Al Franken

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Rhode Island. I wish to emphasize the need to pass a long-term reauthorization of this surface transportation bill. It is time for Congress to do its job. Thanks to the leadership of Senators Boxer and Inhofe, this body passed a bill with 74 votes. Actually, it probably would have been 76 votes, but Senator Kirk is back at home recovering--and we wish him very well--and Senator Lautenberg couldn't vote that day. I think he was at the funeral of a friend. So it really would have been 76 votes. Unfortunately, our colleagues in the House were not able to pass a comprehensive reauthorization bill and were only able to join a conference committee after passing yet another short-term extension. So I will repeat myself: It is time for Congress to do its job. As the Senator from Alaska, my good colleague, was just saying, the summer construction season is now upon us. In Minnesota, that is when we know we can build roads and bridges and light rail, because in November and December it gets cold and snowy. State departments of transportation have already canceled projects because the House has failed to act. We have already lost thousands of jobs because, for whatever reason, the House will not pass a bill that received unanimous bipartisan support in the Environment and Public Works Committee and 74 votes in the Senate as a whole. Speaker Boehner has said the House may just pass another short-term extension. But all of these extensions have whittled away at the highway trust fund--whittled it down to a dangerously low balance--and any further extension would put it in danger of going bankrupt. This should not be controversial. This should not be partisan. Transportation and infrastructure have not been in the past. The Senate consensus bill simply maintains the current level of funding for our transportation system and streamlines many programs to make sure those investments are put to the best possible use. This is infrastructure that we need to stay competitive in our global economy. Minnesota is ready to make these investments. Whether we are talking about maintaining our bridges so they are safe, expanding the new light rail system in the Twin Cities, or reducing congestion on our highways, these are projects that will create jobs now and strengthen our economy well into the future, as infrastructure always does. On August 1 of this year, we in Minnesota will mark the fifth anniversary of a tragedy in our State: the collapse of the Interstate 35 W bridge in Minneapolis. The collapse killed 13 people and injured 145. That tragedy should have been a wake-up call in America and in this body. Bridges should not collapse in the United States of America. If that was a wake-up call, the House seems to be content to have hit the snooze button and ignore the problem. Well, we cannot wait any longer. There is no reason not to pass this bill. Frankly, the Senate bill is the conservative solution. It is paid for, it consolidates many Federal programs, and it streamlines project reviews--all things that I have heard colleagues in the House ask for. The House negotiators need to work with Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe and the rest of the Senate conferees and come to an agreement both the House and the Senate can live with. If they can't or won't, Speaker Boehner should--as the Senator from Alaska just said--just take up the Senate bill and give it an up-or-down vote. Let's prove to our constituents that we can come together and do what is right. Let's pass a bill that will create jobs for workers in our States and build prosperity for our future. It is time for Congress to do its job and pass a transportation bill without any more delay. I thank my colleagues, and I yield back to my colleague, the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I wish to thank my friends on both sides of----

Mr. FRANKEN. I wish to speak on the FDA bill.

Mr. FRANKEN. I object to the Grassley amendment. I am joking.

Mr. FRANKEN. Not on an amendment, just on the bill overall.

Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you. I thank the Senator from Iowa for the time. Madam President, I thank my friends on both sides of the aisle for their work on the legislation we are considering today. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Improvement Act is not only among the most important piece of legislation we will consider this year, it is also the product of more than a year's hard work and negotiation. This legislation will help support a culture of innovation in this country. It will help millions of Americans access the lifesaving medications and devices they need, when they need them. As a member of the HELP Committee, I am proud of the bipartisan bill before us today and look forward to passing it into law. Let me tell you why. Of course, the Presiding Officer spoke so eloquently about this bill earlier. The Presiding Officer does not have to know why, but let me tell you a story about a little girl in Minnesota--from our State--named Josie. Josie seemed perfectly healthy when she was born, but at 9 months of age Josie's parents found out she had a rare congenital heart disorder, a condition with the scary name of ``atrial septal defect,'' which means she had a hole in the wall between the upper two chambers of her heart. When the doctors tested her, they found Josie had not one, not two, but three holes in her heart. It became clear that what was originally a fairly simple surgery to repair the hole was actually a lot more complicated. But Josie was lucky. Josie's parents live in Minnesota, and Josie's doctor, Dr. Daniel Gruenstein, works at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Gruenstein was able to operate on Josie's heart because he had a brandnew device the FDA had approved only months before. The device, which was also developed in Minnesota, saved Josie's life. Because of this procedure, Josie was acting like her same old silly self the very night of her operation, and she walked out of the hospital the next day. A few years later when Josie's little sister Jenna was born with the same congenital heart defect, Dr. Gruenstein repaired her heart using the very same device. But too many children like Josie and Jenna are not so lucky. Too many children do not have access to the medical technology they needed to save their lives or to prevent their illness or to help them recover from their rare condition. That is because too many medical devices get stuck or delayed in the agency that regulates our medical technologies. It is because we do not do enough to support a culture of innovation in this country. The Food and Drug Administration has a tough job. The technologies they regulate are moving at the speed of light, and they do not have the workforce or the expertise to know everything about every new treatment. In fact, the number of annual 510(k) submissions--that is the most common kind of new device application the FDA receives--has quadrupled since 1976. That is why when the HELP Committee sat down to develop this legislation, we agreed we had to streamline the FDA's processes and make them more efficient. We agreed we had to do more to support a culture of innovation which will help manufacturers get safe technologies and treatments to patients. That is exactly what the bill does. I thank both the chairman and the ranking member. It requires the FDA to stop using ``FDA days'' and start using regular calendar days like everyone else. It lifts restrictive constraints on the FDA's consultation with outside experts, something the Presiding Officer knows well--outside experts such as are at the University of Minnesota. It creates new incentives for manufacturers that develop treatments for people with rare diseases and conditions like Josie's and Jenna's. These provisions will support innovation and will remove redtape from the process. The three provisions I championed are included in this legislation in addition to the base bill which we negotiated as a committee. The first provision will strengthen the Food and Drug Administration's workforce by removing overly restrictive requirements that keep the FDA from consulting with outside experts, again something the Presiding Officer has been a leader on as well. This provision will change the rules that keep the FDA from talking with many outside experts. It will make these rules consistent with those of all other agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, so as the FDA's experienced workforce retires, the FDA will be able to consult with leading experts when they are reviewing a new technology or a new treatment for a rare disease. This provision will give the FDA the flexibility it needs to consult with experts and keep patients safe, and at the end of the day that means more patients will get the health care they need. The second provision will require the FDA to remove new and burdensome guidance on the industry that could triple the number of required new submissions for existing devices. This provision, which Senator Burr from North Carolina also championed, will prevent this guidance from overburdening both the industry and the FDA, which could have caused innovation to come to a screeching halt. My third provision will help companies develop innovative new products for patients across the country with rare conditions. According to the National Institutes of Health, 25 million Americans struggle with a rare disease, and these patients have to jump hurdle after hurdle to get the care they need. Many of them will go from doctor to doctor for years before they find a specialist who understands their condition. If you live in rural Minnesota, you may have to drive hundreds of miles to find a doctor who can help you. Even for patients who find the right doctor, too often the treatment for their condition does not exist, or has not been approved. So my provision will reward companies that choose to develop treatments for patients with rare diseases. We did this in 2007 to help companies develop devices for children with rare conditions, and we saw the number of devices that companies developed quadruple in a few years. This provision will help get treatments to adult patients with rare conditions in Minnesota and around the country and around the world. Minnesotans know what it means to foster a culture of innovation. Our manufacturers have developed new treatments for everything from skin lacerations to brain aneurysms. This bill will go farther to support this kind of innovation by streamlining the processes that are currently impeding investment in new technologies and making the FDA more efficient and predictable. This legislation will help patients in Minnesota access the medical technologies they need, just like Josie and Jenna. And in a time of economic hardship, it is an investment in one of our country's strongest industries, one of our State's strongest industries. This bill is a step toward a healthier future for our country. I look forward to making sure it becomes part of our law. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN. Well, about 10 minutes.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. The Senator wishes to speak now?

