S6520 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 20, 2012 

or background or documentation and 

citizenship. It did wonders for 

Yusmerith. 

She worked at a lot of different jobs 

to pay for her education, from 

waitressing in restaurants to working 

at a pet store and babysitting. She continues to work to pay for her education. 

Now having graduated from Norwalk 

Community College, Yusmerith went 

on to attend Western Connecticut 

State University. This picture is of her 

graduation, but we are hopeful she will 

have another graduation. She is currently pursuing a double major in accounting and finance at Western State 

University and expects to graduate in 

2014. She hopes to be an accountant. 

She hopes to have a career where she 

can put her skills to work. She hopes 

to give back to this country. That hope 

deserves recognition and realization, 

and that is why I stand here asking 

this body to give Yusmerith and thousands of other young people in Connecticut, the DREAMers, that opportunity to have a secure and permanent 

status, a path to citizenship that they 

will earn through education or military service. 

I am hopeful my colleagues, even in a 

time of tremendous partisanship, will 

see the importance of what Yusmerith 

and the DREAMers can do not only for 

themselves but what they can give to 

our Nation and us. With her skills, talent, and dedication, this Nation will be 

even greater. We are the greatest Nation in the history of the world, but 

even greater with the contributions of 

young people such as Yusmerith. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent 

to speak as in morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

NOMINATIONS

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise 

tonight to speak about one subject, but 

a very important subject for our country and for our system of justice, and 

that is the confirmation of Federal district court judges. I will focus tonight 

on one Federal district in Pennsylvania, the Middle District. By way of 

background, I will review where we are 

in the Senate. 

Earlier today Majority Leader REID

was required to ask for unanimous consent in order to proceed on Senate confirmation votes for 17 district court 

nominees. Of course, this is from district courts across the country. As the 

majority leader and many of our Senate colleagues have noted, the district 

court nominees on the Senate Calendar 

are nearly all noncontroversial and 

have received significant bipartisan 

support. The judges I will speak about 

tonight fit that description. 

Historically the Senate has deferred 

to the nomination of the President and 

the support of home State Senators. 

Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be 

the case today in too many instances. 

Of course, not in every instance but too 

many instances. There is an old expression in the law that many of us have 

heard, and it is very simple, but I think 

it has substantial consequences for real 

people. The expression is: Justice delayed is justice denied. 

When we have a situation where we 

have two judges in the Middle District 

of Pennsylvania—I should say for the 

record and for the description of the 

geography in our State we have three 

Federal judicial districts: the Eastern 

District, the Middle District, and the 

Western District. When we have two 

district court nominees in Pennsylvania, or in any of the other States 

that have judges who are still pending, 

we can imagine the number of cases. It 

is not just hundreds but thousands of 

cases. In this case 17 judges could be 

handling these cases right now across 

our country. That old expression, justice delayed is justice denied, has real 

significance for real people out there, 

people who come before the district 

court as litigants. Whether they are individuals, corporations, or whatever 

the party, they come for basic justice 

and that gets very difficult when there 

is a backlog and there are not enough 

judges. 

It is especially egregious and outrageous that they are held up here 

when in many cases they get out of the 

Judiciary Committee after a long process of getting to the Judiciary Committee. Sometimes there are many 

months of vetting and investigation 

work. Often the names are available for 

voting here in the Senate after not just 

getting through the Judiciary Committee, but part and parcel of that 

means in almost every instance the 

two Senators from that State have 

agreed they should come up for a vote. 

Yet when it lands here on the Senate 

floor after committee consideration, 

judicial nominees are held up. 

The ability of the Federal courts to 

provide justice for the American people 

has indeed been threatened by the vacancy crisis and the overburdened Federal district courts. Families, communities, and small businesses are not 

able to get a fair hearing or have their 

claims resolved in a timely fashion. 

These Federal court vacancies need to 

be filled to mature a functioning democracy and a functioning judicial system. 

The Pennsylvania nominees to the 

Senate Calendar are two individuals, 

Malachy Mannion and Matthew Brann. 

Both are to be confirmed as U.S. district judges for the Middle District of 

Pennsylvania. 

I won’t go through their backgrounds 

and qualifications today. We have done 

that already. They don’t need me to do 

that. They are through the Judiciary 

Committee. These men are both very 

well qualified to be U.S. district 

judges. 

Both of these judges would fill judicial emergency vacancies in Pennsylvania’s Middle District. Just to give 

my colleagues a sense of what we are 

talking about, the Middle District of 

Pennsylvania has six posts, six judicial 

slots, and these are two vacancies for 

those six. The Middle District is the 

largest Federal district in Pennsylvania geographically, and there are 

four courthouses, one of which is several hours’ drive from the others. Because of the vacancies, the judges with 

senior status still continue to hear 

cases. Three of these judges are at least 

86 years old. Let me say that again. 

Three of these senior judges who have 

to do extra work because of the vacancies are at least 86 years old. 

Mal Mannion and Matthew Brann 

were both reported by voice vote out of 

the Judiciary Committee earlier this 

year, and both nominees were supported by Senator TOOMEY as well as 

me. Both of us came together through 

the process of introducing both of these 

nominees to the Judiciary Committee. 

They are, as I said before, through that 

process. 

I strongly urge that we move forward 

and allow a vote on all of these highly 

qualified, noncontroversial U.S. district court nominees, two in particular 

in Pennsylvania. 

