to direct questions. islamic the first statement the

secret service did this morning along the lines of on confirm reports it could be anything credible. i guess the question is is it up to the media to investigate with the secret service might have done more -- >> again i would refer you to of the secret service said. i don't have anything further for you honest. >> can you comment at all on the department rule requiring 90 hours of training for children that might be working on farms. people in the rural communities and i'm wondering why does the administration feel like this was necessary. what is the reasoning behind it and how much will the overall communities consult? >> i'm not familiar with it.

to date i will answer your question as i have others which is the secret service is still engaged on the investigation. the issues that may or may not emanate beyond the specifics of the casa de or one that if you have questions about it should be addressed in the secret service. while this is an ongoing investigation we are not going to comment broadly or on the rumors or speculation is that appear in the media about either this incident or others. estimate what the president like to make sure -- >> the president made clear that she believes those of us that work for the u.s. government whether the white house or in an agency of the administration or for congress or the military when we travel abroad on official trips we are representing the people of this country, and we should do so by

conducting ourselves in an appropriate manner. >> when the democratic leader harry reid was asked about the behavior and what should be done his response was to hire more women. is that the answer? >> this goes to a broad question about the nature and the culture of the agency for now the questions are best addressed to the agency itself. >> finally secretary napolitano on the hill yesterday set over the past two and a half years the secret service of responsibility have not received any such complaint of wrongdoing. is that sufficient have not received a complaint that there is no wrongdoing at all? >> i would refer you to secretary napolitano. the department oversees the agency.

>> travel to fort stewart georgia what is the message? >> what are we doing? >> georgia. estimate why are we going to georgia? >> [inaudible] >> i mentioned yesterday about the subject matter of the trip which is the president and first lady's commitment to the veterans and military families it will be related to that of the church later today on the call that you can join. >> on the agreement talks between the u.s. and afghanistan >> i give you a little bit of preview on the subject matter that seems different from what you just asked but for more detail later to call in and give information for that later.

estimate you mentioned the briefing about the anniversary and is he going to do anything on tuesday? >> i don't have any advanced scheduling information. i'm sure we will have more tomorrow. >> i did perhaps look prematurely on the subject matter yesterday so i am confirming what i said yesterday that would be related to veterans and military issues but beyond that we will have more information for you leader. estimate is there any discomfort in the white house about the politicizing the decisions and everything else this around the takedown of bin laden we phew. i think you need to ask more specific questions.

>> i'm wondering what is the spring to become a political issue. >> i think that foreign policy will be discussed in the campaign. i would refer you to the campaign for more on the vice president's speech which was a campaign speech, but i think that we have and the president has discussed the mission their resulted in the modern's death in extraordinary work of the mother terrie and intelligence services bringing about. estimate its sober and reflect the reality of the fact that al qaeda was and is our number one enemy that al qaeda led by osama bin laden launched attacks against the country and took

thousands of lives and it continues to this day. it's part of his foreign policy effort and it's part of a very serious endeavor and if to keep the country safe. >> how you balance for you just said and taking it out? >> it's representing the balance you need to strike. >> they've apologized with a poor choice of words on the philosophy of oil and gas enforcement was to be like the romans and find the first five that the supply them >> have you done any investigation to see whether there have been other cases where they've been selectively edited i just want to be clear

to you to launch the accuracy? >> i've not suggested there's an issue with that. i think the you know to correctly that the individual here apologized and made clear those comments are and inadequate way to the work and he's right, they are highly inaccurate at the characterization of the work that he did and there was recently a little put out affecting natural gas the was supported by those industries and environmentalists demonstrating the kind of approach that we take on matters like this and i would note since the president took office, oil and gas production has increased each year and is currently at an eight year high and on federal land and water alone, oil production is up 14% since the president took office gindin 2010 for the first time in 13 years important oil accounted

for 50% of the oil consumed in america. so, the president's approach is and all of the above approach to our energy needs and documents and proves the comments don't reflect the policy or approach to disconnect a longtime critic many years this is however that there's been actions taken by the epa in states like pennsylvania where the accused national gas co's of contaminating water. if the republicans think it's been up. does this not call into question some of those actions you now have this same what's kristopher them to respect the comments are not only inaccurate as a representation of or characterization of the epa has operated under president of.