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, last week my colleagues on the other side of the aisle blocked a vote that would have eased the burden of debt for millions of college students in Minnesota and across the country. My Republican friends disagreed with us about the best way to pay for this legislation, so a minority of Senators kept us from helping millions of families and taking a step toward keeping our Nation's workforce globally competitive. But this debate is not just about helping students pay for college. I want to talk a little bit about the two competing proposals to pay for this critical legislation. I wish to talk about our national priorities and our national values. On one side, the Democratic proposal would close a loophole that allows some of the wealthiest Americans to avoid paying taxes they should owe to the Federal Government. This fix, our fix, would only apply to Americans making over $250,000 a year and would not create any new taxes on businesses or individuals. It would close a loophole that allows high-income people to get out of paying taxes everyone else in America is already expected to pay. This is what it is. You see, some people making a lot of money talk to their accountants and tax lawyers who have figured out that the law was written in such a way that you could use an S corporation to get around paying some of your payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are your Social Security taxes and your Medicare taxes. S corporations are basically a passthrough. Whatever profits your company makes, you at the end of the year pass it through to you and claim it as income--and you pay regular income taxes on it. It is income. But although the law was never intended to allow this, this is the loophole: You can pay yourself an artificially low amount of money sometime earlier in the year and call that a salary, say, $40,000. Thus you will pay enough to qualify for Social Security later when you retire. You will only pay FICA on this amount. But then at the end of the year you take the rest of the business's profits as income. Remember, this is considered income--but you do not pay FICA taxes on the amount. That is the loophole. You still pay income tax on it because it is income but, because of an accident in the way the law is written--this was not intended--you avoid paying FICA taxes on the part you did not initially call salary. All of the money you pocketed, both the so-called salary and the profit at the end of the year, again, is income. It is income. It is not capital gains so you should be paying, like everybody else, Medicare taxes on all of it and Social Security taxes on income up to $110,000, like everyone else. There is simply no excuse, no reason for not paying taxes, paying your FICA taxes on the $110,000 Social Security, and all the rest for Medicare, except for an anomaly that was accidentally written into the Code. This is exactly the type of loophole we should be closing. It is not something that Congress created intentionally, for a reason--to help people buy homes or to encourage investment in research and development. There is no reason this loophole exists. There is no purpose to it. There is no reason to keep it there. The Democratic legislation would close that loophole for those individuals making more than $250,000 in a year and we would use that savings to prevent the doubling of interest that students pay on Stafford subsidized loans. By contrast, the Republican proposal which passed the House a few weeks ago, would eliminate the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which is our national investment in preventive health care. This proposal would undermine the health of our Nation by cutting funding for cancer screenings, child immunizations, and diabetes prevention, among others. It would be fiscally irresponsible to boot, since according to a study for the Trust for America's Health, every dollar invested in proven community-based disease prevention programs yields a return of $5.60. My home State of Minnesota leads the country when it comes to providing high-quality low-cost health care. When I was elected to represent the people of Minnesota, I put together a series of roundtables with experts around Minnesota to learn more about our health care system. I heard the same thing from leading national experts at the Mayo Clinic, the University of Minnesota, from providers, from doctors and people in public health and rural health, insurance--everyone said the same thing: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. There is no question that if we catch cancer early the patient will be much more likely to make a full recovery. If every child has access to immunizations, we will prevent outbreaks of infectious diseases and our kids will grow up stronger and healthier. And if we can prevent someone from getting diabetes they will be healthier than if we wait until they have it and then treat them for the rest of their lives. Not only will people be healthier if we prevent disease but we will save a lot of money too. That is why the health care law included the Prevention and Public Health Fund. The fund already is investing in community-based programs such as the diabetes prevention program, a program that Dick Lugar and I fought to include in the health care law. This program was pilot-tested by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Saint Paul, MN, and in Indianapolis. It involves structured nutrition classes for 16 weeks and 16 weeks of exercise at community-based organizations such as the YMCA, with people who have prediabetes. Guess what. The program, the diabetes prevention program, has been shown to reduce the likelihood that someone with prediabetes will be diagnosed with full-blown type 2 diabetes by nearly 60 percent. Those are pretty good odds. The program doesn't just make people healthier, it also saves everyone money. The diabetes prevention program, the program I just described, costs about $300 per participant, as compared to treating type 2 diabetes which costs more than $6,500 every single year. That is why United Health, the largest private insurer in the country--that happens to also be headquartered in Minnesota--is already providing the program to its beneficiaries. In fact, the CEO of United Health told me that for every dollar they invest in the diabetes prevention program they save $4 in health care later on. The money in the Prevention and Public Health Program in the affordable care act is there to scale up this program around the country so everybody in the country, every person who has prediabetes, can have availability to it. It can be available to them. This homegrown program is exactly what the Prevention and Public Health Fund was designed to support. It is not the only one like it. In Minnesota the fund has gone to support tobacco cessation programs. It has helped prevent infectious diseases. It has expanded our desperately needed primary care workforce. I think we can all agree these are worthwhile investments. Unfortunately, many of my friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to end this important work, calling the Prevention and Public Health Fund a waste of money or worse. Last week, one of my colleagues on the floor inaccurately claimed that ``a health clinic was using the fund to spay and neuter pets.'' Let me take this opportunity to set the record straight. That is not true. The Department of Health my friend accused of using prevention funds to pay to spay pets has not and will not spend prevention fund money for this purpose. I ask that in these debates we confine ourselves to facts. This all comes down to priorities. My friends on the other side of the aisle would rather cut the Prevention and Public Health fund than close a tax loophole for wealthy Americans which serves absolutely no purpose. In fact, they would rather keep us from voting on a bill to ease the burden of debt for students across the country than close this loophole. I hear them sometimes talking about closing loopholes so we can bring the marginal rate down. If you cannot close this loophole which has no purpose, I don't see any loophole we can possibly agree to close. I ask my friends on both sides of the aisle one favor: Talk to your constituents. Talk to the people who have been saved from the affliction of diabetes or who have quit smoking or who have immunized their children because of the Prevention and Public Health Fund. Talk to your State and local departments of health which are working to prevent outbreaks of the next dangerous strain of flu thanks to the infectious disease prevention fund. Stand with me in support of the Prevention and Public Health Fund. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I would like to echo what so many of my colleagues have already explained: that voting on a budget today would serve no purpose. We keep hearing from our friends on the other side of the aisle: ``We haven't passed a budget in a thousand days.'' While this is technically true, this is a technicality without a difference, and ignores one essential detail: we passed something else which, for all intents and purposes, accomplishes exactly the same thing as a budget the Budget Control Act of 2011. First let's look at what a budget resolution actually is. According to the Congressional Research Service, a budget resolution: sets forth aggregate levels of spending, revenue, and public debt. It is not intended to establish details of spending or revenue policy and does not provide levels of spending for specific agencies or programs. Instead, its purpose is to create enforceable parameters within which Congress can consider legislation dealing with spending and revenue. A budget resolution is a document intended to guide Congress, and never goes to the President for his signature. The Budget Control Act actually went much further than a budget resolution--it actually set spending caps for the next 10 years and put them into law--a law signed by the President. The spending caps alone produce $900 billion of cuts. In addition, the Budget Control Act created the Super Committee and, because the committee failed to produce a deficit reduction plan, the Act calls for automatic cuts--through a so-called ``sequestration''--of an additional $1.2 trillion. So Congress has passed over $2 trillion in spending cuts--the biggest package of spending cuts in American history. Yet some of my colleagues are now calling on Congress to also pass a budget resolution, despite the fact that the Budget Control Act has the force of law, and has spending caps, whereas a budget resolution has none of that and in fact, the Budget Control Act states clearly that it ``shall apply in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget. In addition, the Budget Control Act is something that we all agreed to. This legislation passed the Senate and the Republican-controlled House with wide margins. And this was not a deal that we passed years ago that we have somehow forgotten about--we passed the Budget Control Act less than 10 months ago. These budget resolutions diverge greatly from the deal that we all agreed on. We passed that legislation to avoid a debt default, to give us some certainty. But here we are 10 months later, rehashing much of the same debate. Going through the motions of considering a budget resolution would not be a productive use of our time. Procedural rules require that we spend up to 50 hours on a budget resolution. And on top of that, they force us into a ``vote-a-rama'' on all amendments that are offered. So that means that we would lose a week or 2 on an exercise that is moot because we already have budget caps. That is time we would not have to focus on things that will provide needed help to my Minnesota constituents: creating jobs, helping small businesses, keeping interest rates low on student loans, and passing a long-term highway bill. But instead, the minority is insisting that we spend precious time debating whether or not we should pass a budget resolution. And so here we are with five pending budget resolutions, and it is hard to tell which among them is the most detrimental to our country, because they are all very dangerous. Senator Paul's proposal eliminates the U.S. Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development and turns important safety net programs like child nutrition and Medicaid into block grants, resulting in their funding being slashed. Most of the proposals fundamentally change Medicare from a program that guarantees health care to seniors to one that gives seniors some money--but not enough money--to buy health insurance in the private market. This breaks the promise we have made to Americans--that if they work hard and pay into the system, their health care will be covered when they retire. Yet these massive cuts to programs which benefit millions of Americans seem designed to bankroll new tax cuts that benefit only the wealthiest few. The Urban Institute and Brookings Institution's joint Tax Policy Center estimates that Senator Toomey's proposal gives people making more than a million dollars a year an average tax cut of $92,000. And that plan looks reasonable compared to Senator Paul's, which not only cuts the top tax rates in half for wealthy Americans but increases taxes on working families. And all the while, these plans would sacrifice programs that assist children, seniors, and the poor in favor of those tax giveaways to the wealthy. That is how these plans can be summarized. If there were a reason to vote on these proposals, which I do not think there is, then they would all deserve our full-throated opposition. But, as we have pointed out repeatedly, passing a budget resolution is simply not needed after we have already passed spending caps in the Budget Control Act. That would be about as productive as asking for someone to draft up blueprints after they already had built your house.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, yesterday our colleagues on the other side of the aisle stopped the Senate from reducing the enormous burden of debt that students take on. At a time when college is more expensive than ever, this body's inaction will increase each student's borrowing costs by about $1,000 for each year of college. And that is no small amount for most American families. That is because on July 1 the interest rate on new subsidized Stafford loans is expected to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. We have been talking about this all day. The students who qualify for these loans are from middle-class and low-income families. If the Senate does not act soon, we will make it even harder for them to receive the education and training they need for jobs in this 21st century economy. High school students and adults looking for new career opportunities realize how economically necessary it is to attend college. In my generation, if you had a high school degree, you could get a good manufacturing job that paid a decent wage and gave you health care and a pension. Today we need postsecondary training and strong computer math skills to operate the equipment in most manufacturing facilities. But it is not just manufacturing, it is many of the fastest growing jobs in the United States--it is computer jobs and health care jobs. A high school diploma is simply no longer a ticket to a job that pays family-supporting wages. With an increasing number of jobs requiring some level of postsecondary training, we have a significant skills gap. In Minnesota--a State the Presiding Officer and I are proud to represent-- 70 percent of the jobs in the next several years will require postsecondary training. Yet only 40 percent of working-age Minnesotans currently have a postsecondary degree. Most of our States have similar skill gaps. The United States used to lead the world in the percentage of adults with a college degree. Today we are No. 16. If our Nation is going to prosper in a global economy and continue to grow economically, we need to provide pathways for students to attend and pay for college so we can close those skill gaps. A number of students are lucky enough their parents can provide these pathways for them and help pay for college, but most other students have to work--part time, maybe even full time. The Presiding Officer will appreciate this. I had students from the MNSCU board--their top students--who came to visit me. I am sure they visited my colleague too. There were about 15 or 20 of them. They represented Minnesota's colleges and universities. I asked them: How many of you work at least 10 hours a week while going to college? All of them raised their hands. I asked how many work 20 hours a week. Most of them. I asked how many work 30 hours a week while going to school. A lot of them. And how many of you work full-time, 40 hours a week, while going to college? A number of them. That is no way to go to college. When you work 40 hours a week, can you take the full course of credits? Maybe not. So then maybe it takes you 6 years to graduate. But they are also taking out loans, and often huge loans. We take for granted these days that students can get a loan, but 50 years ago that was not true. Students could get scholarships, but that was about it. My wife's family did it on Pell grants and scholarships. At least until 1957, when the Russians--or the Soviets at the time-- launched Sputnik. Suddenly, the Soviets had nuclear weapons and were ahead of us in space and, as a Nation, we were terrified. It woke our Nation up to the importance of better educating Americans and getting them the skills they needed to compete with the Soviets. That meant more Americans would have to go to college. I was 6 when Sputnik was launched. My brother was 11--younger than the pages. A lot younger. My parents sat us down in our living room, in St. Louis Park, MN, and said to us: You boys are going to study math and science so that we can beat the Soviets. I thought that was a lot of responsibility to put on a 6-year-old, but my brother and I were obedient sons and we studied math and science. And wouldn't you know it, my parents were right. We beat the Soviets. You are welcome. But to get there we had to put in place new Federal programs to help average Americans afford college. A year after Sputnik was launched, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act, which helped put America back on top. This was actually the predecessor to the Perkins loan program, and it offered students low-interest loans to go to school, with a preference for low-income students. This was just the beginning. Soon we gave student loans to medical students, created the Federal work-study program, and in 1965 created the Guaranteed Student Loan Program. This last one was later renamed the Federal Stafford Loan Program--which is what we are talking about today--and it made more money available to students to offset rising tuition. All this, really, because of Sputnik. Today, there are two main types of Federal loans. Subsidized Stafford loans are awarded based on need, and unsubsidized Stafford loans are available to all students. The overwhelming majority of subsidized loans go to students from middle and lower income families. The Federal student loan program was created to open the doors of higher education to more Americans and provide them with stable, low-cost loans to pay for their education. And it originally did so to help Americans compete with the Soviet Union. Well, we may have beat the Soviet Union, but we now face new economic threats from rising powers such as China and India. In our interconnected world, in which it is easier than ever to outsource, the quality of our workforce matters more than ever before. So with college costs increasingly out of the means of many American families, in 2007 Congress decided to help lower and middle-income students by cutting the interest rates on the subsidized Stafford loans. The rates declined incrementally over time to a low of 3.4 percent this past year. But because this program was so expensive, the 2007 legislation would sunset on July 1 of this year and interest rates for subsidized Stafford loans would double, going back up to 6.8 percent. Allowing this to happen doesn't make sense. Interest rates on mortgages and Treasurys are