I should mention that there was an 

article written—I won’t summarize it 

here—in the Atlantic magazine just 

last week by Andrew Cohen that highlighted some of the impacts this crisis 

has on real people when they appear 

before district courts such as the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 

I yield the floor. 

f 

NOMINATIONS 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the 

majority leader was required to take 

the extraordinary step of asking for 

unanimous consent to secure Senate 

confirmation votes for 17 district court 

nominations. Before the American people elected Barack Obama as our President, district court nominees were generally confirmed within a couple of 

weeks of being reported by the Judiciary Committee. This was true of those 

nominated by Republican Presidents 

and Democratic Presidents. Deference 

was traditionally afforded to home 

State Senators and district court 

nominees supported by home State 

Senators were almost always confirmed unanimously. 

However, Senate Republicans have 

raised the level of partisanship so that 

these Federal trial court nominees 

have now become wrapped around the 

axle of partisanship. Despite a vacancy 

crisis that threatens the ability of Federal courts to provide justice for the 

American people, Senate Republicans 

now refuse to allow a vote on any of 

the 17 pending district court nominees, 

including 12 that have been declared judicial emergency vacancies. Senate Republicans’ across-the-board obstruction 

of President Obama’s judicial nominees 

that began with their filibuster of his 

very first nominee continues. For the 

first time I can recall, even district 

court nominees with support from Republican home State Senators face 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6521 

months of delay if not outright opposition from the Senate Republican leadership and Senate Republicans. 

The long delays and backlog we are 

seeing on the Federal trial courts and 

Senate Republicans’ refusal to vote on 

so many consensus judicial nominees 

before we recess for the upcoming Presidential election are entirely without 

precedent. The Thurmond rule has 

never been applied to stop votes on 

consensus district court nominees. In 

September 2008 we reported and confirmed 10 of President Bush’s district 

court nominees and left none on the 

Senate calendar as we headed into that 

Presidential election. In contrast, this 

year we are still waiting on votes for 

district court nominees reported by the 

Judiciary Committee in April, June, 

July, and August. All but 1 of these 17 

district court nominees was reported 

with significant bipartisan support, all 

but 3 nearly unanimously. 

The partisan refusal to allow votes 

on consensus nominees has become 

standard operating procedure for Senate Republicans. In each of the last 2 

years, Senate Republicans refused to 

follow the Senate’s traditional practice 

of clearing the calendar of noncontroversial nominees. As a result, 

there were 19 judicial nominees pending without a final confirmation vote 

at the end of 2010 and another 19 left 

without a vote at the end of 2011. Due 

to this latest refusal to consent to 

vote, Senate Republicans are ensuring 

that the Senate will recess for the election without voting on 21 judicial 

nominees ready for final Senate action. 

The result is that for the first time in 

decades Federal courts are likely to 

have more vacancies at the end of 

these 4 years than at the beginning of 

the President’s term. Federal judicial 

vacancies have been at historically 

high levels for years, remaining near or 

above 80 for nearly the entire first 

term of the President. Judicial vacancies today are more than 21⁄2 times as 

high as they were at this point in 

President Bush’s first term, with nearly 1 out of every 11 Federal judgeships 

currently vacant. 

I urge Senator TOOMEY, Senator 

KIRK, Senator RUBIO, Senator COBURN, 

Senator INHOFE, Senator HATCH, Senator LEE, Senator COLLINS, and Senator SNOWE, all of whom have judicial 

nominees on the calendar ready for a 

final Senate vote, to reason with their 

leadership about this obstruction. I ask 

other Republican Senators who know 

better to weigh in with their leadership. This is wrong for the country, 

damaging to the Federal courts, and 

harmful for the American people looking to our courts for justice. 

I ask unanimous consent to have 

printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my statement a column by Russell Wheeler entitled ‘‘The Case for 

Confirming District Court Judges’’ 

that appeared in Politico on Wednesday and notes the unprecedented and 

destructive nature of this obstruction. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, so ordered. 

Mr. LEAHY. I have served in the Senate for 37 years, and I have never seen 

so many judicial nominees, reported 

with bipartisan support, be denied a 

simple up-or-down vote for 4 months, 5 

months, 6 months, even 11 months. And 

if there was any doubt that Senate Republicans insist on being the party of 

no, their current decision to deny votes 

on these highly qualified, noncontroversial district court nominees— 

while we are in the middle of a judicial 

vacancy crisis—shows what they stand 

for. They care more about opposing 

this President than helping the American people. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

[From Politico, Sept. 18, 2012] 

THE CASE FOR CONFIRMING DISTRICT COURT

JUDGES

(By Russell Wheeler) 

The accepted wisdom on Congress is that 

the presidential campaign is likely to crowd 

out most real work until after Nov. 6, when 

all its focus abruptly changes to the fiscal 

cliff. 

There is, though, one important noncontroversial matter that the Senate should 

take up now—as have previous Senates at 

this time: confirming district judges. 

A government that can’t do its mundane 

business is surely unlikely to be able to deal 

with more controversial problems. History 

shows that the Senate should be able to confirm a respectable number of long-standing 

district court nominations before Election 

Day—certainly before adjournment. If it cannot, this may signal that the past four years 

of delayed and confrontational nominations 

have not been an aberration but represent 

the new normal of district court confirmations. 

Sixty-one of the nation’s 673 lifetime appointment district court judgeships are vacant. President Barack Obama has submitted 

nominees to fill 24 of the vacancies. Seventeen of the 24 have cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and are awaiting final action 

by the full Senate. 

