Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I cannot believe we have come to the floor of the Senate at a time of economic hardship and recovery for millions of families, a time where jobs are scarce, the need for a skilled workforce is critical, and student loans are about to double, only to have those on the other side turn this into yet another filibuster, another capitulation to those on the far right of their party--those who are so far right that when they look back along the political spectrum they can only see the small image of their hero, Ronald Reagan, fading in the distance. They have gone so far to the right that they can no longer see any heroes, not even their own. So here we are with our side once again debating the obvious and the other side defending the indefensible position of the far right. We are looking for common sense, reason, and fairness. We are, that is, looking to govern fairly for all. They are looking to play politics that benefit a few. We are asking to stop interest rates on student loans from doubling for 7 million Americans by closing a gaping tax loophole that those who have benefited most from this economy can drive an S corporation through. My Republican friends are once again saying no. They are once again attempting to govern from the extreme, once again demanding that even closing an obvious tax loophole that benefits the wealthiest is an unacceptable government intrusion but that ending preventive care for those who are struggling with rising health care costs is the best option. Can they be serious? Can we be standing in this Chamber saying that the most reasonable option to prevent student loans from doubling is not commonsense tax reform but ending breast cancer screening for millions of women? Is that the view from the far right of the political spectrum? I ask my colleagues on the other side do they truly believe that is a fair option? Have we run through all other possible options to have reached a point where we can now say: The only arrow left in the quiver is to end preventive care as we know it. Have we already ended all outrageous tax loopholes for the wealthy? Have we already ended subsidies to Big Oil that will make $1 trillion over the next 10 years and yet we give them $24 billion of tax cuts? Have we ended the Bush tax cuts for the top 1 percent and now have no other option than to end preventive health care for women, for millions of Americans whose health depends on it? Unfortunately, it seems our Republican friends have once again put partisanship and politics first. Their budget prioritized tax breaks for the wealthy over keeping college costs down for middle-class families. Only when they realized this would not play well politically did they reverse course and drop their objections to keeping student loan rates lower because, they said, no, that is not the government's role. But then they said: OK. We will climb on board with that idea but only under certain conditions. Rather than close a special-interest loophole that only a small minority of wealthy businesses can exploit, they would rather cut funding for children's vaccines, mammograms, and other critical services. This is the classic case of giving with one hand and taking with the other and all without asking the wealthiest Americans--those who have reaped the most rewards and benefited the most, particularly in tax breaks they have received over the last almost decade--to help the country, simply to help the country at this critical time. If that does not tell us about the priorities of each party, I do not know what will. These preventive health services not only improve people's health and their lives, they also reduce the cost of health care. That is because it is a lot easier and less costly to treat illnesses when they are first detected. When women have access to affordable mammograms, their doctors will be far more likely to catch breast cancer in its early stages, when it is most treatable and least expensive to cure. When we give a child a simple inexpensive measles vaccine, we do not have to worry about expensive treatment for measles later on. When we help people quit smoking, we dramatically reduce the cost of treating that individual for a whole host of illnesses. The saying, ``An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,'' could not be more appropriate to this debate. For a party that loves to preach about fiscal responsibility, it boggles my mind that they would fight to cut preventive care that will reduce health care costs but allow tax loopholes to stay open. Republicans decided to make a target of these programs, not because of substantive issues--I would respect that--but just because, plain and simple, they were included in the President's health care bill. As we know, as the distinguished minority leader said, it is all about defeating the President. The problem with that is, it is not about the President failing, it is about the Nation failing at one of the most critical times in its history. They lost the health care debate in 2010, and they have spent every day since trying to refight that battle. Now Republicans will try to scare people into thinking that closing this corporate tax loophole will kill small businesses. That is the mantra we hear every time. But, actually, according to Citizens for Tax Justice: [C]losing this loophole will actually help most small businesses, which are currently subsidizing the minority who abuse it to avoid [paying] payroll taxes. Isn't that interesting? So most small businesses are out there meeting the economic challenge every day. They pay payroll taxes, but those who are taking advantage of this loophole do not. It seems to me we would be giving small businesses a far better competitive advantage. Let's be clear: The vast majority of small businesses pay their fair share into Medicare. But this loophole--affectionately dubbed the Edwards/Gingrich loophole--has allowed certain professionals such as former Senator John Edwards and former Speaker Newt Gingrich to avoid paying millions of dollars into the Medicare Program. Technically, they were not wrong to take advantage of this loophole. We were wrong to allow it to even be available. But enough about the details on how we pay for it. This debate is all about people, all about families struggling to pay for college. As the first person in my family to go to college, who had to rely on Federal grants and loans to pay tuition, I have a firsthand appreciation of the importance of giving all students the opportunity to pursue their dreams. For students struggling to pay for college and racking up debt, this is not an academic argument. The extra $1,000 they would have to pay each year is not theoretical money. It is the difference between being able to repay their loans and entering the workforce with good credit versus being overwhelmed by debt and going into default. Recently, I had the pleasure of having a roundtable and speaking to students from Montclair State University in my home State of New Jersey about how the interest rate would affect them. I heard from Emily Delgado, a first-generation American and the first person from her family also to go to college. She just completed her freshman year at Montclair. Despite working for the college as a student mentor, Emily will still be saddled with approximately $20,000 in debt by the time she graduates. If she decides to go on to graduate school after that, then, of course, that will rise significantly. She told me she cannot even bring herself to calculate how much the interest rate hike will cost her because, in her words, ``it will just crush my dreams.'' Nick Weber, works three--not one, not two, but three--part-time jobs to help pay for college. Despite these three jobs, Nick only makes around $175 per week, which is about how much extra he would have to pay in interest every month if we do not act now. He does not think that is fair, and neither do I. A student by the name of Jamie Sommer--who dreams of one day becoming a professor--works part time for the school, but her income hardly puts a dent in her debt, and she fears she will not be able to afford graduate school, she will never realize her dream. Emily and Nick and Jamie and all the other students who are struggling to pay for college deserve to be able to realize their hopes and dreams and aspirations. It falls to us--all of us in this Chamber-- to do all we can to keep those dreams alive. These students deserve our support. They deserve the common sense of a community that understands we have to reduce the deficit but we cannot balance the budget on the backs of the next generation. We cannot cash in their dreams and let those with the most cash out. We need a fair solution, not political dogma. These students have worked hard. They deserve better. They are not asking for a handout. They studied hard in high school, got good grades, took out loans, and got jobs to pay for college. They are working toward a better