far lower than they were in 2007, when no one had any inkling of the turn our economy would take. No one could have predicted we would be experiencing near-record low interest rates and that it would make no sense to double them now to 6.8 percent. Of course, the threat we face from global competition has not waned in the last 5 years. It is greater than ever. So with the July 1 deadline rapidly approaching, the time to act is now. Most high school seniors already have had to decide where they are going next year, and now they are figuring out how to pay for it. While students are wrestling with these tough decisions, it is not time for us to get into a procedural fight here in Washington. I am hopeful we will vote again this week to move the bill, and this time we will put our differences aside and represent all the families in all of our States who can use any bit of help we can offer them. I am glad to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree we should stop the interest rate from going up, and we agree we should be fiscally responsible and pay for it. We just disagree on how to pay for it. I am proud to have joined a number of my colleagues in putting forward the legislation before us with a responsible, commonsense offset. I think we can all agree that if you are going to collect Social Security and Medicare, it is only fair you pay in what you owe, and yet some people have found a loophole that allows them to game the system using subchapter S corporations to avoid paying some of their Social Security and Medicare taxes, some of their FICA. Most small business owners are not only honest but incredibly civic minded, and so they pay all the payroll taxes that they owe. Unfortunately, a small percentage of individuals have found a loophole. If you have an S corporation, which is basically a passthrough--which means at the end of the year the profits are passed through to you as your income. If you have that, whatever profits you make at the end are considered income by the IRS. So if you make $300,000 in 1 year, you pay income taxes on all of that. Either way, on this you pay income taxes on all your income. Here is the loophole: You decide, I know what I am going to do. I am going to pay myself an artificially low amount, $40,000, and call that my salary. You pay FICA on that amount so you can qualify for Social Security later on in your life. Then at the end of the year, you get the passthrough of the other $260,000. You still pay income tax on all $300,000 because it is all considered income. It is not capital gains; it is still income, so you pay income taxes on it. But because of an ambiguity in the way the law is written, you can avoid paying FICA taxes on the $260,000. Again, this money is indistinguishable from the so-called salary you took earlier. You could have paid yourself $30,000, so it could be $270,000 that you harbor from FICA. All of this is active income you are making because of active work you have done--it is not capital gains--so you should pay FICA taxes on all of it. There is simply no excuse for not paying FICA taxes on all of your income--Medicare taxes on all the income and Social Security taxes on up to $110,000. That is what anyone making $300,000 would do except for this anomaly that was accidentally written into the Tax Code. This is exactly the kind of loophole we should be closing. I hear all the time that we should be closing loopholes so we can keep the marginal rates down. If you can't close this loophole, you can't close any loophole. There is no reason this loophole exists. There is no good reason for it, there is no purpose to it, and there is no reason to keep it. It is an accident that results in people avoiding their rightful obligations. Our legislation would close the loophole for those individuals making over $250,000. Governing is about making choices, and this one seems as clear as day to me. Save millions of Americans about $1,000 for each year of schooling on their college loans by closing a tax loophole that allows the wealthiest among us to avoid paying taxes they should pay and avoid gaming the system. It sounds like a no-brainer to me. Instead, a minority of Senators is stopping consideration of the bill because they object to closing this loophole. They want to repeal a section of the Affordable Care Act that supports prevention efforts. They want to eliminate the provision that helps stop diabetes and other diseases before they occur, the kinds of chronic diseases that are driving our health care costs through the roof. This is simply shortsighted and, frankly, fiscally irresponsible. But I am ready to have that debate. Let's have it here. Let's debate the different ways to pay for this legislation. Let's stop this filibuster and proceed to consideration of the bill. Let's work together to keep America on top and rise to our generation's Sputnik challenge. Millions of students are depending on us. This bill will provide some relief to those students. Millions of businesses are depending on us to give them the educated workforce they need. This bill will take a small step toward helping them as well. It is time to act. I call on my colleagues to work with me to pass this important legislation. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, we just passed the deadline for students to decide where they are going to college this fall. This is one of the biggest financial decisions students will ever make. Nationally, student loan debt is over $1 trillion. It is higher than credit card debt. Over 60 percent of the class of 2010 graduated with outstanding student loans, college graduates. In Minnesota we are fourth in the country for the level of debt college graduates take with them. It is $29,000. This is hurting us as a nation in competition with other countries. It was not too many years ago that the United States was No. 1 in the world in the percentage of its adult population that had graduated from college. Now we are something like 16th. That is going to hurt us. We have to do something about student debt. Behind every one of these statistics, there are stories. I had students from the board of MNSCU-- it is a Minnesota organization of colleges and universities--in my office, and there must have been about 15 or 20 of them. I said to them: How many of you work at least 10 hours a week while going to school? All of them. How many of you work 20 hours a week? Most of them. How many of you work at least 30 hours a week while going to school? A lot of them. How many of you work 40 hours a week while going to school? How many of you work full time while going to school? A few of them, a number of them. That is no way to go to school. Time after time when I talk to kids, I hear their stories. Mike Flannery is a graduate of Hennepin Technical College. He was forced to take out private student loans because Federal loans were not enough to pay for his college costs. He graduated from his associate's program with a total debt of $34,750. Michael is now struggling to deal with this massive debt load, and he told me he will likely have to drop out of his summer coursework due to college costs. He currently owes $45,250 and is still working toward his bachelor's degree. No wonder it takes our students 6 years to graduate--or longer. It is now not really a question; you have to graduate from college or at least get a 2-year degree to get a good-paying job in this country. In the next 7 years, 70 percent of jobs in Minnesota will require some type of postsecondary credential. Yet right now only 40 percent of working-age Minnesotans have one. If we are going to compete with other countries, we have to do something about this. What can we do? We have to get long-term costs under control. There is a lot to do there, but that is the long term. In the short term, at least we should do no harm. On July 1 Stafford loans, subsidized Stafford loans are set to double, from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. That is unconscionable. This legislation was written in 2007, and that said it would double. If you look at interest rates, what they have done from 2007 to now, they have just shot down. This makes no sense whatsoever. This is going to affect over 7.5 million students nationwide, over 200,000 in Minnesota. If we fail to take action, this will cost every student in Minnesota about $1,000 in increased loan costs over the life of the loans. That is real money. We have an offset here we have tried to do. It is about S corporations. I don't want to get into the details of this. Basically what it is--let's say you have an S corp. You are a businessman, and at the end you take your salary and profits, and most honest businessmen pay taxes on all of that, including their withholding tax, their FICA. So you pay FICA on $107,000, approximately, in withholding tax. That pays into Social Security and Medicare. That is what FICA is. There are others who take advantage of a loophole. It is a loophole. It is legal. Let's say you are a businessman and you make $300,000. Well, you pay yourself a salary of $40,000 and you pay your FICA on that. Then at the end of the year you take out the profits. Now, these profits are not capital gains. They pocket the business's profits without paying payroll taxes. This is as clearly a loophole as anything that exists in our Tax Code. This is exactly the type of loophole that everyone, not just our friends on the other side of the aisle but that we are talking about taking out of the Tax Code so that we can maybe not raise marginal rates as much or, on the other side, they say we can take out the loopholes and lower it. If you can't get rid of this loophole, there is no loophole you can get rid of. This is so obviously a wrongheaded loophole. That extra money they take at the end of the year, it is not considered capital gains, it is income. They pay the top rate on that income--it is above the top rate. This offset would affect only people making over $250,000. We need to pass this legislation. This is a loophole we need to close because it just makes sense. It is a loophole that I don't think anyone can really defend. I really don't. I would love to hear someone try to defend this one. Again, I have heard over and over that we just have to close some loopholes, these crazy loopholes. This is the one we need to do so our kids can have a manageable debt, so they are not paying exorbitant costs on their debt. We have to be realistic about all of this, about what it takes to make it in this country. You need a college education or you need some postsecondary education. We have a skills gap in this country we need to close. Kids are borrowing and borrowing, and we are doing this generation a disservice. We have to look at reality. I heard Mitt Romney the other day in Ohio. He said to kids: Look, take a chance on yourself. Borrow money from your parents to start a business. That is not what is happening in this country. Kids cannot accumulate an average of $29,000 in debt and still be able to borrow from their parents. If they could borrow from their parents, they wouldn't have an average of $29,000 in debt; they would be borrowing from their parents. The reality is we are putting a burden on our children that we should not be putting on them. We should close this loophole that there is no rhyme or reason for so these students can be paying a reasonable interest rate and not some exorbitant interest rate. This is just common sense. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this bill and then we can move on to some other things.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, when my wife Frannie and I decided that I should run for the Senate, we were greatly influenced by the example set by Senator Paul Wellstone and his wife Sheila. The Wellstone example serves as a constant reminder of what public service is all be about. It is about helping others. It is about giving a voice to those who otherwise might go unheard. It is about making the law more just and more fair, especially for those who need its protections the most. Frannie and I have a personal responsibility to carry on the Wellstones' legacy. We all do. And you know what, I think Paul and Sheila would be proud of what we are doing here today. We are on the verge of reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. Paul and Sheila were extraordinary people. An unlikely couple, Sheila was born in Kentucky to Southern Baptist parents. Paul was born here in Washington, the son of Russian-Jewish immigrants. But love and fate--they work in mysterious ways--brought Paul and Sheila together. Sheila's family moved to Washington, where she and Paul became high school sweethearts. Paul went to North Carolina for college, and Sheila went back to Kentucky. But a freshman year apart was more than they could bear. Sheila moved to North Carolina to be with Paul. They got married. A year later they were proud parents. They eventually would have two more children. The Wellstones were a big happy family. After Paul earned his Ph.D. in political science, the Wellstones moved to Minnesota, where Paul had a successful teaching career at Carleton College. Sheila, meanwhile, worked two jobs: She was a full- time mother and a part-time library aide. A happy family life in Minnesota would have been enough for most people but not for Paul and Sheila. Their compassion knew no limits. They wanted to make the world a better place for others, and they set out to do just that. Paul ran for public office. He and Sheila worked as a team during Paul's Senate campaign, as they did in all aspects of their lives. Paul's opponent outspent him by a large margin, but what Paul and Sheila lacked in resources they made up for in grassroots support, a tireless work ethic, and an unparalleled commitment to the people of Minnesota, and also quite a bit of charm. Improbable as it must have seemed at the outset, Paul won. He was elected to the Senate in 1990. So the Wellstones went to Washington, the city where they first fell in love. At the time, Sheila was not really a public figure--at least she did not view herself as such. In fact, Sheila was a bit shy, and she avoided public speaking when she could. But Sheila started spending time at women's shelters in Minnesota and elsewhere, listening to painful stories about domestic violence and assault. She realized there were a lot of women across the country who needed a voice, who needed someone to speak up for them. Sheila set out to become that person. Here is what she said: I have chosen to focus on domestic violence because I find it appalling that a woman's home can be the most dangerous, the most violent, and, in fact, the most deadly place for her. And if she is a mother, it is dangerous for her children. It is time that we tell the secret. It is time that we all come together to work toward ending the violence. Sheila matched her words with action. She became a champion for survivors of domestic violence in Minnesota and throughout the country. Each year, she hosted an event in the Capitol to raise awareness about that issue. That annual event continues to this day. And as I said, Sheila and Paul were a team, so Sheila worked very closely with Paul to champion the Violence Against Women Act, a landmark Federal law that affirmed our Nation's commitment to women's safety. Signed into law in 1994, VAWA increased the number of beds and shelters that were available to women who needed refuge. It provided critical support to law enforcement officers and prosecutors so they could respond more effectively to incidents of domestic violence. It funded support services and crisis centers for victims. And perhaps most importantly, VAWA sent a message: Domestic violence no longer will be tolerated in America. Since VAWA was enacted, incidents of domestic violence have been reduced significantly. VAWA has improved lives. It has saved lives. It is part of the Wellstones' proud legacy. VAWA is part of this institution's legacy too. When it comes to violence against women, Members of the Senate always have been able to come together. VAWA has been reauthorized twice. Both times it had unanimous support in the Senate--unanimous support. The VAWA reauthorization bill we are considering today is in keeping with VAWA's bipartisan tradition. Its 61 cosponsors come from across the country and across the aisle. I am grateful to Senators Leahy and Crapo for their leadership on this bill. The VAWA Reauthorization Act renews our national commitment to prevent responsive incidents of sexual assault, a heinous crime that remains all too common in America, even while domestic violence is becoming less common. The VAWA Reauthorization Act addresses the alarming rates of violence against women in Indian Country by giving tribes jurisdiction to prosecute acts of domestic violence in their communities. The VAWA Reauthorization Act cuts redtape and spending by consolidating grant programs and improving accountability measures. This is a good bill, and I am proud to support it. I am also proud to have written two of its provisions. I thank Chairman Leahy for inviting me to do so and for including those provisions in the final bill. First, the VAWA reauthorization bill includes the provision from the Justice for Survivors of Sexual Assault Act, one of the first bills I wrote after being sworn into the Senate. When this bill becomes law, survivors of sexual assault never again will suffer the indignity of paying for forensic medical exams. VAWA provides State and local governments with funding to administer these exams, which also are known as rape kits, and are used to collect evidence in sexual assault cases. The problem is that under current law, grant recipients can charge the survivor for the upfront cost of administering the exam, leaving the survivor to seek reimbursement later. Too often survivors are not reimbursed. They get lost in the maze of paperwork or are left high and dry when funds run out. Can you imagine if we required crime victims to pay for the police to gather evidence such as fingerprints from a crime scene? Of course not. We should not require victims of sexual assault to pay for rape kits. This isn't a partisan issue; it is common sense. I am grateful to Senator Charles Grassley, the Judiciary Committee's ranking member, for his ongoing support for this bill. He was an original cosponsor when I introduced it in 2009 and when I reintroduced it last year. Survivors of sexual violence have endured enough already. They should not have to pay for rape kits. They will not have to once this bill becomes law. The VAWA reauthorization bill also includes the Housing Rights for Victims of Domestic and Sexual Violence Act, legislation that I introduced with Senators Collins and Mikulski last fall. This bill will help women stay in their homes when they are most vulnerable, when they need a roof over their heads the most. The link between violence and homelessness is undeniable. By one account, nearly 40 percent of women who experience domestic violence will become homeless at some point in their lives--nearly 40 percent. Once a woman becomes homeless, she becomes even more vulnerable to physical or sexual abuse. In my State nearly one in three homeless women is fleeing domestic violence, and half of those women have children with them. That is not the world that Sheila Wellstone envisioned. Nobody should have to choose between safety and shelter. While the link between violence and homelessness is undeniable, it is not unbreakable. We need shelters and transitional housing programs for women who are fleeing danger. The VAWA reauthorization bill provides continued support for those programs. There is also much we can do to prevent women from becoming homeless in the first place, such as housing rights legislation, which will make it unlawful to evict from federally subsidized housing a woman just because she is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. This bill is for every woman who has hesitated to call the police to enforce a protective order because she was afraid she would be evicted from her home if she did so. I am grateful to the many wonderful organizations that have worked with me on this bill. They include women's victims advocacy groups such as the Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault, the