As of Sept. 10, the Senate had confirmed 

126 of Obama’s district nominees—81 percent. 

In comparison, President George W. Bush 

had a 97 percent district confirmation success rate in his first four years, and President Bill Clinton an 87 percent rate. 

If the Senate confirms 10 of the 17 Obama 

nominees, this would lift his four-year success rate to equal Clinton’s. Confirming all 

17 would lift it to 91 percent. 

Rates aside, however, even if all 17 were 

confirmed, Obama would have made roughly 

20 fewer district appointees than Clinton or 

Bush. Obama has submitted fewer nominees. 

Extended vacancies often mean long 

delays, especially in civil cases. They often 

mean full caseloads for judges in their 70s 

and beyond—despite statutory promises 

that, at that age, judges who have put in 

substantial service are entitled to scale 

back. 

Filling judicial vacancies is part of the 

business of government, and like much of 

that business, it is more mundane than dramatic. Federal district caseloads consist 

largely of commercial disputes and federal 

crimes like immigration law violations— 

issues important to litigants and collectively important to all of us. They are part 

of how our society resolves disputes and help 

set the framework for commercial and social 

intercourse. 

But you might say, judges can’t get confirmed this close to a presidential election 

because opposition senators are hoping their 

guy will soon be in the White House and 

make his own nominations to those vacancies. 

That may be true now for court of appeals 

nominees — you have to go back to the first 

Bush administration to find a circuit confirmation after July of a presidential election year — but not for district courts. 

There’s plenty of precedent for late-election 

year confirmations. 

In 1980, 1984 and 1992—when Presidents 

Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George 

H.W. Bush were up for reelection—the Senate each time confirmed roughly 10 district 

court nominees between the political conventions and election day. That number 

dropped to zero in 1996 under Clinton but 

shot up to six in 2004 under Bush. 

In years when the incumbent president 

wasn’t on the ballot, the Senate also confirmed district judges, including 10 in September 2008—even as Obama’s victory 

seemed increasingly likely. 

There’s plenty of recent precedent for confirming at least the 17 pending Obama nominees. But the past four years of district confirmations haven’t followed precedent. 

Not only is the confirmation rate lower, at 

least for now, but time from nomination to 

confirmation has spiked. Eight percent of 

Clinton’s district confirmations in the first 

four years took more than 180 days, as did 27 

percent of Bush’s. But it’s now up to 67 percent for Obama. 

The increase in time has been matched by 

an increase in contentiousness. All of Clinton’s district appointees were confirmed by 

voice vote — even those who merited more 

attention, like the subsequently impeached 

and convicted Thomas Porteous of New Orleans. All but four of Bush’s appointees were 

approved by either voice or unanimous vote. 

Of the four, one got 20 ‘‘no’’ votes and one 

got 46. 

Most of Obama’s appointees have also been 

confirmed with no, or token, opposition— 

even those who waited a long time. But 11 received more than 20 ‘‘no’’ votes. It’s hard to 

believe, however, that the quality of Obama 

appointees plunged so decisively compared 

with those of his immediate predecessors. 

So district confirmations—especially in 

double digits—in the next several months 

may be iffy, and those who do get confirmed 

will have waited considerably longer than 

late-year confirmations in previous administrations. 

We’ve come to accept, or at least recognize, as the new normal that only six or 

seven out of every 10 circuit nominees will 

get Senate approval. Are the district courts 

next? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

SANDERS). The Senator from New 

Hampshire. 

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

VAWA

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise 

today to again raise my concerns about 

and the desire to see action in the 

House to pass the Senate bill reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. 

We need to continue this critical funding for survivors of domestic violence. 

In the discussions on the Senate 

floor, we have heard about the protections offered in the Senate bill that 

have not been included in the bill the 

House has pending. They are protections that would help women on college 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6522 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 20, 2012 

campuses, women on tribal lands, gay 

and lesbian victims, and immigrants. 

However, it is really important for us 

to remember not just those provisions 

but all of the other ways the Violence 

Against Women Act has benefited not 

just the victims of domestic violence 

but really all of us because domestic 

violence isn’t just a women’s issue. It 

affects all of us. It affects our entire 

economy. It affects our families. The 

Centers for Disease Control estimates 

that the direct health care costs associated with domestic violence are 

about $4.1 billion every single year. We 

know this is a conservative estimate 

because so many of the victims never 

come forward. 

The protections offered by the Violence Against Women Act have proven 

to be absolutely essential in preventing 

abuse. Last week was the 18th anniversary of the original passage of VAWA, 

so this is a good time to reflect on the 

progress we have made. 

Over the past 18 years, the reporting 

of incidents of domestic violence has 

increased by 51 percent. At the same 

time, according to the FBI, the number 

of women who have been killed by an 

intimate partner has decreased by 34 

percent. So clearly it is having some 

effect. Researchers at the North Carolina School of Public Health estimate 

that VAWA saved $12.6 billion in its 

first 7 years alone. So even if one 

doesn’t support the legislation because 

it does good work for families, this is a 

bill that is also a good investment. 

This is about telling the victims of 

violence that we stand with them because having safe, healthy citizens benefits all of us. We all do better when 

fewer women are going to the emergency room, are missing work or giving 

up their children in order to protect 

those children from violence at home. 

We are all in this together. 