life, doing what every parent dreams of for their children: to do well, build a decent life for themselves and their family, and give something back to their community and to the economy. They epitomize everything we want our young people to be. All they are asking in return is fairness--not a political sleight of hand that helps them with their student loans, but in the process takes away their health care. All they are asking is for us not to make it harder for them, for us not to add yet another stress to their lives. Certainly, it is our obligation to not shut down their dreams of a higher education. For it is in their dreams for a better life that the economic future of this Nation will be built. We are globally challenged--globally challenged--for the creation of a product or the delivery of a service in terms of human capital. The boundaries of mankind have largely been erased in the pursuit of human capital. So an engineer's report is done in India and sent back for a fraction of the cost in the United States. A radiologist's report is done in Northern Island and read by your doctor at your local hospital or if you have a problem with your credit card, as I recently did, you end up with a call center in South Africa. In the pursuit of human capital for a product or service, we are globally challenged. For the Nation to continue to be a global economic leader, it needs to be at the apex of the curve of intellect--the most highly educated generation of Americans the Nation has ever had. We cannot achieve that if we have students who have to forgo not only their dreams but the ability to help the Nation compete globally by getting a world-class education. We owe them every chance to achieve their dreams and to help us make this another American century. Isn't that the least we can do? Isn't the choice clear? Let's choose closing a tax loophole that is actually creating challenges to small businesses that are paying their payroll taxes, and let's preserve the preventive health care that will improve the quality of the lives of our fellow citizens and, at the same time, save our health care system hundreds of millions of dollars. I think that choice is pretty clear--the choice the Senate should take clearly on behalf of our students of the future and our country. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I wish to salute the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for the incredible work he has done to bring us to this moment. I held a roundtable in New Jersey with about 35 organizations that deal with the challenge of violence against women. They unequivocally expressed their support for what we are doing here today and the importance in the lives of women whom they deal with every day. I know my friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to strip provisions that protect women from discrimination and abuse in certain categories. In my view, violence against any woman is still violence. The Nation has been outraged about violence against women for almost two decades. We have seen the violence. We continue to fight against it. We have tried to end it. In my mind, there is no doubt--and I would find it very hard to understand why anyone would stand in the way of denouncing violence against any woman, no matter who they are, no matter what their class is. I am hard-pressed to understand why anyone would choose to exclude violence against certain women; turn back the clock to a time when such violence was not recognized, was not a national disgrace, and make a distinction when and against whom such violence meets our threshold of outrage. In my mind, there can be no such threshold, no such distinction. Violence against any woman is an outrage, plain and simple. The reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act does not just affect those who are here or might become victims of sexual violence or domestic violence; it affects all of us. Nearly one in five women report being the victim of a rape or an attempted rape. One in six report being stalked. One in four women report having been beaten by their partner. Of those who report being raped, 80 percent report being raped before the age of 25. The short-term physical and emotional trauma of such an event cannot be overstated. That is why it is critical we pass VAWA as the committee has moved forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, the following statement is from Senator Birch Bayh in honor of the 40th anniversary of Congressional passage of the Equal Rights Amendment: Recent events have seen an assault on those who provide health care services to women and we have even seen questions raised anew about issues like contraception. It may have been 40 years since we passed the ERA in Congress but the reasons why many of us tried to write women's rights into the Constitution are still with us today. As the Chief Senate Sponsor and floor leader of the Equal Rights Amendment, I remember well the intensity of the battle we fought in the early 1970's. America's history has been a steady expansion of individual rights, beginning with the expansion of the franchise in our early years. From the rights of former slaves after the Civil War to the expansion of the vote for women and then for 18 year olds, we have codified in our Constitution an ongoing commitment to individual rights. It seemed fitting then, and seems fitting now, that our Constitution speak loudly and clearly that the law allow no discrimination on the basis of gender. While the principles involved in this battle remain, the country has evolved quite a bit since 1972. In 1972 there were 2 women in the U.S. Senate and 13 in the House of Representatives. Now there are 17 women Senators and 75 Congresswomen. There were no female Governors in 1972 and had been only 3 in all our history before that, there are 6 now. We have had a female Speaker of the House and have scores of CEOs, business owners and leaders in all walks of life who are female. The number of women elected to state legislatures across the country is larger than ever before. The number of women in the military cannot be compared to the numbers 40 years ago. And in a recent issue of Newsweek, long-time Supreme Court reporter Nina Totenberg spoke about taking the job at NPR in the 70s because the pay was too low for men to want the job. There has indeed been progress, but the principles remain the same. To open the sports pages in the morning is to see female athletes in a number of sports. To watch the television news in the evening has us watching many female anchor persons, weather ladies, and sports announcers. Even the major sports telecasts regularly involve on-air female broadcasters. But is there equal pay for equal work today? Are there still obstacles on the professional paths to boardrooms for women? Is sexual harassment still a prominent issue in offices around America and in our military? It is still fitting in the 21st century for our nation to include in its basic law the principle that discrimination based on sex has no place in American life. It is fitting for our daughters and granddaughters to be reminded that their parents and grandparents took a stand to protect their futures and to ensure that they have an equal place in modern America. In closing, let me stress that the ERA is still the right thing to do, not only in principle but in every day practice. Thank you for your continued, dedicated efforts.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I have been monitoring the debate on my Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act and I keep hearing over and over from our friends on the other side of the aisle that if we keep giving the oil companies taxpayer money, they will do the right thing. The problem is we already know that is not true. First of all, the United States has only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, so we cannot drill our way out of this problem even if we wanted to. But, more importantly, we cannot trust the big five oil companies to simply do the right thing. Let's look at the record. Last year, the big five oil companies took $2 billion of your money and saw their profits shoot up to $137 billion--an impressive 75-percent increase in profits. Did they use that extra money we gave them in our subsidies to produce more oil? No, they didn't. They took your money and they didn't produce a drop more of oil. Despite the fact that overall U.S. oil production is higher now than it has been in the last 8 years, last year these five companies actually produced 4 percent less oil. So here is another way to look at it. As each of these companies pocketed our subsidies to pad those profits, they did not use this windfall to produce more oil. If we take the word of our friends on the other side of the aisle, we have a contract, in essence, with these five companies. We pay them $2 billion and they give us more oil. Last year, they broke that contract and produced less. So it appears that these poor oil companies took the taxpayers' $2 billion and instead of having to suffer with only $135 billion in profits, they made $137 billion in profits last year.