MNCASA, and the Minnesota Domestic Abuse Project. They include tenant advocacy groups such as the National Low-Income Housing Coalition. They include the Legal Aid Society, Minnesota Legal Assistance, and they include leaders of the housing industry too. In fact, I recently received a letter from the National Association of Realtors, the Institute for Real Estate Management, and other housing industry representatives expressing their support for this bill. They wrote that they ``believe that preserving housing for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking is critically important.'' I could not agree more. That is exactly what this bill does. Sheila Wellstone isn't with us today. Sheila and Paul and their daughter Marcia were tragically taken from us too soon. But Sheila's example is with us, her legacy is with us, and her words are with us. I would like to close with those. Here is what Sheila said: We really have to look at the values that guide us. We have to work toward the ethic that expects every individual to be physically and emotionally safe. No one, regardless of age, color, gender, background, any other factor, deserves to be physically or emotionally unsafe. In a just society, we pledge to act together to ensure that each individual is safe from harm. In a just society, I think we have to say this over and over and over: We are not going to tolerate the violence. Madam President, the VAWA reauthorization bill is another step toward a more just society, as Sheila was describing. I look forward to it becoming law.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I wish to echo the statement of my friend, Senator Tester, and urge all my colleagues to support our amendment. The Tester-Franken-Levin amendment gives individuals and communities impacted by closures a voice. It will give Minnesotans real recourse to challenge closure decisions and a fighting chance to keep their local post offices and processing facilities open. Right now, individuals affected by post office closures can appeal the decision to the Postal Regulatory Commission, but the commission cannot stop closures. Our amendment will give the PRC the authority to reverse post office and processing facility closure decisions. I urge a ``yes'' vote on amendment No. 2056. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, today I would like to discuss my strong opposition to the resolution before us, the resolution disapproving of the National Labor Relations Board's final rule governing election procedures. This rule seeks to modernize and streamline a process that is currently costly, inefficient, and promotes unnecessary delay. Let's be clear about what the rule does and does not actually do. This rule does not fundamentally change how workers are permitted to organize. This rule does not prevent employers from talking to their workers about unionization. This rule is not the Employee Free Choice Act by fiat. This rule does not require that an election take place in a set number of days. These are all of the claims that have been levied against this rule, and, factually, none of them are true. The rule's modifications are purely procedural. Here is one example. Under the current rules, companies often spend weeks litigating the eligibility of a handful of workers even though the election is ultimately decided by 50 or 100 votes. Those disputed votes couldn't have determined the outcome of the election--the only consequence was delay. So under the new rules, disputes about small numbers of voter eligibility can be decided after the election. The workers in question can cast provisional ballots, just as they do in political elections. These exact circumstances played out in Minnesota. On April 8, 2008, office clerical workers in Virginia, MN, filed a petition for a union election. But because the parties litigated the status of a single employee, the unit was not certified until June 10th of that year--64 days after the petition was filed. Under the new rule, the issue concerning that single employee could have been resolved after the election, and the election would have been conducted with less delay and uncertainty. These rules don't favor either unions or companies. They favor efficiency and modernization. They are narrowly tailored--targeting only those elections that face the longest delays. A vast majority of election schedules are agreed to by the parties--90 percent. This rule would only affect the other 10 percent. These rules favor better use of resources. These are the types of government reforms that we should be promoting--cutting down on bureaucracy and redtape. Unnecessary delays hurt workers seeking to exercise their rights in the workplace--whether they are seeking to certify or decertify a union. These rules simply give workers a chance to vote yes or no. Working families in Minnesota and across this country are still struggling. The middle class--has been ailing for decades. Without a strong middle class folks who can afford to buy a home and a car and send their kids to college--our country's economic future is tenuous. Protecting the ability of working people to have a voice--to vote yes or no--will bring more middle-class jobs with good wages and benefits that can drive our recovery forward. The NLRB's rules are modest and reasonable. They uphold the principles of democracy and fairness that have shaped our Nation's workplace laws. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, Gladys Mensing lives in Owatonna, MN. She loves being around people. That is a good thing when one has a family as big as Gladys does. She is the loving mother of 8 children, with 15 grandchildren and 12 great-grandchildren. Gladys, as I said, is from Owatonna. It is in southeastern Minnesota. A few weeks ago, I received some old family videos that showed her playing with her grandkids. Gladys used to work as a waitress and as an apartment manager, but what she truly enjoys is a good game of bingo. In 2001, Gladys's doctor gave her a prescription for a medication known as MCP to treat a digestive tract condition. Gladys did what I would have done--she took her prescription to the pharmacy, got it filled, and started taking her medicine per her doctor's orders. Meanwhile, however, evidence was mounting linking MCP to neurological disorders. Within a few years, Gladys began experiencing problems. She lost control of her face, tongue, and legs. It is very hard to understand Gladys when she speaks now. Her son says people sometimes give Gladys strange looks when she goes out in public. Gladys used to be very strong and independent. Now her family has to help her bathe and walk. Gladys wanted to hold the drug manufacturer accountable for what happened to her. She believed the warning label that came with her prescription was inadequate; that it did not sufficiently disclose the risks of taking MCP. So Gladys, a bingo-playing grandma from rural Minnesota, decided to stand up for her rights. Gladys took her fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that is where things took a bizarre turn. In Minnesota, as in many other States, the law requires drug manufacturers to warn patients of the known--the known--dangers associated with their products. Manufacturers that do not follow the law are held accountable to the patients who are harmed as a result--people such as Gladys. But the Supreme Court--in a 5-to-4 decision--said those laws do not apply to generic drugs such as the medicine Gladys was taking. Rather, the Court said Federal regulations actually prohibit generic drug manufacturers from updating their labels--prohibit generic drug manufacturers from updating their labels--and it said the Federal regulations prohibiting label changes trump Minnesota's patient protection laws, which require full disclosure of potential risks. So under that ruling, even if a generic drug company wanted to provide better warnings of risks to consumers, it cannot. Generic drugs are, for all intents and purposes, the same as brand- name drugs. They have the same active ingredients. They are used for the same purposes and, yes, in most cases, they should have the same labels. That is why current FDA regulations require generic drug labels to match brand-name drug labels. But it does not make sense to prohibit generic drug makers from updating their labels to accurately reflect new side effects or risks that have come to light. Yet that is the current state of the law. So the Court dismissed Gladys's case just because she was taking a generic drug. Let me say that again. Because Gladys was taking the generic version of her medicine, she was unable to vindicate her rights under Minnesota law. If Gladys had suffered the same injuries from the brand-name version of the same pill containing the same warning, she would have had her day in court. Since the Supreme Court dismissed Gladys's case last June, lower courts have dismissed dozens of similar cases because, as a recent article in the New York Times aptly said, ``What once seemed like a trivial detail--whether to take a generic or brand-name drug--has become the deciding factor in whether a patient can seek legal recourse from a drug company.'' That does not make any sense. Justice Thomas, who wrote the Supreme Court's decision in Gladys's case, admitted as much. He wrote this: We recognize that from the perspective of Mensing . . . [this decision] makes little sense. I agree with him on this point. I would like to think he would agree with me on this: Prescription drugs should be safe and their labels should be adequate. So Senators Leahy, Bingaman, Brown, Whitehouse, Coons, Blumenthal, and I are introducing a bill that would guarantee just that. Our bill, the Patient Safety and Generic Labeling Improvement Act, would allow generic drug makers to update their warnings--allow them to update their warnings--to accurately reflect the known risks associated with their drugs. That is it. It would not require them to do so. It just lets them do what other drug manufacturers already are allowed to do. Our bill says that millions of Americans who are taking generic drugs are entitled to the same protections as people who take brand-name drugs, and it says people such as Gladys Mensing are entitled to their day in court when manufacturers fail to disclose risks. I thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting this commonsense fix.