I have had a chance as we have had 

this debate in the Senate to visit a 

number of crisis centers in New Hampshire—centers that benefit directly 

from the funding in the Violence 

Against Women Act. Recently I visited 

the city of Keene’s Monadnock Center 

for Violence Prevention and had a 

chance to speak with one of the caseworkers there and with two of the survivors. Those two women told me what 

it was like as they were trying to figure out how to leave their abusers. I 

asked them: What would have happened if this center wasn’t here? Both 

of them said they had nowhere else to 

go. One of the women said: My husband 

would have killed me. That was how 

desperate she was. 

While I was there, I also had a chance 

to meet some of the children who were 

staying at the center. I wish to take a 

minute to talk about how important 

this is for them, the children who were 

witnesses of domestic violence or who, 

as the result of that violence, are victims themselves. 

Centers all over New Hampshire and 

the United States have advocacy programs that are funded by VAWA that 

offer support groups for children. Children are particularly vulnerable and 

ill-equipped to deal with the trauma of 

domestic violence. This is trauma that 

affects them for their entire lives. 

A study by the World Health Organization found that children raised in 

households where domestic violence occurred are more likely to have behavioral problems, to drop out of school 

early, to experience juvenile delinquency. It is not surprising. 

A child who witnesses domestic violence between parents is more likely to 

view violence as an acceptable method 

of conflict resolution. Boys who witness domestic violence are more likely 

to become abusers, and girls who witness domestic violence are more likely 

to become victims of domestic violence 

as adults. One advocate at the Bridges 

Crisis Center in Nashua, NH, works to 

prevent this cycle by providing safety 

planning for children. She teaches 

them they can live a life that is free of 

violence. This free preventive care for 

children is made possible by a grant 

from VAWA. Our children deserve this. 

This is why we need to reauthorize the 

Violence Against Women Act. This is 

about women who are in danger, about 

children and families who are at risk. 

One of the stories I found particularly touching when I was at Bridges 

was about a young boy named Brian. 

The caseworker told me that Brian was 

really nervous about going back to 

school. He was supposed to bring with 

him a story about something fun he 

had done over the summer, but he had 

been in the shelter at Bridges with his 

mother and it really hadn’t been a very 

fun summer. So the child advocate organized a barbeque in the park across 

the street, and everybody from the center came and joined in that barbeque 

and gave him a happy memory that he 

could take with him to the first day of 

school. This is the kind of healing we 

need more of. We can help this continue by reauthorizing the Violence 

Against Women Act. 

I hope that as Senators go home for 

the next 6 weeks, as we go back to our 

States and travel around and hear from 

people in our States the issues they are 

concerned about, we won’t forget about 

the task we have at hand when we 

come back. We need to reauthorize the 

Violence Against Women Act. We need 

to get the House to join with us in 

passing the Senate bill so we can include those expanded protections that 

are needed so much by women and families across this country. I know the 

Presiding Officer joins with me in recognizing that we still have time to get 

this done this year. 

Thank you, Mr. President. I note the 

absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. 

SHAHEEN). The Senator from Vermont. 

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

SOCIAL SECURITY

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I 

wish to spend a few minutes talking 

about an issue that I believe has not 

gotten the attention it deserves, especially in the midst of the contentious 

Presidential campaign we are witnessing, and that is the need to discuss 

a program which is probably the most 

successful social program in the modern history of the United States, a program that provides dignity and security to well over 50 million Americans, 

and that is Social Security. 

Just this afternoon, 29 Senators sent 

a letter to all of our colleagues that 

says: 

We will oppose including Social Security 

cuts for future or current beneficiaries in 

any deficit reduction package. 

Let’s be very clear. Our country does 

have a serious deficit problem. Our deficit this year is about $1 trillion, and 

our national debt is $16 trillion. That is 

a serious problem. However, let’s be 

equally clear in understanding that Social Security has not contributed one 

nickel to the Federal deficit. So despite what we are going to hear tonight 

on cable television or some of the 

speeches my colleagues will give, let 

me reiterate: Social Security has not 

contributed one nickel to our Federal 

deficit. 

In fact, the Social Security trust 

fund today, according to the Social Security Administration, has a $2.7 trillion surplus—let me repeat that: a $2.7 

trillion surplus—and can pay out 100 

percent of all benefits owed to every eligible American for the next 21 years. 

Although many Americans now take 

Social Security for granted, we should 

never underestimate the incredibly 

positive impact Social Security has 

had on our Nation. In fact, one could 

well argue that Social Security has 

been the Nation’s most successful social program—certainly in the modern 

history of this country. 

In the 77 years since Social Security 

was signed into law, it has been enormously successful in reducing poverty 

for senior citizens. Before the advent of 

Social Security, back in the 1920s, 

early 1930s, about half of the senior 

citizens in this country lived in poverty, some in dismal poverty. Today, 

while the number is too high, the number of seniors living in poverty is less 

than 10 percent. We have gone from 50 

percent to less than 10 percent. That, 

to my mind, is a real success story and 

something of which this Nation should 

be incredibly proud. 

Today Social Security not only provides retirement benefits for 34 million 

Americans but also enables millions of 

people with disabilities and widows, 

widowers, and children to live in dignity and security. I hear in Vermont 

very often—and I expect the Presiding 

Officer hears in New Hampshire—about 

young people who have been able to go 

to college, live with some sense of security, despite the death of a parent, 

precisely because of Social Security. 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6523 

Yet, despite all of these success stories, today Social Security is on the 

chopping block. Millions of Americans, 

when asked in polls, make it very 

clear—including people all across the 

political spectrum—saying: No, we 

should not cut Social Security. Millions of people understand that Social 

Security—and this is simply an extraordinary record—has been there in 

good times and in bad times. And in 77 

years, not one American, no matter 

what the state of the economy, has not 

received all of the benefits to which he 

or she is entitled. It is an insurance 

program that has worked, and worked 

extraordinarily well. 