they are inaccurate by the record on the issues. as i just mentioned all oil production is up 14% on the federal land and water and oil is currently at an eight year high and domestic production the issue that you're talking about is at an all-time high. so, clearly there is not an effort of the nature being talked about. quite the contrary, there's a cat went to ensure that natural gas is and the essential part of our energy future and the president believes very strongly we can exploit that in a safe and responsible way. >> going back to that campaign was about hope and change and setting up the new tone. somebody's saying we should kristopher the industry why is that persons working at the epa. stomach he's apologized and what he said is clearly not

representative of either this president's believe in the way that we should approach these matters or in the way that he has approached these matters either from this office here in the white house or at the epa. >> [inaudible] >> i've not spoken about them. are you talking about a rumor in the newspaper as far as i know is not confirmed and i would refer you to the secret service. [inaudible] >> fair enough. but i haven't talked about it. i don't have a reaction. >> going back to the sector in the public,'s comments yesterday she said not everybody else is doing it and the behavior isn't the way of doing business. to be fair she also said the investigation is continuing that is there any concern that the comments we have been premature?

>> the president said as recently as two nights ago that he believes very strongly that the vast for 30 of the men and women that work for the secret service conduct themselves in an entirely professional manner and they conduct themselves that way as to carry out a responsibility that is dangerous and difficult and essential to our democracy. this does not excuse any occasion where the standards have not been met. but the president believes and secretary napolitano reflected this in her remarks that the just what dirty of the men and women that work for the secret service are absolute professionals committed to the

mission and their work is very important. >> senator marco rubio is proposed tuesday to the administration doesn't work on the creative duties to [inaudible] has the president review this plan? >> going back to their representation of the proposal which is not in legislative form, but in terms of the path to citizenship, the president -- have you? i don't think it's been presented to my knowledge. let's go back to what we were talking about here. the president has repeatedly made it clear that he's a strong proponent of comprehensive immigration reform in order to ensure accountability and responsibility to a badly broken immigration system which is something that is vitally important to building an economy that has the foundation for

necessary so that america can compete and win in the 21st century. that position includes the support for the dream act and it's an important to remember that the only reason the dream act isn't all right now, the only reason that comprehensive immigration reform is and the law right now is because republicans have blocked action in congress. if republicans are ready to recognize that we can work together on this issue and they want to start with the act and give people that have been raised as americans the path to citizenships of the concerts in the military, but their talent to work in the schools, work in the labs and start businesses, then we should do that and let's give them a rigorous and thorough process to get through law that provides a pathway to citizenship and i think this is an issue here. that's what makes sense and the president is ready to sign it into law such a bill tomorrow.

we need to do this in a bipartisan way. we've had a situation with comprehensive immigration reform one of the major proponents of it abandoned support for it on the republican side. so the president is willing to work with any member of congress who is willing to work on this issue and he's going to continue to fight for the much needed reform. peter. >> to the had an interview saying there were going to build a nuclear bomb. >> i'm sorry? >> taking the position held does the white house will get that change how you view that issue. >> well, no, it doesn't. we are firmly committed to preventing iran from acquiring a

nuclear weapon. that is the focal point of the policy when the president came into office, the world was divided about this issue and about the appropriate approach to it because the policy approach the president has taken the world is united at making nuclear but it is high iranian behavior that is the issue. it is iran's failure to demonstrate to the international community that it doesn't see a nuclear weapon that is an issue and what the p5 plus one talks represent essentially is an avenue for iran to change that equation by demonstrating in a verifiable way that they will forsake the nuclear weapons ambitions. and if they do that, then there's a path open to iran to rejoin the international community of nations ending their severe isolation and

ending of the punishing sanctions that have been imposed upon them because of their bad behavior to the estimate iran isn't likely to build. >> i think that we have discussed various assessments by fisa administration or this u.s. government on iran's programs and intentions. we have said that they are some time away from having the capacity to build a weapon. but we are very clear right about the irony en intentions and that is why we insist on verifiable action as opposed to promises and rhetoric.