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the importance of the Postal Service to Minnesota and to urge my colleagues to make thoughtful changes to strengthen S. 1789. The Postal Service has proposed a cost-cutting plan that would close or consolidate nearly 3,700 mostly rural post offices. This plan will eliminate thousands of jobs in communities across the country and will leave many residents and businesses without direct access to the Postal Service. Of course, that includes Oregon, the Presiding Officer's State. In Minnesota, 117 post offices are on the closure list. That includes the post office in Calumet, MN, a town of 367 people in northeastern Minnesota. I have heard from the mayor of Calumet, John Tourila, about the hardship that closing the post office would have on his community. He told me about disabled residents who can't get a driver's license and how important it is that they are able to walk to the post office. He also told me about an elderly couple in the town. The husband has Alzheimer's, and he and his wife take a walk every day, hand in hand, to the post office. When the Postal Service held a public meeting in Calumet to discuss the proposed post office closure, over 70 residents showed up. That is a lot. That is about one-fifth of the town. These are the stories I hear when I travel across Minnesota, especially in rural Minnesota. Post offices are the center of so many communities. They serve as the gathering place and a source of information. Individuals and businesses rely on the Postal Service to receive medications, paychecks, absentee ballots, equipment, and even livestock. If the Postal Service's closure plan is implemented, it will have a devastating impact on rural Minnesota. The Postal Service has also proposed to close 250 processing facilities. Five of Minnesota's processing facilities are on the block. Under the Postal Service's plan, all of the mail processing activities currently taking place in Duluth, Bemidji, Mankato, Rochester, and Waite Park would be moved to the Twin Cities. For anyone who hasn't driven around Minnesota, let me explain what that means. When someone in Bemidji, MN, sends a birthday card to her neighbor or a local small business sends an invoice to a customer a few streets away, that letter will be sent more than 200 miles south to the Twin Cities to be processed before it is sent 200 miles back north to Bemidji. That doesn't make any sense. During Minnesota winters when roads are impassable, that is going to mean severe mail delay. It is going to drive business away from these communities. The processing centers in Rochester and Duluth are also on the list. These are the third and fourth largest cities in Minnesota. Duluth is over 150 miles away from the Twin Cities. Closing these processing centers will significantly impact local businesses and will drive business away from the Postal Service. One important example is the Duluth News Tribune. This one business distributes over 2 million pieces of mail annually through the Postal Service. Last year, they paid the Postal Service well over $400,000 for these services. If the Duluth processing center is closed, the Postal Service will no longer be able to guarantee overnight delivery of local newspapers. The Duluth News Tribune is going to have to find a different way to deliver their papers--the daily paper. That will cost both the businesses and the Postal Service a lot of money. I have heard from hundreds of Minnesotans and met with postal workers, mayors, concerned community members, and business leaders who rely on the Postal Service. What they all agree on is that we need a strong and financially sound Postal Service. They understand that tough choices need to be made and that some cuts are on the way. But not like this, not by closing five of Minnesota's seven processing facilities and forcing the workers to move to the Twin Cities if they want any hope of keeping their jobs, not by closing nearly 3,700 post offices to save less than 1 percent of the budget, not by slowing down mail so much that it will basically render it useless for many businesses. The Post Office is in the Constitution. It is in the Constitution. It has been around since the beginning of our country. There is a reason for this. For centuries, universal service has been at the heart of the Postal Service's mission. It is the mission that is described in the Constitution. No matter where people live--be it in Minneapolis or International Falls, MN--people count on the Postal Service delivering their mail. The Postal Service gives us a connection to the outside world. Somehow we have lost sight of that. Senators Lieberman, Carper, Collins, and Scott Brown put forward a bill to reform the Postal Service. I wish to thank them all for their important work moving this bill forward. S. 1789 would refund overpayments the Postal Service has made to the Federal pension program. It will also reduce the requirement that the Postal Service prefund retiree health care benefits. I am very supportive of both of these provisions. It could save the Postal Service over $15 billion over the next 2 years. However, I believe the bill can be strengthened to maintain delivery standards and better protect rural post offices. I have been working with a group of my colleagues, including the Presiding Officer, led by Senator Sanders, to improve the bill. I wish to thank Senators Carper and Lieberman for working with us. The managers' amendment addresses some of our concerns. Most importantly, it would require the Postal Service to retain regional overnight delivery standards. This will protect many processing facilities. Importantly for Minnesota, it will likely keep the Duluth processing facility open. But the substitute still doesn't do enough to protect rural post offices. I have introduced an amendment with my friends and colleagues, Senators Tester and Levin, that will give communities the opportunity to fight to prevent the closure of their local post offices and processing facilities. Right now the Postal Regulatory Commission can review post office closure decisions, but it can only issue advisory options. Our amendment would give the commission authority to reverse post office and processing facility closure decisions. That would guarantee that individuals and communities impacted by closures would have real recourse. I urge my Senate colleagues to support our amendment. We need to make thoughtful changes to S. 1789 and we need to act now. Last December, I joined with a number of my Senate colleagues in pushing the Postmaster General for a 5-month moratorium on postal closures. The moratorium is now running out and the Postal Service is not waiting. It can't. On May 16, the Postal Service will close thousands of post offices and hundreds of processing centers. We need to act now. Mr. President, I wish to now change the subject to speak about a topic that hits close to home for many Minnesotans. (The remarks of Senator Franken pertaining to the introduction of S. 2295 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. FRANKEN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for about 20 minutes.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, Gladys Mensing lives in Owatonna, MN. She loves being around people. That is a good thing when one has a family as big as Gladys does. She is the loving mother of 8 children, with 15 grandchildren and 12 great-grandchildren. Gladys, as I said, is from Owatonna. It is in southeastern Minnesota. A few weeks ago, I received some old family videos that showed her playing with her grandkids. Gladys used to work as a waitress and as an apartment manager, but what she truly enjoys is a good game of bingo. In 2001, Gladys's doctor gave her a prescription for a medication known as MCP to treat a digestive tract condition. Gladys did what I would have done--she took her prescription to the pharmacy, got it filled, and started taking her medicine per her doctor's orders. Meanwhile, however, evidence was mounting linking MCP to neurological disorders. Within a few years, Gladys began experiencing problems. She lost control of her face, tongue, and legs. It is very hard to understand Gladys when she speaks now. Her son says people sometimes give Gladys strange looks when she goes out in public. Gladys used to be very strong and independent. Now her family has to help her bathe and walk. Gladys wanted to hold the drug manufacturer accountable for what happened to her. She believed the warning label that came with her prescription was inadequate; that it did not sufficiently disclose the risks of taking MCP. So Gladys, a bingo-playing grandma from rural Minnesota, decided to stand up for her rights. Gladys took her fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that is where things took a bizarre turn. In Minnesota, as in many other States, the law requires drug manufacturers to warn patients of the known--the known--dangers associated with their products. Manufacturers that do not follow the law are held accountable to the patients who are harmed as a result--people such as Gladys. But the Supreme Court--in a 5-to-4 decision--said those laws do not apply to generic drugs such as the medicine Gladys was taking. Rather, the Court said Federal regulations actually prohibit generic drug manufacturers from updating their labels--prohibit generic drug manufacturers from updating their labels--and it said the Federal regulations prohibiting label changes trump Minnesota's patient protection laws, which require full disclosure of potential risks. So under that ruling, even if a generic drug company wanted to provide better warnings of risks to consumers, it cannot. Generic drugs are, for all intents and purposes, the same as brand- name drugs. They have the same active ingredients. They are used for the same purposes and, yes, in most cases, they should have the same labels. That is why