What we are looking at right now are 

attacks on Social Security coming 

from Mitt Romney, from PAUL RYAN, 

and from virtually every Republican in 

Congress, who are calling for major 

cuts in Social Security. Many of them, 

including Romney and RYAN, also want 

to begin the process of privatizing Social Security and turning it over to 

Wall Street, putting the retirement 

dreams of millions of Americans at 

risk. They are also pushing to increase 

the retirement age to 68 or 69, forcing 

older Americans who have worked 

their entire lives—sometimes in physically demanding jobs in construction; 

maybe they worked in restaurants 

being waitresses their whole lives and 

now some folks want these people to 

still be working at the age of 68 or 69. 

While virtually every Republican in 

Congress is pushing to cut Social Security benefits, there are also some 

Democrats who are considering cutting 

Social Security as part of some deficit 

reduction grand bargain. I strongly disagree with that approach, and I hope 

President Obama will make it clear, as 

he did 4 years ago, that he also disagrees with that approach. 

Let me quote what President Obama 

said 4 years ago when he was Senator 

Obama running for the White House. 

This is what he said: 

John McCain’s campaign has suggested 

that the best answer for the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut cost 

of living adjustments or raise the retirement 

age. Let me be clear: I will not do either. 

End of quote of Senator Barack 

Obama on September 6, 2008. What 

then-Senator Obama said in 2008 was 

exactly right, and I hope that now, in 

2012, we will hear the President reiterate that position. 

One of the most talked about ideas, 

when we hear discussions about cutting 

Social Security—and nobody outside of 

the beltway has a clue about what this 

means. I can tell you, I have been to 

many meetings in Vermont, and I have 

asked Vermonters: Do you know what 

the chained CPI is? And nobody has a 

clue. But one of the most talked about 

ways to cut Social Security is moving 

toward a so-called chained CPI, which 

changes how cost-of-living adjustments 

for Social Security benefits and veterans benefits are calculated. 

So what it does right now: There is a 

formula by which the government determines what kind of COLA—cost-ofliving adjustment—seniors and veterans will get. It is a complicated formula. But what these guys want to do 

is cut back, readjust that formula so 

that the benefits will be less. 

People who support this concept of a 

chained CPI, such as Alan Simpson, Erskine Bowles, and Wall Street billionaire Pete Peterson—and Peterson is 

one of the guys, a billionaire on Wall 

Street, putting in huge amounts of 

money in order to cut Social Security 

and other important programs—they 

believe Social Security COLAs and 

COLAs for veterans benefits are too 

generous, and they want to cut those 

COLA benefits. 

Well, I will tell you something. When 

I talk to seniors in the State of 

Vermont and I say there are people in 

Washington who think their COLA benefits are too generous, usually they 

laugh. The reason they laugh is that 

for 2 out of the last 3 years, they have 

not received any COLA whatsoever— 

nothing—while at the same time their 

prescription drug costs and their 

health care costs have been soaring. 

And they look at me and say: What? 

Are these people crazy? If we have not 

gotten a COLA in 2 out of the last 3 

years, while our expenses have risen, 

how do they think that COLA formula 

is now too generous? 

Let’s also be very clear that when we 

talk about this chained CPI, this 

means not only cuts for seniors, it 

means cuts for veterans, and that is an 

issue we have not talked about very 

much. 

So let me talk about what the 

chained CPI means. It means—and they 

want to implement this, by the way, 

very shortly. Romney and RYAN are 

talking about changing Medicare, as 

we know, over a 10-year period, and I 

think that is a disastrous idea. But 

what these guys now are talking about 

are immediate cuts in the COLA, starting as soon as they can pass that legislation. 

What it would mean is that for a senior citizen who is 65 years of age today, 

by the time that senior reaches 75, 

there would be a $560-a-year cut compared to what they otherwise would 

have gotten. Some folks here on Capitol Hill may not think $560 is a lot, 

but if you are struggling on $14,000 or 

$15,000 a year, that is quite a hit. And 

once that 65-year-old, in 20 years, 

reaches 85, that cut will be approximately $1,000 a year. 

Now, I have a problem; in a nation 

that has the most unequal distribution 

of wealth and income, where the rich 

are getting richer and their effective 

tax rate is the lowest in decades, some 

folks around here, pushed by Wall 

Street billionaires, by the way, say: 

Hey, we have a great idea on how we 

could deal with deficit reduction: Let’s 

tell a senior living on $15,000 a year, 

Social Security, that we are going to 

cut them by $1,000 in 20 years. I think 

really that is morally grotesque, and it 

is also bad economics. 

But this chained CPI would not only 

impact seniors, it would also impact 3 

million veterans. Three million veterans would be impacted by this 

chained CPI. For example, a veteran 

who put his life on the line to defend 

this country and who was severely 

wounded in action and who has a 100- 

percent service-connected disability is 

currently eligible to receive about 

$32,000 a year from the VA. Under the 

chained CPI, this disabled veteran, who 

started receiving VA disability benefits 

at age 30, would see his benefits cut by 

more than $1,300 a year at age 45, $1,800 

a year at age 55, and $2,260 a year at 

age 65. 