>> estimate to you have any comment? >> i think we addressed this issue a long time ago, but i will have to -- i don't think i have a comment on that, but thanks. >> you said you'd look into it but -- >> i did, sorry. >> when or if the president is briefed the -- >> let me make clear a couple things. this is something that's in the press and i sure he is aware of it. he gets briefed regularly on things that are in the press as well as things that are that are matters of concern or just matters that are out there on the national security horizon. this is an issue with in china and i think the state department is a good place to ask about this and this is not a white house matter particularly so when you ask me when was he briefed i don't know that he

was. i'm not in the habit of taking off the subject items and the intelligence or presidential daily briefing he gets, but this is not in on that requires presidential action or attention. islamic this is a leadership issue. >> you ask if he's aware of it. i'm sure he is. but beyond that i don't know. this is not a policy matter for the united states. if you read the newspapers you will follow it but beyond that i don't have a comment on that. >> yesterday the chairman said that the fed wouldn't be able to if the bush tax cuts were renewed, and i wonder of that complicated the president's effort to try to make sure.

>> i'm not sure if that's why i understood the comments, but i think that what his assessment and the as is and others including the president make clear is that we need to take concerted bipartisan action to address our deficit and the challenges and in a balanced way. we need to do it in a way that bipartisan commissions have addressed this problem have said it's essential. you have to look -- there's been enough attention and enough studies of this issue of late the i think everyone understands that it's actually not that complicated and a broad sense. guinea to reduce the non-defense discretionary spending. a pretty significant thing and we've done that. lowest levels since dwight eisenhower was president before most people in the room were born. a second company to deal with in

a responsible way reductions in defense spending. the president has proposed that. you need to deal with reform of entitlement programs in a way that ensures that the essentials benefits and guarantees represented when medicare and social security remain available to the future generations of americans but the reform and the program so that they retain their solvency going forward. the president has proposed that. and you need to as a matter of essential balance say you want to get everything else you need to increase revenue and a look at tax expenditures and the president has proposed exactly that. the one missing element in all of this has been increasing that approach it's been the republicans by and large, elected republicans. republicans in the country support it. republicans that used to be elected to that or retired now

support it. republican statesman but members of the house in particular in the senate don't and its at odds with the opinion and severely at odds with common sense policy so that is our position. voice of america. [laughter] >> you're backing your statement but the assessment of continued intent by al qaeda affiliate's and yemen sees the escalating conflict in the forces and a lot of death and wounded. the fbi director was there the other day. what americans think about obstetricians at this point? do they think it is improving the -- >> we remain focused on creating a peaceful transition in yemen and we will continue to stand by and people as they take steps to

realize a more prosperous and space future. obviously it's a very important place and we've made that clear with regards to the national security. the approach as comprehensive and we will continue as the transition progresses to meet the needs by delivering humanitarian economic aid as clause providing security and counterterrorism support to combat the threat of the violent extremism. as i said earlier which i think he made reference to, al qaeda despite the success we have achieved in the fight against it remains a threat to the united states and aqap is in particular a threat as we see it. so that's why we have the relationship that we have with young men in terms of or joint efforts to fight the threat of

the violent extremism and we will continue to do that. i'm not quite to comment on the counterterrorism of tortfeasor intelligence matters. but we do obviously cooperate. >> collected here in the u.s. there is unambiguous evidence that the military once again bombing unarmed [inaudible] do you have a comment on that? >> i addressed this the other day that my answer is the same today we strongly condemn that while and assault on the south sudanese and we call on all sides to refrain from taking military action. we are working closely with our international partners on this issue and monitoring at very

closely. >> two years ago the u.s. president made a statement in which berkeley characterizing what happened although the election campaign [inaudible] your comment on who this discrepancy. islamic it's been the president's position well known and i think the statement was fairly comprehensive. >> a u.s. president on the genocide was back in 1981 in the authority building i wonder if the records of the institutional memory of peacebuilding have kept this. >> i would point you to the president's statement and the fact the positions are well