current FDA regulations require generic drug labels to match brand-name drug labels. But it does not make sense to prohibit generic drug makers from updating their labels to accurately reflect new side effects or risks that have come to light. Yet that is the current state of the law. So the Court dismissed Gladys's case just because she was taking a generic drug. Let me say that again. Because Gladys was taking the generic version of her medicine, she was unable to vindicate her rights under Minnesota law. If Gladys had suffered the same injuries from the brand-name version of the same pill containing the same warning, she would have had her day in court. Since the Supreme Court dismissed Gladys's case last June, lower courts have dismissed dozens of similar cases because, as a recent article in the New York Times aptly said, ``What once seemed like a trivial detail--whether to take a generic or brand-name drug--has become the deciding factor in whether a patient can seek legal recourse from a drug company.'' That does not make any sense. Justice Thomas, who wrote the Supreme Court's decision in Gladys's case, admitted as much. He wrote this: We recognize that from the perspective of Mensing . . . [this decision] makes little sense. I agree with him on this point. I would like to think he would agree with me on this: Prescription drugs should be safe and their labels should be adequate. So Senators Leahy, Bingaman, Brown, Whitehouse, Coons, Blumenthal, and I are introducing a bill that would guarantee just that. Our bill, the Patient Safety and Generic Labeling Improvement Act, would allow generic drug makers to update their warnings--allow them to update their warnings--to accurately reflect the known risks associated with their drugs. That is it. It would not require them to do so. It just lets them do what other drug manufacturers already are allowed to do. Our bill says that millions of Americans who are taking generic drugs are entitled to the same protections as people who take brand-name drugs, and it says people such as Gladys Mensing are entitled to their day in court when manufacturers fail to disclose risks. I thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting this commonsense fix.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business Election Simplification Act with my friends, Senators Snowe and Enzi. I want to thank them for this collaboration, and I especially want to acknowledge Senator Snowe for her leadership. As Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Senator Snowe is one of the Senate's experts on small business issues. She is always working to make sure that the Federal Government meets the needs of small businesses and is committed to creating the best possible environment for entrepreneurs. That is exactly what our legislation is about--making it easier and more straightforward for entrepreneurs to start small businesses. When starting up a new business, entrepreneurs often choose to organize their business as an S Corporation because of its simplicity. Owners of S Corporations report business income on their individual tax returns. So instead of having their business profits taxed at the corporate level of 35 percent, they pay taxes at their individual income tax rate. Not only is this simpler, but it also often saves small business owners money. To become an S Corporation, small business owners have to go through what's called an ``election process'' and submit an election form to the IRS. The deadline to submit this election form is currently set a year in advance of the tax return deadline for businesses. This means that a new small business owner must know to submit the election form a full year before they have to do their taxes. Unsurprisingly, many first-time business owners are unaware of this rule and therefore miss the election deadline. These taxpayers must wait an additional year before their business becomes an S Corporation, which can have serious tax consequences. Or they must go through a late election process with the IRS, which can be time-consuming and costly. This is a real problem. In 2009, nearly 100,000 S Corporation returns could not be processed as filed. That was almost a quarter of all new S Corporation fillings. Missing or late elections is one of the main reasons that returns are rejected as filed. The National Taxpayer Advocate--whose job is to watch out for the needs of taxpayers--described the current S Corporation election process as an undue burden on small businesses. Simplifying the S Corporation election process was one of 11 legislative recommendations outlined in the National Taxpayer Advocate's 2011 Annual Report to Congress. Our legislation does just that. The Small Business Election Simplification Act would extend and coordinate S Corporation deadlines. It would match the S Corporation election deadline for new businesses with the deadline for tax returns. This would reduce the number of taxpayers who inadvertently miss the S Corporation election deadline and suffer negative tax consequences. To further simplify the process and reduce paperwork, our legislation would also allow new small businesses to elect to become an S Corporation simply by designating the election on their S Corporation tax return. This would eliminate the need for business owners to fill out an additional election form. Here in the Senate, we are always saying that small businesses are the engine of our economy; that they are the job creators; and that we need to support entrepreneurs coming up with the next big idea that will get our economy growing again. Passing the Small Business Election Simplification Act is one thing we can do to help them. It can make a difference right now. By making it easier and more straightforward for new small businesses to become S Corporations, our legislation would free business owners to concentrate on the important stuff--like growing their business and hiring new workers, instead of worrying about IRS election form deadlines and learning about complicated business tax rules. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and send it to the President's desk to be signed into law as soon as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business Election Simplification Act with my friends, Senators Snowe and Enzi. I want to thank them for this collaboration, and I especially want to acknowledge Senator Snowe for her leadership. As Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Senator Snowe is one of the Senate's experts on small business issues. She is always working to make sure that the Federal Government meets the needs of small businesses and is committed to creating the best possible environment for entrepreneurs. That is exactly what our legislation is about--making it easier and more straightforward for entrepreneurs to start small businesses. When starting up a new business, entrepreneurs often choose to organize their business as an S Corporation because of its simplicity. Owners of S Corporations report business income on their individual tax returns. So instead of having their business profits taxed at the corporate level of 35 percent, they pay taxes at their individual income tax rate. Not only is this simpler, but it also often saves small business owners money. To become an S Corporation, small business owners have to go through what's called an ``election process'' and submit an election form to the IRS. The deadline to submit this election form is currently set a year in advance of the tax return deadline for businesses. This means that a new small business owner must know to submit the election form a full year before they have to do their taxes. Unsurprisingly, many first-time business owners are unaware of this rule and therefore miss the election deadline. These taxpayers must wait an additional year before their business becomes an S Corporation, which can have serious tax consequences. Or they must go through a late election process with the IRS, which can be time-consuming and costly. This is a real problem. In 2009, nearly 100,000 S Corporation returns could not be processed as filed. That was almost a quarter of all new S Corporation fillings. Missing or late elections is one of the main reasons that returns are rejected as filed. The National Taxpayer Advocate--whose job is to watch out for the needs of taxpayers--described the current S Corporation election process as an undue burden on small businesses. Simplifying the S Corporation election process was one of 11 legislative recommendations outlined in the National Taxpayer Advocate's 2011 Annual Report to Congress. Our legislation does just that. The Small Business Election Simplification Act would extend and coordinate S Corporation deadlines. It would match the S Corporation election deadline for new businesses with the deadline for tax returns. This would reduce the number of taxpayers who inadvertently miss the S Corporation election deadline and suffer negative tax consequences. To further simplify the process and reduce paperwork, our legislation would also allow new small businesses to elect to become an S Corporation simply by designating the election on their S Corporation tax return. This would eliminate the need for business owners to fill out an additional election form. Here in the Senate, we are always saying that small businesses are the engine of our economy; that they are the job creators; and that we need to support entrepreneurs coming up with the next big idea that will get our economy growing again. Passing the Small Business Election Simplification Act is one thing we can do to help them. It can make a difference right now. By making it easier and more straightforward for new small businesses to become S Corporations, our legislation would free business owners to concentrate on the important stuff--like growing their business and hiring new workers, instead of worrying about IRS election form deadlines and learning about complicated business tax rules. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and send it to the President's desk to be signed into law as soon as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.