In other words, moving toward a 

chained CPI would be a disgraceful effort to balance the budget on some of 

the most vulnerable people in this 

country, including people who have 

suffered severe wounds and disabilities 

in defending this country. Those are 

not the people upon whom you balance 

the budget. 

Madam President, I will conclude by 

reminding the American people that 

when Bill Clinton left office in January 

2001, this country had a $236 billion surplus, and the projections were that 

that surplus was going to grow every 

single year. But some of the same people in Congress right now, including 

Congressman PAUL RYAN, who is running for Vice President, who are so 

concerned about the deficit, who want 

to cut Social Security, end Medicare as 

we know it, make devastating cuts in 

Medicaid and education—these very 

same people voted to go to war in Iraq 

and Afghanistan and not pay one nickel for those wars but put them on the 

credit card and increase the deficit. 

These same people who now want to go 

after wounded veterans gave huge tax 

breaks to the wealthiest people in this 

country, adding to the deficit. They 

passed a Medicare Part D prescription 

drug program and forgot to pay for 

that as well. So, to my mind, I have a 

real problem with folks who went to 

war without paying for it, gave tax 

breaks to billionaires without paying 

for it, passed a Medicare Part D prescription drug program without paying 

for it, and now they say we have to cut 

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, 

education, and the needs of working 

families and low-income people. I think 

that is absolute hypocrisy. 

So our charge is that instead of listening to the Wall Street billionaires 

who want to move to deficit reduction 

on the backs of the elderly, the children, the sick, the poor, wounded veterans, there are better ways to do deficit reduction. I hope that as a Congress we will come together and say 

that when the wealthiest people are 

doing phenomenally well, yes, they are 

going to have to pay more in taxes. 

When a quarter of the corporations in 

this country pay nothing in taxes, yes, 

they are going to have to pay their fair 

share of taxes. When we are losing $100 

billion a year because of tax havens in 

the Cayman Islands and elsewhere, we 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6524 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 20, 2012 

are going to have to deal with that 

issue before we cut programs on which 

elderly people and veterans and children depend. 

So we have a lot of work in front of 

us, but the bottom line is that I will do 

everything I can to make sure we do 

not balance the budget on the backs of 

the elderly, the children, the sick, and 

the poor. That is immoral, and it is 

also bad economic policy. 

Madam President, I ask unanimous 

consent to have printed in the RECORD

the letter signed by 29 Members of the 

Senate opposing cuts in Social Security. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

U.S. SENATE, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR COLLEAGUE: We are writing to inform 

you that we will oppose including Social Security cuts for future or current beneficiaries in any deficit reduction package. 

Under long-standing Federal law, Social 

Security is not part of the Federal budget 

and cannot contribute to the federal deficit. 

This reflects Social Security’s structure as 

an independent, self-financed insurance program, in which worker contributions, not 

general taxes, finance benefits. In our view, 

it is essential that Social Security’s status 

as a separate entity be fully maintained. 

Contrary to some claims, Social Security 

is not the cause of our nation’s deficit problem. Not only does the program operate independently, but it is prohibited from borrowing. Social Security must pay all benefits 

from its own trust fund. If there are insufficient funds to pay out full benefits, benefits 

are automatically reduced to the level supported by the program’s own revenues. Social Security cannot drive up the deficit by 

tapping general revenues to pay benefits. 

Even though Social Security operates in a 

fiscally responsible manner, some still advocate deep benefit cuts and seem convinced 

that Social Security hands out lavish welfare checks. But Social Security is not welfare. Seniors earned their benefits by working hard and paying into the system. Meanwhile, the average monthly Social Security 

benefit is only about $1,200, quite low by 

international standards. 

For all these reasons, we believe it would 

be a serious mistake to cut Social Security 

benefits for current or future beneficiaries as 

part of a deficit reduction package. To be 

sure, Social Security has its own long-term 

challenges that will need to be addressed in 

the decades ahead. But the budget and Social 

Security are separate, and should be considered separately. 

Thank you for your consideration of our 

views. 

Sincerely, 

Bernard Sanders; Harry Reid; Charles E. 

Schumer; Sheldon Whitehouse; Sherrod 

Brown; Patrick Leahy; Debbie Stabenow; Al Franken; Jeff Merkley; Barbara Mikulski; Jack Reed; Mark 

Begich; Ron Wyden; Ben Cardin; Richard Blumenthal; Tom Harkin; Frank R. 

Lautenberg; Patty Murray; Barbara 

Boxer; Daniel K. Akaka; John D. 

Rockefeller IV; Tom Udall; Carl Levin; 

Joe Manchin III; Maria Cantwell; Tim 

Johnson; Daniel K. Inouye; Robert 

Menendez; Kirsten Gillibrand. 

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the amendment 

I have filed to the House continuing 

resolution, House Joint Resolution 117, 

which we are currently considering. 

I understand that House and Senate 

leadership came to an agreement that 

seeks to keep the government running 

for the next 6 months and I want to applaud their willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion to reach an agreement 

that avoids a government shutdown. 

Still, after the House passed this funding bill, I was greatly concerned that 

emergency funding for Colorado and 

other states impacted by natural disasters this year was left out. 

In my state, these funds are essential 

to protecting and restoring critical watersheds that were damaged by the 

most devastating wildfires in Colorado’s history—which if left 

unaddressed present serious flooding, 

landslide and other risks that threaten 

the lives of residents in our state. 