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I would be happy to at the end of my remarks. What a heartwarming story of Robin Hood in reverse--taking from the American taxpayer to give to the rich. So congratulations, Big Oil, you got $2 billion extra in profits and we got 4 percent less oil. But, of course, we are not just seeing less oil, we are also seeing the American driver gouged with higher gasoline prices. What happens when taxpayers are forking over $2 billion in subsidies a year to highly profitable oil companies that, in turn, produce less? We get a double whammy with $4-a-gallon gas at the pump and a bigger burden on taxpayers. How is that a fair return on our taxpayer dollars? It is pretty generous to Big Oil, which stands to profit $1 trillion over the next decade while getting $24 billion in subsidies, but it is a bad deal for consumers struggling to make ends meet. First, the Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act takes back $24 billion in taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil and stops that insanity. The next step the bill takes is investing in alternatives to oil--biofuels, natural gas, propane, and a refueling infrastructure for these fuels as well. By investing in these alternatives we finally give Big Oil some competition in the marketplace that will give consumers the choice to use cheaper fuels as well as drive down gas prices. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in getting back to reality and stop subsidizing industries that need it the least and start investing in the 21st century industries that will help us compete with China, that will create jobs, that will improve our environment and make us more energy secure. It is time we stopped trusting Big Oil to do the right thing with our money and use it on things that actually make sense. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about what is the pending business before the floor, which is my legislation to end Big Oil subsidies in this country. Middle-class families are hurting, struggling to make ends meet. Yet today we are on the floor of the Senate fighting an uphill battle against those on the other side of the aisle who, with one hand, would continue handing out $24 billion in wasteful subsidies to five of the biggest, most profitable oil companies in the country and, with the other hand, take away vital programs from our Nation's veterans, its seniors, disabled children, just to name a few. We hear our Republican friends talk about balanced budgets and we hear them talk about austerity. We hear them saying we all have to tighten our belts, we all have to make hard choices on Medicare and veterans and veterans' benefits and student loans, just to name a few. Yet they will not, in that austerity or shared sacrifice, say we will end unnecessary tax breaks to Big Oil. They will continue to ask the same things they have asked a thousand times before, which is that the American taxpayers subsidize the richest five companies in the world, while we cut programs for our wounded soldiers, for our seniors, and for our students. Some people think of budgets just as boring documents with lots of bewildering numbers. In reality, they are statements about our priorities. This debate draws the brightest lines between our priorities and theirs. The Romney-Ryan budget, for example, cuts $2.2 billion in education for children with disabilities. What do they say to these parents? I guess they justify it by saying we can't afford it. Why is it we cannot afford it when five companies that collectively made $137 billion in profits last year alone are getting $24 billion in subsidies over the next 10 years? So we tell these children on the Romney-Ryan budget they cannot be helped to fulfill their God-given potential because we can't afford it, but we can afford to give these five companies that made $137 billion in profits--not proceeds, profits--that we should give them an additional $24 billion of our taxpayers money? I don't think so. Here is another example. Republicans are proposing cutting $13 billion per year from the SNAP program--that was formerly called the food stamp program--for families who do not know where their next meal will come from. So laid-off workers may not be able to feed their families, but our Republican colleagues will ensure that big oil companies continue to stuff their face at the taxpayer trough and they make sure no subsidies are cut that will hurt the bonuses of the big five oil companies' CEOs. Here is one of them, Rex Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil. He made nearly $29 million in 2010. How is it we can afford to protect Mr. Tillerson's pay but not a program designed to help hungry children? Why is it we need to protect those who need it the least but take it from those who need it the most? Another issue we keep hearing from the other side is that cutting these subsidies will somehow raise gas prices. The notion that gas prices will go up is only in Washington. Anyplace else in this country, they get it. But only in Washington are we hearing from the other side that cutting subsidies will somehow raise gas prices. The notion that gas prices will go up if we end subsidies to Big Oil is nothing more than Republican snake oil, and the American people aren't buying it. Let me put it plainly. We are subsidizing these companies to the tune of over $2 billion per year. Collectively, just these five companies-- not talking about other sized producers. Just these five companies made $137 billion last year. Can anybody, with a straight face, tell the American people that they could not live with $135 billion in profits, that they could not give up their $2 billion; and, therefore, if they could only live with $135 billion, they wouldn't need to raise gas prices a dime--unless they are so greedy that $135 billion is not enough in profits that they need, out of each and every taxpayer's pocket in this country, another $2 billion to add to their profits. Yesterday morning I heard one of my colleagues on the floor ask why are we picking on the poor oil companies when everyone gets the same tax deductions. So I took out my 1040 tax form to look for myself, and I was looking, let's see, for intangible drilling costs. No, I don't see it in my 1040 form. Tertiary injectants, I don't see it in my 1040 form. So I guess not everyone gets the special tax deductions for drilling. There is a tax deduction Big Oil gets called domestic manufacturing deduction. When Congress was contemplating that provision, Big Oil, through their legion of lobbyists, managed to convince many on the other side of the aisle that drilling for oil was somehow manufacturing. When we think of manufacturing, we think about creating a product. I don't know about you, but being able to call drilling for oil manufacturing seems like a real special tax break to me. As I said yesterday in this Chamber, it is time to get back to reality, the type of reality middle-class families face in this country, the type of reality middle-class families face as they go to the pump, as they have to get to work, take their children to school, to doctor appointments, the type of reality small businesses face when they are trying to send their sales force across a State and have them traveling in a car to do so. It is time to tell middle-class families struggling to make ends meet that fairness means everyone pays their fair share when it comes to reducing the deficit and that it also means it is time to stop wasting taxpayer moneys on oil subsidies and use this money to invest in clean energy, in jobs, in lowering the deficit. It is time for us to repeal the Big Oil tax breaks. It is time for our colleagues on the other side to join us to end this corporate welfare for big oil companies, to create competition to help lower gas prices and to reduce the deficit rather than continue to sell snake oil to the American people to protect Big Oil profits. I have listened to some of the debate. I don't get it. I have seen average Americans who are struggling, and they say: Wait a minute, $24 billion of our money is going to the big five oil companies and they are making $137 billion? As a matter of fact, that is just 1 year. The $24 billion we want to eliminate and put into renewable energy fuels would create competition, will ultimately help drive down gas prices, to reduce the deficit significantly, instead of calling upon cuts to children, whether in their nutrition or cuts to children who are disabled. I only talked about $137 billion in 1 year. We want to cut $24 billion over the course of 10 years. Guess what they will make in 10 years--over $1 trillion in profits. I find it hard to fall for the crocodile tears that taking $24 billion over 10 years, a little over $2 billion a year, when they are going to make $1 trillion over a decade is somehow not enough, that leaves them with not enough profits--$24 billion from $1 trillion--and that because we take that $24 billion, gas prices are going to go up. All these subsidies have not made gas prices go down. As a matter of fact, as I pointed out yesterday, at a time when they were making $137 billion in profits, they were producing 4 percent less oil. Come on. It is time to give working families in this country a break. We can do that as we vote to end Big Oil subsidies. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 2204, which is my legislation to repeal Big Oil subsidies. This bill is pretty simple. We end wasteful subsidies to the big five oil companies, and we use those proceeds to invest in clean energy, in creating jobs, and reducing the deficit. I think the American people are sick and tired of paying ridiculously high gasoline prices at the pump and then paying Big Oil again with our collective taxpayer subsidies. I think that money is better spent keeping our economy going and developing alternatives to oil that will create competition in the marketplace and help to reduce gas prices. We are poised to waste $24 billion over the next 10 years subsidizing only five companies that are poised to make over $1 trillion in profits--not proceeds, in profits--over the same time frame. And as we all pay more at the pump, Big Oil rakes in more money. Exxon boasts in its Securities and Exchange Commission filings that for every $1 increase in the price of oil, their profits rise by $375 million. For every $1 the price of oil goes up, they boast in their filings that their profits--not proceeds, profits--rise by $375 million. The American driver's pain is Big Oil's profit. What is Big Oil doing with its profits? Well, the answer is not useful. As you can see in this chart, the profits from the big five oil companies were $137 billion in 2011. That is an impressive 75-percent increase from 2010. Did they use that extra money to produce more oil, as some of my colleagues here would suggest? No, they didn't. They took your money and actually in that time frame didn't produce a drop more of oil. As you can see, despite the fact that overall U.S. production is higher now than it has been in the last 8 years, last year these five companies actually produced 4 percent less oil. So it is fair to ask: If they did not invest to produce more oil, then what are they doing with this $137 billion in profits, this 75- percent increase in profits in 1 year? Well, they spent about $38 billion repurchasing their own stock to enrich themselves, and they spent nearly $70 million on campaign contributions and lobbying to protect their billions of dollars in subsidies. As you can see here, it was a pretty smart investment. For every $1 they spent in lobbying, they got about $30 in subsidies. One might say that is not a bad return on their investment. So instead of giving these subsidies to Big Oil so they can enrich themselves and seek to affect and control our political system, I think we could use some of those funds to reduce the deficit. I think we can all agree we need to reduce the deficit, but there seems to be some considerable disagreement on how to do it. Last week, those on the other side of the aisle came out with what I call the Romney-Ryan budget, their proposed budget, and it would drastically cut funding for wounded soldiers, for seniors, for students, but it leaves in place these wasteful subsidies even though we have this enormous profit. Through some political sleight of hand they defy reality when they tell us with a straight face that we have to make tough choices, and then they cut funding for wounded soldiers, for seniors, and students but won't touch the subsidies for Big Oil. Somehow, in this Republican parallel universe, logic is turned on its head and we are asked to believe that fairness doesn't mean treating everyone equally. It means more for the very rich and more for Big Oil. But we don't live in a parallel universe. We live in the real world. Fairness means that working families should not be the only people sacrificing. And we can't lower the deficit while we give taxpayer dollars away to Big Oil companies that are making record profits and not producing more energy. It is amazing to me that anybody can come and make that argument. What makes these subsidies even more ridiculous is that when we pressed those who have supported the industry or those who have come from the industry, everyone seems to admit that oil companies do not need these subsidies. Former President Bush, who was very good with the oil industry, said that oil companies do not need incentives to drill when oil hits $55 per barrel. Those were his remarks. Now it is over $100 a barrel. So if they didn't need incentives to drill when it was at $55 a barrel, how does anybody come to the floor and suggest they need incentives now when it is over $100 a barrel? Then the former CEO of Shell said that subsidies are not necessary for drilling and production. That is pretty much probably clear when they are making $137 billion in that 1 year, and where they will make $1 trillion over the next decade. Of the $24 billion we save by cutting these subsidies to the big five, we can use over $11 billion to extend a series of critically important expiring energy tax incentives. These clean energy technologies will cut demand for oil, they will drive economic growth, will create jobs, and will allow America to lead the global clean energy market. Despite Big Oil's rhetoric--let me tell you, it is amazing. I see they are spending a lot of that money, all this money here not making oil, but they are spending it on television to scare everybody and to say that, Oh, if you take any of those subsidies away, somehow prices will rise. Well, we know that, despite Big Oil's rhetoric, cutting subsidies will not raise gas prices. We know that. Why? Because experts from the U.S. States Treasury Department, from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, and from oil executive testimony that came before the Finance Committee that I sit on, made it very clear that is not the case. But more than that, some of the most important tax policies that will be extended in this bill will help drive down gas prices by creating competition for oil as a transportation fuel. These incentives include the one for biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, also incentives for natural gas and propane used as a transportation fuel. There are also incentives for alternative fuel refueling infrastructure and for electric vehicles. Taken together, these incentives are laying the groundwork for a truly competitive market where we are not beholden to one type of fuel to power our vehicles. But the good news doesn't even end there. There are also tax incentives that will help the United States compete for the renewable industries of the 21st century. For example, the section 1603 Treasury grant program has helped finance renewable energy projects around the country. It has leveraged over $35 billion in investments to create tens of thousands of energy projects. In my home State of New Jersey alone, 750 grants were given for solar, geothermal, landfill gas, hydropower, wind projects. These projects are worth over $350 million, creating many jobs, and will help New Jersey on energy bills for decades to come. Another important renewable energy incentive is the production tax credit for wind. Since the last reauthorization of PTC in 2005, wind power capacity has more than tripled. But if that production tax credit is not extended, it is estimated that annual installations of wind will drop by more than 75 percent and wind-supported jobs will decline from 78,000 in 2012 to 41,000 in 2013, and total wind energy investment will drop by nearly two-thirds. So it is time to get back to reality. It is time to tell middle-class families struggling to make ends meet that fairness means everyone--everyone--pays their fair share when it comes to reduce the deficit. It means ending ridiculous taxpayer giveaways to the five most profitable companies in the world. I cannot understand how the oil industry is spending money on radio and other forms of media to say, Oh, my God, If you take any of our subsidies away--and these aren't even all of the subsidies they have. These are just a couple, the $24 billion over 10 years. They are going to make $1 trillion over 10 years. So you are telling the American people that when you are going to make $1 trillion over 10 years, we collectively as taxpayers must still give you $24 billion or else somehow $1 trillion minus $24 billion wouldn't be enough for you in profits that you would gouge the consumer at the pump? I don't think the American people are going to accept that. It is time for us to stop wasting taxpayer money on oil subsidies and use this money to invest in clean energy, in jobs, in lowering the deficit. All of that can be done on this opportunity