My amendment would provide the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture $27.9 

million in emergency funding to mitigate watershed damage through the 

Emergency Watershed Protection Program, or EWP, in areas that have been 

presidentially declared disaster areas 

as authorized under the Stafford Act. 

As of September 18, 2012, the USDA 

estimated $126.7 million in funding 

needs for EWP projects in 15 States. Of 

that total, $27.9 million is needed to 

mitigate the aftermath of presidentially declared disaster areas in 

Louisiana, Florida, Oklahoma and Colorado, as authorized under the Stafford 

Act. Currently, Stafford Act funds for 

EWP have been depleted and as I have 

noted the House Continuing Resolution 

provided no emergency funds for EWP. 

Mr. President, the need for this amendment to provide emergency funding is 

critical and let me tell you why. 

The two most devastating Colorado 

fires this season, High Park and Waldo 

Canyon, burned more than 100,000 acres 

and led to the catastrophic loss of 

property and regrettably loss of life. 

Now as Coloradans pick up the pieces, 

the burned and barren areas present an 

additional threat. 

Without site rehabilitation and restoration, the watersheds that provide 

municipal and agricultural water supplies are at risk from landslides, flooding and erosion, which could result in 

serious infrastructure damage, water 

supply disruptions and even loss of life. 

Coloradans unfortunately have already experienced some of these effects. For example, in the Poudre 

River, which drains part of the area 

burned by the High Park fire, the ash 

and runoff from the fire caused the 

water flowing into drinking water filtration plants to turn black. This 

forced the downstream city of Fort 

Collins to shut off their water intakes 

for over 100 days and further downstream the city of Greeley was forced 

to shut off their water intakes for 36 

days and use only a small fraction of 

their normal intake for an additional 

38 days. 

How much more of an emergency 

need do we have to show when our most 

basic resource—drinking water—is 

threatened? 

I will give you one more example. 

After the devastating Waldo Canyon 

Fire that burned several homes in Colorado Springs and surrounding areas, 

the flood potential in the burned areas 

is now 20 times higher than before the 

fire. So now folks in the burned area 

and others downstream could see a 100- 

year flood from the same amount of 

rainfall that would have caused a 5- 

year rainfall before the wildfires occurred. Already property owners in the 

Colorado Springs vicinity have received at least four flash-flood warnings since the fire. The need for stabilizing this ground and restoring the 

burned areas on both federal and private land is critical to public safety, 

public health and the prevention of another disaster. 

This is why I have filed an amendment to provide additional emergency 

funds to the Emergency Watershed 

Protection Program. This program provides funding and technical support to 

restore and stabilize soil in critical watersheds in the aftermath of severe 

wild fires and other natural disasters, 

such as floods and hurricanes—which 

are also important to many members 

from our coastal states. 

I understand that there will not be an 

opportunity to amend the pending bill 

as a result of an agreement made with 

the House to avoid a government shutdown, so I will not attempt to call up 

my amendment. But, I want to ensure 

that my colleagues here understand 

the gravity of the situation faced by 

those who supply safe drinking water 

to the people of Colorado, by those who 

store water in our reservoirs to irrigate, and by those who fear a rainfall 

could devastate their livelihoods again 

after already experiencing significant 

loss from wildfire. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr. REID. Madam President, discussions continue about processing the 

business we need to address before we 

leave. As I have said repeatedly, we 

need to do just a couple things before 

we break for the elections. We need to 

pass the CR. We need to vote on proceeding to the sportsmen’s package. 

To help move the CR, we have been 

told that the Republicans now have decided they are willing to vote sometime on the Paul bill on foreign aid and 

also the Iran containment resolution. 

As I said yesterday, we are willing to 

do that. 

In the worst case, under the rules, 

the cloture vote on the CR would occur 

tomorrow night—at 1 a.m. on Saturday. Once we invoke cloture on the 

continuing resolution, the 30 hours 

postcloture would run out at about 7:30 

or 8 o’clock in the morning Sunday, 

and we would vote then to pass the CR, 

which would be immediately followed 

by a vote on the sportsmen’s package. 

I am happy to continue these discussions. We are working to see if we can 

schedule these votes to occur at a time 

that is more convenient to Senators. I 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6525 

hope we can have more to report on 

that tomorrow. It appears at this stage 

there is no agreement on having any 

votes tomorrow, so we may have to finish our work tomorrow, beginning tomorrow night, very late. 

I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I 

ask unanimous consent the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

MORNING BUSINESS 

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I 

ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business 

with Senators permitted to speak 

therein for up to 10 minutes each. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

RECOGNIZING THE END OF 

NUCLEAR TESTING 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, it has been 

20 years since our Nation’s final nuclear weapons test. ‘‘Divider’’ was the 

name appropriately given to the final 

test on September 23, 1992; 8 days later, 

President George Bush, Sr., declared a 

moratorium on testing that is still in 

place today. That last test, along with 

nearly 1,000 others, was carried out at 

the Nevada National Security Site, formerly known as the Nevada Test Site. 

This site has a storied history; it was 

used intensively during the Cold War 

to test nuclear weapons in our fight 

against tyranny and is remembered by 

all Americans for the iconic images the 

atomic bomb continues to invoke. 

Testing weapons and building our nuclear arsenal was necessary, but there 

was a price to pay—and it was the 

health of our hard-working and patriotic Cold War veterans and the many 

people who lived downwind of the test 

site. 