when we vote in favor of moving forward on S. 2204, the Repeal Big Oil Subsidies Act. It is time to put the interests of the American people ahead of the money interests in this Congress with this vote, and then moving forward. I hear my colleagues may very well vote for us today to have a debate--which I more than welcome. I am looking forward to it. I have got a lot more to talk about in this regard--but then won't vote at the end to repeal the subsidies. So I guess what we will hear is a chorus of voices that will speak about defending Big Oil and defending its $24 billion in subsidies, and justifying that even with $1 trillion in profits they still need to get their hands into the pockets of taxpayers and take another $24 billion in addition to what they get at the pump so they can make even more profits. And, somehow, there will be a justification to that. I hope the American people will be watching, because that type of justification is beyond comprehension. I know it as I hear it from families in New Jersey. I hope we will have this debate. I hope we will be able to move forward. I want to be able to talk about how I hear my colleagues talk about drill, baby, drill. Well, I was incredulously amazed that actually we are now exporting from the United States millions of gallons of gasoline and refined petroleum products every day to other places in the world. It seems to me that if we drill it here, particularly on Federal lands and water, we should keep it here because obviously the bigger the supply we have, the more we are going to create downward pressure on prices. But I think most Americans would be pretty shocked to know that we are actually exporting. They think everything that is created here is kept here, which is why I found it interesting--I keep hearing my colleagues talk about the Keystone Pipeline. Well, there are those of us who said, You know what. If you will make it with materials made in America so that we can ensure American jobs are created with it, and if you keep the energy here and not export it someplace around the world, then there are a lot of people who would say: Yes, along with the right environmental safeguards, let's consider it. But overwhelmingly that was voted against. So so much for American jobs. So much for securing American energy. Because what is the use of a pipeline to bring an energy source and then have it sent to other places in the world? That doesn't help us. I am a big believer if we are going to drill it on Federal lands and water, we are going to keep it here, we are going to help us lower prices. I am a big believer if we are going to do something such as Keystone, let's make sure it is made with American materials and made with American hands and, at the end of the day, the energy is kept in the United States. I am a big believer in saying at a time of shared sacrifice, it is wrong to ask working families to do more and yet give the oil companies $24 billion, when they will make $1 trillion in profits. It is wrong to say to a wounded soldier we are going to cut programs in his long-term health care that will ultimately help him get back on his feet, but we are going to give Big Oil $24 billion. It is wrong to tell students who are trying to determine their future and get access to that college education and who will encumber themselves with significant costs along the way, no, they pay more, but we are going to give Big Oil $24 billion. It is wrong to tell seniors we are going to end Medicare as we know it, but we are going to give Big Oil $24 billion. That is beyond my comprehension. I look forward to the debate because it is going to be very interesting to see some of the remarkable ways in which people are going to have to explain that. I don't think it is explainable to the American people. Tonight's vote starts a process: Which side are we on? Are we on the side of the American taxpayer or are we on the side of Big Oil? I hope an overwhelming number of our colleagues will, starting tonight and moving toward final passage, say we are on the side of the American taxpayer and the American consumer. If we do that, we can create some justice in this process. We can help create competition in the energy market to drive down prices, we can reduce the deficit by another $12 billion, and we can be a lot more fair to working families in this country. That is the choice before us. That is a choice the Senate will make in a positive way. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to honor the service of one of our most distinguished and long-serving colleagues, the tireless, sometimes relentless, and often spirited senior Senator from Maryland, Ms. Barbara Mikulski. To say she is a trailblazer for women in politics is an understatement. She has blazed a bold trial not just for women in politics but for all women in every endeavor. She is a fighter, an advocate, someone whom one is hopefully on the same side with because she is a formidable opponent when one is on the opposite side. She is a role model for leadership and getting things done. Her impressive list of accomplishments is far too long to recite in a few minutes or even a few hours. It would not adequately do justice to her incredible service to Maryland and the people of this Nation. Senator Mikulski has dedicated her career to serving Marylanders and has dedicated her life to public service. She began as a social worker in the neighborhoods of Baltimore, working every day on the street helping at-risk children find their way and giving seniors the help they needed. She was not, and is not, a bleeding heart, but there is no one who has a fuller heart, a more open heart to the deepest needs of the least powerful among us than Senator Mikulski. She is someone one wants on their side. Senator Mikulski came to public service with what I like to call the long view. She can see beyond herself to the needs of society as a whole, and she has fought for those needs and won on far more occasions than she has lost. When she first ran for public office in 1971, I know she had in her heart the deep and abiding memories of those kids and seniors she met in Baltimore when she began her career. I know she carries those memories with her to this day. To this day, she has never forgotten the people of Maryland who need her the most and have had the wisdom to elect her time and time again. Her political career has taken her from the Baltimore City Council to the House of Representatives and to this Chamber, where she has honorably served for the past 26 years. For 7 years, I have had the opportunity to work with her in this Chamber, and there has been no stronger, more knowledgeable, more committed colleague on this side of the aisle. She is an example for all her colleagues, determined to work across the aisle when possible and ready to fight for her beliefs when necessary. She was the first woman elected to statewide office in Maryland, the first Democratic woman elected to the Senate in her own right, the first woman to serve in both Houses of Congress, and the longest serving female Member of the Senate. As we all know, this past Saturday, Senator Mikulski became the longest serving woman in the history of the Congress, serving more than 35 years in the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is only fitting that she achieve this milestone during Women's History Month because she has not only paved the way for women in politics but she has helped pave the way for women everywhere. I had the opportunity to work with Senator Mikulski during the long and difficult debate and negotiations on health care reform. Her work was instrumental in ensuring that women have access to the comprehensive health care they are now guaranteed under the law. During that debate, no one's voice was clearer, no one's voice was stronger, no one was more convincing than she in the fight for a woman's right to comprehensive health care coverage. She fought for mandatory insurance coverage of essential services, such as mammograms and maternity care, services that many insurance companies refused to cover. She fought to end gender discrimination by insurance companies. As a result of the affordable care act and, in large measure because of Senator Mikulski's tireless efforts on behalf of women, being a woman is no longer a preexisting condition, as insurance companies used to say, that can be discriminated against. Those insurance companies that routinely denied coverage of basic women's health services--essential services--are now required to cover those services under the comprehensive women's health services provision of the law. Whenever there is a need in the Chamber for a strong voice for women, whenever there is a need for an advocate to stand for the powerless against the powerful, whenever there is a child who needs a friend or a senior citizen who needs a hand, Barbara Mikulski is there. I believe there are many times she comes to this floor remembering, as she said, her days back in Baltimore, and she is right there--an advocate's advocate--fighting for those children and seniors she met along the way. The rest of us are better off because she comes here with a full heart, ready to do what is right, not just what is politically expedient. Her bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, was signed into law by President Obama just days after his inauguration. I was proud to work with her on that bill and on so many other efforts as well that make a difference in the lives of average Americans. Finally, Senator Mikulski has been a tireless advocate for something that is near and dear to my own heart--for those who suffer from Alzheimer's and their families. As the son of a mother who battled Alzheimer's for 18 years and lost her life to it, I understand firsthand the unique challenges of providing long-term care for a loved one. Senator Mikulski has come to this floor on countless occasions advocating for increased research, education, and programs for individuals with Alzheimer's. She has found support from her colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It is estimated that 5.4 million Americans are currently living with Alzheimer's and millions more have been touched in some way by this debilitating disease. I thank the Senator from the bottom of my heart for her passion for helping those who suffer from this disease. I look forward to continuing to work with her on this issue until we find a cure for Alzheimer's. The bottom line: Barbara Mikulski is a deeply committed public servant. The State of Maryland has rightly recognized her invaluable service for many years. Because of her efforts, those Maryland families know their interests are protected and their voices are heard. It has been an honor to serve with her. All of us in this Chamber can only hope to serve our States with the same conviction, selflessness, and pride as Senator Mikulski has throughout her 35 years of service to the State of Maryland. I am reminded of what Mother Teresa said when she got the Congressional Gold Medal: It is not the awards and recognition that one receives in life that matters; it is how one has lived their life that matters. In that respect, Barbara Mikulski has lived an extraordinary life. We thank her for what she has done and not just for the people of Maryland but for all the people of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk about an amendment I will offer later today--the NAT GAS Act. What if I were to tell the Chair there was a transportation fuel that is over $1.50 cheaper than gasoline and roughly $2 cheaper than diesel? What if I were to tell the Chair this fuel is also cleaner and has fewer smog-causing pollutants than diesel and, if wisely used, could reduce the cases of asthma and lung cancer? What if I were to tell the Chair this fuel is abundant right here in America, so much so that we may soon become one of the world's largest exporters of this fuel? I think I might hear him say: Sign me up. What is the name of this wonderful fuel? The name of this fuel is natural gas. We can see in this chart that as gasoline prices are already skyrocketing toward $4 per gallon, the price of compressed natural gas is barely above $2 equivalent. Natural gas prices used to follow oil prices, but now they are on their own stable, inexpensive price levels. The same holds true for liquefied natural gas. As we can see, gas prices here, liquefied natural gas down here. Diesel prices now exceed $4, and LNG is still hovering around a $2 equivalent Why aren't we all driving around in natural gas vehicles, paying a little over $2 per gallon equivalent? The reason this inexpensive fuel is not widely used is because there are not many natural gas vehicles in the United States, and there are also very few places to refuel. Currently, there are nearly 14 million natural gas vehicles in the world but only about 117,000 in the United States. The car and truck manufacturers want to see that the natural gas utilities will invest in refueling infrastructure, and the natural gas utilities want to see more natural gas vehicles on the road. It is a classic chicken-or-the- egg problem. What both the manufacturers and the utilities need to see is a strong stance by the Federal Government to jump-start this market. The NAT GAS Act will do that by jump-starting the industry and, in 10 years, add over 700,000 natural gas vehicles to our roads and help incentivize the installation of refueling stations around the Nation. In addition, it is estimated the bill will displace over 20 billion gallons of petroleum fuel and create over 1 million direct and indirect jobs. I know what some of my colleagues are thinking: Isn't this just another handout to energy companies? The answer to that question is a resounding no. This legislation is fully paid for with a small fee on natural gas used as a vehicle fuel. As I mentioned earlier, natural gas is over $1.50 cheaper than gasoline or diesel. This amendment would use some of those savings to help overcome the market barriers for natural gas vehicles and supporting infrastructure. The fee starts at 2.5 cents per gallon equivalent in 2014 and grows to be 12.5 cents in 2020 and 2021. In 2022, the fee is eliminated. In this way, we can still keep natural gas less expensive than other fuel options, while investing in infrastructure to help grow the market, make natural gas vehicles cheaper, and put the industry on a path to flourish on its own. While the legislation itself is designed to provide a temporary boost, it is important to note that the natural gas supplies we are sitting on are enormous. North America's natural gas resource discoveries have more than doubled over the past 4 years, meaning that at the current rate of consumption, this resource could supply current consumption for over 100 years. If we do not use our natural gas here in America, it will be exported abroad, benefiting consumers in other countries, while American families will continue to pay higher prices at the pump. Already, one U.S. facility has received a permit to export natural gas and four more are following suit. We can use that natural gas in the United States to displace oil. We are sending trillions of dollars abroad to countries that are despotic and wish us ill or we can export it so other countries can gain the benefits. I say we use it here. The NAT GAS Act will also increase our Nation's energy independence and make us less dependent on regimes that do not have America's interests at heart. This is especially important at a time when Iran is attempting to develop a nuclear weapon and is threatening to block oil supplies. Natural gas is not the only solution, but it can be an important part of a solution that will allow us to ignore future OPEC threats because we have alternatives to oil. But until we get to that point, we need to do all we can to supplant oil. It is also important to note that natural gas vehicles are an important way to improve air quality. According to the EPA, natural gas as a vehicle fuel has very low emissions of ozone-forming hydrocarbons, toxins, and carbon monoxide. By producing less of these harmful emissions, natural gas vehicles can reduce smog in our cities and lower incidents of asthma and lung cancer. These health benefits are one reason why Los Angeles County has made almost its entire fleet of 2,200 buses run on compressed natural gas. Let me talk about one issue some are concerned about. While natural gas vehicles can have important environmental and health benefits, we must also keep in mind that natural gas is still a fossil fuel and there are serious risks that need to be weighed when it is extracted. For that reason, I think we need to do better to regulate a practice called fracking. I also believe these risks mean that certain environmentally sensitive areas remain off-limits for fracking, and I will continue to work with my colleagues, such as Senator Casey, to better formulate Federal rules to protect our drinking water from possible contamination. At the same time, we should not kid ourselves. This amendment will not cause natural gas vehicles to be the main driver of natural gas demand, and fracking is used to extract oil as well. So voting against this amendment will not reduce the amount of fracking. We cannot let this opportunity to use this cheaper fuel to increase our energy security, improve our air quality, and relieve the pain at the pump slip by. It is time to put in place the temporary, fully paid for incentives of the NAT GAS Act to allow the natural gas vehicle industry to flourish. Remember, if one votes against this amendment, they cannot go home and tell their constituents that they have done everything they can to reduce gas prices. I hope our colleagues will join us when the time comes to offer the amendment on the floor and to support it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, gas prices are skyrocketing. Meanwhile, natural gas is $1.50 cheaper than gasoline. We have a 100-plus-year supply of natural gas we can draw from. The only thing that is in our way is we have so few natural gas vehicles and refueling stations on the road. The NAT GAS Act gives manufacturers and utilities the assurance that the Federal Government will help jump-start this market, adding over 700,000 natural gas vehicles to our roads and displacing over 20 billion gallons of petroleum fuel, mostly from our bus and truck fleets. It does all this while being paid for by a surcharge on the users who will benefit from the amendment. We know there are some industries that have concern. Instead of exporting natural gas, which we are about to do in this country, let's use it in America so we can give our drivers an option. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bipartisan amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask to set aside the pending amendment and offer Menendez-Burr amendment No. 1782, which is at the desk.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 13, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 13, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 13, 2012, at 10:30 a.m., in room SD 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Freedom of Information Act: Safeguarding Critical Infrastructure Information and the Public's Right to Know.''

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 13, 2012, at 10 a.m.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to mourn the passing of a great man, a great leader, a proud New Jerseyan, and my friend, Congressman Donald Payne. I am saddened beyond words by his death. Personally, I have lost a close friend and the people of New Jersey have lost a tireless voice, a true advocate who spent a lifetime fighting for fairness, for justice, and for the little guy. Wherever there was injustice, intolerance or suffering, wherever someone was downtrodden by the more powerful and didn't have a fair chance, Donald Payne was there intervening. From his earliest days in Congress, he focused on New Jersey, but his influence was profoundly felt around the world. As a senior member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights, Donald Payne followed his passion to restore democracy and human rights in places where the suffering was greatest. If we asked him what his greatest accomplishment was--and there were many--he would tell us it was working on global health issues, cofounding the Malaria Caucus that he launched with First Lady Laura Bush, securing $50 million to fight drug-resistant tuberculosis, and $50 billion for HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria that literally--and I have heard these stories--literally saved whole villages in Sub-Saharan Africa, because that is the kind of man he was. He built a reputation as chairman of the Africa and Global Health Subcommittee for his integrated approach to Africa, combining health, development, economic growth, and improvements for a better quality of life. He once said: Malaria, TB and HIV/AIDS are diseases that are caused, as well, by poverty, and until we really start dealing with poverty elimination, we are going to continue to have these diseases that follow poverty. We cannot be serious about development [assistance or engagement] without effectively dealing with these three major diseases. He did everything he could to live up to those words. He could not ignore the fact, as he pointed out, that: . . . more than 29 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa live with HIV/AIDS . . . that malaria and HIV together kill more than 4 million people each year . . . that 90 percent of them are in Africa . . . that, for millions around the world--particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, where the global malaria burden is heaviest--the disease is a daily reality, an enduring epidemic that kills millions and impedes the progress of entire nations . . . He believed in putting an end to the scourge of these diseases and helped broaden our focus in dealing with poverty, disease, and development as a single issue and always said: ``These are global problems that warrant a global collaborative approach . . . '' On World Malaria Day in 2010 he said: ``This is not an endeavor for which we lack the knowledge, skills or resources to win . . . '' Donald Payne was determined to win. When he put his mind to it, he could do anything. He believed he could change the world one village at a time, and he did because that is the kind of man he was. I served with Donald Payne in the House. I got to know him. I grew to respect his deep and passionate commitment to the institution and the people he served, his belief in the process as it was intended by our Founders, to bring all of us together, no matter what our politics or persuasion, to make a difference for his district, for New Jersey, for the Nation, and for people around the world. Donald considered himself hugely lucky to serve. He saw it as a honor and he made a difference because that too is the kind of man he was. Donald Payne was a Congressman's Congressman. To me he was what public service is all about. He embodied the concept of Congress, the assembly of a few good people committed to the betterment of all of us. In his passion for these issues, he worked in common cause to bring together people who were often from totally different ends of the political spectrum. Many of us would refer to him as ``the great convener'' because he had the unique ability to bring together people of disparate beliefs on behalf of these issues he believed in and felt so passionately about. Don's career and accomplishments were exemplary. Before he was elected to Congress, he was an educator in the Newark and Passaic Public School Districts. He was the former national president of the YMCA. He became New Jersey's first African-American Congressman, winning election overwhelmingly in 1988, and was serving, at the time of his death, his 12th consecutive term--this year. He was a senior member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and he was a steadfast vocal advocate for early childhood education. He was instrumental in making K 12 education more successful and for making college more affordable. He worked to cut in half the cost of the Stafford loans and increased the Pell grants. He was a tireless champion of working families, always an advocate of increasing the minimum wage, always enforcing workforce protections, because that is the kind of man Donald Payne was. Through his life and service, he was a man of the people, and the people of New Jersey will never forget what he did for Essex, Hudson, and Union Counties or for the State as a whole. In the end Congressman Payne will be remembered for the dignity and honor he brought to this institution and the Congress and the district he represented, always putting the interests of the community, New Jersey, and humanity first, because that is the kind of man he was. Donald made New Jersey proud, and he will forever be missed by all of us who were touched by his warmth and compassion. I join my colleagues in mourning the passing of a great man. I visited Congressman Payne on Saturday at the hospital and talked to his brother, who said leaders throughout the world had been calling to inquire as to how he was. Leaders throughout the world mourn his passing. They knew how he touched the lives of their citizens. Our thoughts and prayers go out to Donald's beloved children and his entire family and all of those who were touched by him throughout his life. He will be missed and we certainly hope God will bless this great man who gave back much more than he ever received in life. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Blunt amendment which simply goes way too far. The President has struck the right balance in his decision to address religious institutions' concerns when it comes to providing women's health services, but this amendment gives all employers shockingly broad discretion to make moral decisions for their employees, fundamental decisions about some of the most personal issues an individual faces--the health care needs of themselves and their families, a woman's decision about contraception and family planning, decisions about whether their child gets a blood transfusion for deadly disease, decisions regarding the use of prescription drugs, decisions on who to treat and how to treat them-- based entirely on an employer's moral views, not an individual's moral beliefs. The bottom line is health services should not be provided at the moral discretion of an employer but on the medical determination of the employee and their doctor. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, 1.7 million New Jerseyans, almost 500,000 children, over 600,000 women and over 600,000 men benefit from the expanded preventive service coverage from their private insurers that we created under the law: screenings for colon cancer, mammograms for women, well child visits, flu shots, a host of other routine procedures. All these could be taken away under this proposed amendment should their employer determine it is against their personal beliefs or convictions. Every day, millions of Americans who are worried about a health condition go to see their doctor. Millions of women go for necessary screening and access to legal medical procedures. Their doctor evaluates their condition and recommends a course of treatment and that can range from simple preventive measures, such as exercise and diet, to a prescription drug regimen, to major surgery. The last thing a woman or her doctor should have to concern themselves with is whether their employer will deem their medical treatment to be immoral based on their employer's personal beliefs, regardless of their own beliefs or needs. The last thing they need is to be denied coverage by an employer who would be allowed, under this amendment, to effectively practice a form of morality medicine that has nothing to do with accepted medical science or the affected individual's personal beliefs. Under the language of this amendment, that is exactly what would happen. It would allow employers simply to deny coverage based on a particular religious doctrine or moral belief, regardless of the science, medical evidence or the legality of the prescribed treatment. Put simply, we expect our health insurers, no matter where we work, no matter what our faith, to cover basic benefits and necessary medical procedures recommended by our doctor and then we as individuals should have the right to decide which of those benefits we use based on our own personal beliefs, our medical diagnosis, and our treatment options. Just because one person makes one decision or holds one belief doesn't mean someone else will do the same. That is what freedom is all about. The arbitrary denial of coverage based on anything other than good science and rational medical therapy was the driving force behind the need for health care reforms that ensured that if one paid their premiums, they would be covered, freeing families from having to choose between putting food on the table, paying their mortgage or using their savings to pay for medical treatment because an insurer, based on their own rules, refused to cover them. With this amendment, we are turning back the clock and allowing the arbitrary denial of coverage based on someone else's sense of morality. That is not what America is about. It is not what freedom of religion is about. In a system predicated on employer-based health insurance coverage, in which workers often forgo other benefits such as wage increases in exchange for coverage, it is vitally important to ensure families can count on their coverage to provide the treatments and benefits they need. We can continue doing so, as we have for many years, while respecting people's personal moral beliefs. Supporters of this amendment claim it is about protecting religious freedom. They are wrong. Supporters of this amendment claim that recent regulations guaranteeing a woman's access to preventive health care services is a governmental overreach. They are wrong. What supporters of this amendment are actually trying to accomplish has nothing to do with either of those issues. It has to do with trying to dismantle heath care reform to score cheap political points and throw America's mothers, daughters, and sisters under the bus in the process. This amendment is not about religious freedom. The President rightly addressed that concern with a recent compromise he announced for religious institutions. No, it is about allowing morality-based medicine to deny coverage for neonatal care for unwed women, to deny access to lifesaving vaccines for children, to refuse to cover medications for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases or even deny coverage for diabetes or hypertension because of an unhealthy lifestyle. The scope of this amendment is unlimited. If it were truly about religious freedom or about contraceptives, then why have so many nationally respected organizations that have nothing to do with birth control, reproductive issues or religion, such as the Easter Seals, the March of Dimes, the Spina Bifida Association, come out in such strong opposition? The answer is simple, because the amendment isn't about birth control and it isn't about religious freedom. The amendment is about fundamentally undermining our system of patient protections, especially for women, and leads us backward to a time when insurance companies and employers could play life-or-death games with insurance coverage. Supporters of this amendment will stop at nothing to undermine the progress made thanks to health care reform, progress that says insurance companies can no longer deny coverage because of a preexisting condition, can no longer impose arbitrary caps on the coverage you can receive or cancel a policy because of a diagnosis they deem too expensive to cover. In my view, it is shameful that they are using women's health and access to vital preventive services as a scapegoat for a larger anti-health agenda. Any attempt to say otherwise is wrong. Let me close by saying to allow any employer the ability to deny any service for any reason is doing a disservice to the people we represent. We would be turning the Constitution on its head to favor a morality-based medical decision over good science and over the relationship between a patient and their doctor. This is an incredibly overreaching amendment with radical consequences, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it and preserve the progress we made on trying to level the playing field for workers and patients in this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of Whitney Elizabeth Houston who passed away on Saturday, February 11, 2012. Whitney Houston was a shining star born in the great city of Newark, NJ, whose life will be celebrated locally and globally by her family and friends. Whitney followed in the footsteps of her mother and began performing as a soloist in the junior gospel choir at the New Hope Baptist Church in Newark, where her first solo performance was ``Guide Me, O Thou Great Jehovah.'' Later she became the first woman of color to grace the cover of Seventeen Magazine and was also featured in layouts in the pages of Glamour, Cosmopolitan, and Young Miss. In 1983, Clive Davis, head of Arista Records, helped start Whitney's recording career, and she went on to begin her meteoric rise to fame, with Rolling Stone praising her as ``one of the most exciting new voices in years,'' while the New York Times called her debut, self- titled album ``an impressive, musically conservative showcase for an exceptional vocal talent.'' In 1986, a year after the initial release of her debut album, Whitney topped the Billboard 200 albums chart and stayed there for 14 weeks with the final single, ``Greatest Love of All,'' which became one of her biggest hits. The album became the first album by a female to yield three No. 1 hits. Whitney Houston is recognized as the most awarded female musical artist of all time, having received 2 Emmy Awards, 6 Grammy Awards, 22 American Music Awards, and 30 Billboard Music Awards. She also holds numerous other distinctions, including the best selling single by a female artist in music history, first solo act to sell more than 1,000,000 copies of an album within a 1-week period, the only artist to chart 7 consecutive No. 1 Billboard Hot 100 hits. She also had the best selling movie soundtrack of all time, ``The Bodyguard.'' Beyond her professional career, Whitney Houston demonstrated her commitment to humanitarianism as a supporter of Nelson Mandela and the antiapartheid movement, refusing to do business with agencies that did business with the then-apartheid South Africa. She also founded the Whitney Houston Foundation for Children, an organization that cared for the homeless and children with cancer and AIDS. And during the 2009 2010 academic school year, the Whitney E. Houston Academy of Creative and Performing Arts became a thriving, arts-focused institution that provides expanded educational opportunities for the student body and surrounding community. There are many reasons why America will never forget Whitney Houston, but one of the most memorable was her performance of ``The Star Spangled Banner'' at Super Bowl XXV on January 27, 1991. That performance was so powerful that it was later released as a commercial single and the video of her performance reached the top 20 on the Billboard Hot 100, making her the only person to turn the national anthem into a pop hit of that magnitude. Mr. President, it is with immense sadness but great honor that I recognize, commend, and celebrate the life and legacy of Whitney E. Houston, a star of New Jersey who went on to shine bright across the globe. I extend my deepest condolences to Whitney's mother Cissy Houston, daughter Bobbi Kristina, her other family members and friends, and to her millions of fans.