Since January 11, 1951, hundreds of 

thousands of men and women—including miners, millers, and haulers— 

played a critical role in building the 

nuclear deterrent that kept our Nation 

secure during the Cold War and still 

contributes to our national security 

today. These American heroes were on 

the front line of our national security. 

They served valiantly to help our Nation defend itself, but their personal 

sacrifice was immense. While serving 

their country honorably during one of 

the most dangerous conflicts in our Nation’s history, many of Nevada’s Cold 

War veterans sacrificed their health 

and well-being for their country. 

After personally meeting with and 

listening to many unfortunate stories 

from brave Nevadans about illnesses 

they had gotten from their nuclear 

weapons work, I was pleased to help 

pass the bipartisan Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act in 2000, as well as an expansion of the law in 2004. This important program provides vital monetary 

compensation and medical coverage to 

Nevada’s test site workers suffering 

from radiation-induced cancers, beryllium disease, silicosis, and other illnesses caused by toxic chemicals. 

In 2005, I began to hear from workers 

and survivors saying that they were 

being put through a seemingly endless 

stream of bureaucratic redtape only to 

be denied compensation in the end. I 

was enraged that workers who had developed cancer while protecting our 

Nation were being denied compensation 

simply because their employer failed to 

keep accurate records of each worker’s 

radiation exposure. 

While we succeeded in securing automatic compensation for workers during 

the atmospheric testing years, those 

who served their Nation during the underground testing years were let down 

by their country. I fought on their behalf and finally secured automatic 

compensation for thousands of workers 

during the underground testing years. I 

am proud that this important program 

resulted in the payment of almost $500 

million to 4,599 sick test site workers 

and their survivors. Nevada’s Cold War 

heroes have made immeasurable contributions to our Nation’s security, and 

the sacrifices they have made—to their 

health and their lives—make it impossible for us to ever adequately thank 

them. 

Today, the Nevada National Security 

Site has taken on new roles to address 

21st-century threats. This includes detecting dangerous weapons, treaty verification, fighting terrorism and nuclear smuggling, and training first responders. The site can even play a role 

in clean energy demonstration and development to meet our Nation’s energy 

needs using a resource southern Nevada has an abundance of—sunshine. I 

am also proud of the growing nonproliferation mission at the Nevada 

National Security Site. These critical 

activities are playing a vital role in the 

Nation’s arms control efforts while 

putting Nevadans to work making our 

Nation more secure. 

There are many more opportunities 

to utilize the Nevada National Security 

Site’s ultrasecure location to bolster 

out Nation’s security. It is an installation whose relevance is timeless because we will always need a place to 

test new technologies, house sensitive 

materials and equipment, train our security forces, and know for sure that 

unwanted eyes are not watching. 

Finally, I am proud that while we 

work to grow and modernize the mission of the Nevada National Security 

Site, the site’s storied past and the 

people behind it will never be forgotten. The National Atomic Testing Museum in Las Vegas is an affiliate of the 

Smithsonian Institution and recently 

was named by Congress as a ‘‘National’’ museum. This important institution collects and publicly displays 

artifacts and documentation that tell 

the stories of how the Nevada Test Site 

helped protect our country during the 

Cold War. 

I am proud to stand here today to 

recognize this historic day in Nevada 

and America’s history, marking 20 

years since we have ended nuclear testing. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO DENNIS MEYERS 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I 

rise today to pay tribute to a man that 

will leave a legacy of firm economic 

performance, solid physician recruitment, and a commitment to nurture 

community partnerships in the hospitals of his area. Mr. Dennis Meyers of 

Clay County, KY, was named to the 

Clay County Days Wall of Fame in August 2012 for the amazing work he has 

accomplished in his community and 

the community’s hospital, Manchester 

Memorial Hospital. 

Dennis Meyers’s spectacular working 

experience began as a pastor in 1969 in 

Nebraska and Illinois. In 1986, he decided on a change of career. He accepted a job as a registered nurse at Hanford Hospital. After 4 successful years, 

Dennis transferred to San Joaquin 

Community Hospital to fill the position of vice president. Dennis never 

stopped dreaming and believing. He 

continued his career to become chief 

operating officer and vice president of 

Manchester Memorial Hospital. 

Dennis initiated numerous community-outreach programs, each serving 

as evidence to show the worth of this 

man and the dedication he displayed 

towards his community. Dennis introduced Mission in Motion, public health 

screenings, Live It Up!, and missionoutreach programs to enrich the Clay 

County community. 

Dennis married Susan Meyers, who 

also works for the hospital. They have 

three children, who, like their father, 

hold nursing degrees. Dennis urges that 

success come to everyone in life. He 

strategizes on helping the community 

that is served by the hospital through 

Community Outreach and church programs. 

At this time, I would like to ask my 

colleagues in the U.S. Senate to join 

me in honoring Mr. Dennis Meyers as 

he has been named to the Clay County 

Days Wall of Fame. His ambition and 

hard work ethic has improved and will 

continue to improve the Commonwealth of Kentucky. 

A news story highlighting the accomplishments of Dennis Meyer was recently published in the Manchester Enterprise. I ask unanimous consent that 

said story be printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

[From the Manchester Enterprise, August 30, 

2012] 

DENNIS MEYERS LED MANCHESTER MEMORIAL

TO GROWTH

Clay County Days Hall of Fame inductee 

Dennis Meyers retired from the lead role at 

Manchester Memorial Hospital recently 

after 12 years in the position. 


tjames on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE