Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in honoring our friend and colleague who is often regarded as the dean of the women in the Senate, Barbara Mikulski.

Earlier this week Senator Mikulski added to her already long list of accomplishments the distinction of being the longest serving female Member of Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Senator Mikulski's life is a story of the American dream. Raised in a working-class immigrant family in the east Baltimore neighborhood of Highlandtown, Senator Mikulski learned at a young age about the struggles of working families and ethnic Americans and the value of paying it forward.

She helped at her father's grocery store, which opened early in the morning so that steelworkers could buy lunch before their morning shift. She delivered food to seniors and families when parts of her neighborhood were set on fire after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. At one point she even rode on the top of a tank to deliver the groceries.

Senator Mikulski's roots helped shape her role today as a mentor, fighter, and true public servant. She worked as a social worker for Catholic Charities, helping at-risk children and counseling seniors on Medicare. She had her start in politics as a community organizer and social worker.

In 1970--one side of Barbara Mikulski her colleagues have certainly seen is her dogged determination--she organized Marylanders to stop a 16-lane highway project that would have threatened Fells Point and another neighborhood in Baltimore. She got the job done. Many people say that work helped to save Fells Point and the Inner Harbor, two of the showcase areas in the great city of Baltimore. She gave a speech at Catholic University to a Catholic conference on the ethnic American. It caught the attention not only of people in Baltimore but far beyond its reach as she talked about her family story and the story of millions just like her.

One year later, she ran for and won a seat on the Baltimore City Council--the first step in her now 41-year career in public service.

Over the course of the Senate's 223-year history, there have only been 38 female Members; the first, Rebecca Latimer Felton, of Georgia, was appointed for political reasons to fill a vacancy, and she served only a single day in 1922.

Senator Mikulski has so many firsts in her story of public service. She was the first woman elected to the Senate in her own right--the first--and not because of a husband or father or someone who served before her in higher office. She was the first woman Democrat to serve in both Chambers of Congress--the first. Last year, she was inducted into the National Women's Hall of Fame for her trailblazing political career, including, with this recognition today, becoming the longest serving woman Senator in the history of our Nation.

Given her years of experience, it is no wonder other Members of Congress have turned to her for guidance, men and women alike.

I can recall so many meetings of our Democratic caucus when, after a long debate involving many people saying many things, Barbara Mikulski would stand and, in a few terse words, get it right. At the end of the day people would say: That is what we ought to do. She has this insight based on her life experience and her ability to try to peel through the layers of the political onion and get to the heart of the issue.

Following the election of a number of esteemed women into the Senate, a lot of reporters deemed 1992 as ``The Year of the Woman.'' Senator Mikulski's response was so typical and so right. This is what she said:

Calling 1992 the ``year of the woman'' makes it sound like

the ``year of the caribou,'' or the ``year of asparagus.'' We

are not a fad, a fancy, or a year.

That was typical Barbara. Senator Mikulski rises above and beyond all that. From her first days in the Senate in 1987, she has fought an uphill battle to address the most important issues of national importance.

First and foremost for her is her family, next is her great State of Maryland. She is a fearless advocate, and I know the Presiding Officer knows that better than most as her colleague from that great State.

She has supported educational initiatives, veterans causes, interstate commerce, access to health care and women's health and fair pay.

The Chair knows the answer to this question, but some of those listening to the debate might not. What was the first bill that the newly elected President Barack Obama signed in the White House with a public ceremony? It was a bill Barbara Mikulski pushed hard for, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, so women going to work all over the United States--not just in the Senate--would get a fair shake when it comes to the compensation for the jobs they did. It was President Obama's first bill. When he signed it, the very first pen he handed over to Senator Barbara Mikulski. I was there and I saw it.

Championed by Senator Mikulski, the long-awaited and much needed bill clarifies time limits for workers to file unemployment discrimination lawsuits, making it easier for people to get the pay they deserve regardless of race, age or gender.

I wish to start here--but I don't know where I would end--to talk about the important issues she has worked for. Let me talk about health care for a minute. When we set out to pass this historic affordable health care act, Barbara was assigned the job to make sure it connected with the families and workers across America in a very real way, to make sure that at the end of the day we weren't talking to ourselves or engaged in political gibberish but passing a law that could literally change a life for the better. She led that effort and made invaluable contributions to the substance of that bill.

We knew those provisions would be important and that they would work because we knew where Barbara Mikulski came from and we knew where her political heart resides. While it is a milestone to celebrate Senator Mikulski's distinction as the longest serving woman in the Congress, there is a much greater cause for celebration; Senator Mikulski's decades of service to this Nation is an admirable feat for any man or woman.

I extend my congratulations to my colleague and friend Senator Mikulski for this milestone. Thank you for what you have done for the Senate, for the State of Maryland, and for our great Nation.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, there are several of my colleagues here who are continuing their tributes to Senator Mikulski. I have a statement that was scheduled at 5 p.m. that will take all of 10 minutes, and then I will yield the floor at that point. I don't know if Members who are on the floor want to establish a queue of who will follow, but if anyone wants to make that unanimous consent request, I see that Senator Carper and Senator Cantwell are here on this side, Senator Coats is on the other side. I don't know if Senator Sessions is planning to speak after I have spoken on a substantive matter beyond the UC request.

Mr. President, I am going to give a statement and make a UC request that I planned at 5 p.m. And if I could suggest I be followed by Senator Sessions, and then Senator Carper, Senator Coats-- --

Mr. President, I wish to make an admission. I have spoken about Senator Mikulski earlier and this is a different issue. I suggest after Senator Sessions that Senator Carper and Senator Cantwell follow. I ask unanimous consent that the Senators be recognized in the order I have noted.

That is what I was about to ask the Chair, to have permission that my statement not related to Senator Mikulski be placed in a separate part of the Record.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following morning business on Thursday, March 22, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 3606; that the time until 12:30 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that at 12:30 p.m., the postcloture time be considered expired and the Senate proceed to votes on the following: Reed No. 1931, Merkley No. 1844, as amended, if amended, and passage of H.R. 3606, as amended, if amended; that there be 2 minutes, equally divided in the usual form in between the votes; that upon disposition of H.R. 3606, the Senate then proceed to the consideration of the House message to accompany S. 2038, the STOCK Act; that there be 4 minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual form prior to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House message to accompany S. 2038; that if cloture is invoked on the motion to concur, that all postcloture time be yielded back, the motion to concur with an amendment be withdrawn, and the motion to concur be agreed to; that the motions to reconsider relative to the above items be considered made and laid upon the table; and that all after the first vote be 10-minute votes.

Mr. President, by this time next week, the Supreme Court will have finished hearing oral arguments in the case challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. How important is this Supreme Court case on health care reform? Well, health care is such an important issue that Congress spent 1 year drafting and debating a bill that the Court is going to consider next week.

Health care has been a critical issue for so long in our country that in the last century, nine different Presidents have spent time, energy, and political capital fighting for reform. It is so important that the Supreme Court reserved 6 hours for oral argument over the course of 3 days to consider the act's constitutionality. The last time the Court dedicated that kind of time to any one case was in 1966--if I am not mistaken, that was 46 years ago--when it considered Miranda v. Arizona. Not even the health care case is important enough for the Supreme Court to justify breaking its antiquated tradition of allowing cameras to televise the proceedings, so the American people are not going to have a chance to see and hear these historic arguments for themselves as they take place.

I cannot predict the outcome of the case, but I can tell you what to expect just outside the doors of the Supreme Court. It is a scene we have seen over and over again for decades. Thousands will gather outside the Court. Many are going to camp overnight, sleeping on the sidewalk in the hopes of getting about 1 of 200 seats available to the public. The vast majority of those wanting to see the Supreme Court argument on one of the most important cases of our time will be told: No, you are not allowed to come inside the Court. We don't have room for you. In a democratic society that values transparency and participation, there cannot be any valid justification for such a powerful element of government to operate largely outside the view of the American people.

For too long the American people have been prevented from observing open sessions of the Supreme Court. Except for the privileged few, the VIPs, the members of the Supreme Court bar or the press, the most powerful Court in our land--some might argue in the world--is inaccessible to the public and shrouded in mystery.

I am pleased to stand in the Judiciary Committee with Senator Grassley, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, asking that the Senate pass our bipartisan bill that would require televising open Supreme Court proceedings. With the benefit of modern technology, the Supreme Court proceedings can be televised using unobtrusive cameras and the Court's existing audio recording capability. Our bill respects the constitutional rights of the parties before the Court and respects the discretion of the Justices.

The Court can decline to televise any proceeding where the Justices determine by a majority vote that doing so would violate due process rights of one or more parties.

In our view--Senator Grassley and myself--this is a reasonable approach that balances the public's need for information and transparency, the constitutional rights of those before the Court, and the discretion of the Justices.

It is no secret that Senator Grassley and I have strong disagreements about the actual law that is going to be considered by the Court. We have taken to the floor many times to explain our positions. Despite our disagreement on the substance of the health care bill, Senator Grassley and I agree on a bipartisan basis to stand united in full support of S. 1945, which would finally bring transparency and open access to Supreme Court proceedings.

We are not the only Members of this body who believe these proceedings would produce greater accountability. In past years the Cameras in the Courtroom Act enjoyed bipartisan support. The last sponsor of the act before he left the Senate was Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. This version of the bill, very similar to his own, has the support of Senators Cornyn, Klobuchar, Schumer, Blumenthal, Gillibrand, Harkin, and Begich. As Senator Grassley would note, Democrats and Republicans from both Chambers have written to the Supreme Court asking it to permit live televised broadcasts of the health care reform arguments.

In November, Senators Blumenthal, Schumer, and I wrote a letter to the Chief Justice making a request to open the Supreme Court for this historic argument and let America hear the arguments made before the Court and the questions asked by the Justices in open court. Chief Justice Roberts responded to our request last week, and it sounds as though he sent the same letter to Senator Grassley. The Chief Justice informed us that the Supreme Court has respectfully declined to televise the health care arguments, but that the Court would graciously offer an alternative.

Here is the alternative: The Court will post the audio recordings and unofficial transcripts to the Court's Web site a few hours after the arguments are over. For that gesture, I guess we can congratulate the U.S. Supreme Court for entering the radio age. America entered the radio age 90 years ago. The Supreme Court is catching up with a delayed broadcast-audio only. But I think America deserves better.

Decisions that affect our Nation should be accessible by the people who are affected by those decisions and they should be produced in a way that Americans can both see and hear. The day of the fireside chat is gone. The day of radio transmissions exclusively is gone. Television--and increasingly even the Internet--is the dominant medium for communicating messages and ideas in modern America. It is not too much to ask the third branch of government at the highest level to share the arguments before the Court with the people of America. Understand, there will be hundreds of people present and watching this as it occurs. It is not confidential or private. It is only kept away from the rest of America because this Court doesn't want America to see the proceedings.

The Supreme Court is an elite institution in our government. Every member of the Supreme Court went to one of two Ivy league law schools. Most of the clerks before the Court come from one of seven law schools. None of the current Justices has run for public office. None of the current Justices has tried a death penalty case. And the lawyers who appear before the Supreme Court are part of a small and exclusive club. Perhaps this limited exposure is why many on the Court don't seem to fully appreciate the impact its decisions have on everyday America, and why the American people deserve to have more access to the Court's public proceedings. Since the Supreme Court is the final word on constitutionality, on issues that impact the lives of every American, the American people should have full and free access to its open proceedings on television.

Let's be clear about one thing: Our bill only applies to court sessions that are already open to the public. Supreme Court Justices should be able to consult with each other, review cases, and deliberate privately. No one in this bill, or otherwise, is calling for those private deliberations to be televised. I believe that televising private deliberations or closed sessions of the Court would cause harm to our judicial system. Our bill does not require that and I would not support that. Open sessions of the Court, however, where members of the public are already invited to observe are a different matter. They should be televised in real time and widely available.

Some who oppose our bill say that the elite cadre of seasoned lawyers with the rare opportunity to argue before the highest Court in the land will grandstand in front of the cameras, risking their professional reputations and even their clients' cases. Some say that the Court's Justices, who have been subjected to the most rigorous vetting process known to man and the most widely covered confirmation hearings, will shrink from the camera's glaring lens. I don't buy it. The experience of the State and Federal courts that have allowed the open proceedings to be televised proves these fears are unfounded.

While the Federal courts of appeals have not permitted cameras to broadcast all appellate proceedings, there was a 3-year pilot project in 1990 that assessed the impact of cameras in the Federal courts. Listen to what happened as a result of the pilot program. At the end of the day 19 of the 20 judges most involved concluded that the presence of cameras in the Federal courts ``had no effect on the administration of justice.''

Don't take my word for it. Kenneth Starr, former Solicitor General and independent counsel, supports our bill and said this:

This fear seems groundless . . . The idea that cameras

would transform the [Supreme Court] into ``Judge Judy'' is

ludicrous.

For more than 30 years State courts have broadcast their proceedings and, in fact, what they found hasn't detracted at all from the pursuit of justice. Every State in our Nation permits all or part of the appellate court proceedings to be recorded for broadcast on television or streaming on the Internet. Expanding access to the Supreme Court by televising its proceedings should not be controversial. Public scrutiny of the Supreme Court proceedings produces greater accountability, transparency, understanding, and access to the decision-making in government. Congressional debates have been fully televised for more than three decades.

There are people who follow the C SPAN broadcast religiously. I know. I meet them regularly. As I said in the Judiciary Committee, people will come up to me and say: One of your colleagues looks a little bit under the weather. Does he have the flu? Is he sick? By observing C SPAN or following the floor of the Senate and knowing each of us, they think on a more personal basis. They hear these statements, they listen to the debates, and they feel better informed about their government. Wouldn't the same apply across the street in the Supreme Court?

Opponents of our bill say the public will be misinformed because all they see are brief clips of the Court's proceedings that could be misconstrued. As I said, this argument sounds a lot like an editorial from a few years ago, and it said:

Keeping cameras out [of the Supreme Court] to prevent

people from getting the wrong idea is a little like removing

the paintings from an art museum out of fear that visitors

might not have the art history background to appreciate them.

In 1986, Chief Justice Burger wrote the following words in the Supreme Court's Press-Enterprise Company v. Superior Court opinion. These words are as true today as they were in 1986:

[P]eople in an open society do not demand infallibility

from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to

accept what they are prohibited from observing.

The time has long since come for the Supreme Court--for the highest Court in our land--to open its doors and allow the American people to finally observe its proceedings.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1945

Mr. President, at this point I wish to make a unanimous consent request relative to this bill that would open the Supreme Court proceedings to be televised.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 319, S. 1945, a bill to permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings; that the bill be read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Reserving the right to object, it is my understanding the Judiciary Committee staff has been working on a package of important Judiciary Committee bills, including the very bill Senator Sessions has asked unanimous consent to move to--a bill which I quite likely will support.

Would the Senator be willing to modify his request to include the passage of other bills which are part of that package and have similarly important elements to them in terms of keeping America safe? They include the following: Calendar No. 246, S. 1792, the Strengthening Investigations of Sex Offenders and Missing Children Act; Calendar No. 233, S. 1793, the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act; and discharging the Judiciary Committee from further consideration of S. 1696, the Dale Long Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvements Act; agreeing to a substitute amendment which is at the desk, and passing the bill, as amended?

Mr. President, until the time comes--and I hope it is soon--when we can reach an agreement on all four bills, I will object to moving one bill in the package.

Mr. President, I raise a germaneness point of order against the pending Cantwell-Graham amendment.

Mr. President, I raise a germaneness point of order against the Reed-Landrieu-Levin-Brown of Ohio substitute.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1884, offered by Senators Merkley, Bennet, and others.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.

Mr. President, I call up the second-degree amendment, No. 1931, offered by Senator Reed of Rhode Island.

Mr. President, the bill before this body had broad bipartisan support, bicameral in nature. The bill we are considering today is the IPO bill, of course. The bill passed the House by an overwhelming majority. President Obama supports it.

I want everybody to know that the bill is imperfect, and that perhaps is an understatement. What we are trying to do with amendments offered by Senators Merkley and Reed is to improve this bill, which has a lot of problems. These two amendments would go a long way toward correcting those.

This is an important piece of legislation, and we are confident that it will improve innovators' access to capital and give startups the flexibility they need to hire and grow. But it is not perfect, I repeat. As with any other piece of legislation, there are ways we can improve it. On this bill, there are many ways we can improve it. I am sorry we cannot do more.

To that end, the Senate will consider two germane amendments to this IPO bill that will protect investors and prevent fraud.

The first amendment is sponsored by Senator Merkley and others. It deals with companies that raise capital online from small investors. This amendment will ensure that watchdogs are in place to protect the small investors and their money from fraudulent companies and abuse of the system.

People are lurking out there waiting for ways to cheat. I am sorry, but it is true. These are people who are either amoral or immoral, looking for opportunities to make money. I appreciate very much the work that a number of Senators have put into this amendment. It is an important amendment, and it is so important to improving this bill. You will hear much more this afternoon from the sponsors of the amendment about why it is so important.

The second amendment is sponsored by Senator Reed of Rhode Island. All Senators have stature, but Jack Reed, with his military background, his experience in the House, and his experience in the Senate, is a man we all look to for leadership. His amendment will ensure fair and honest disclosure by companies raising capital. It will stop businesses from gaming the system and avoiding oversight by hiding thousands--or maybe tens of thousands--of investors. This will stop when this amendment passes.

Democrats and Republicans agree that we need to pass the IPO bill and make it easier for American companies to raise capital, to grow operations, and to hire new workers, but we must do so in a way that balances the needs and rights of investors and prevents fraud and abuse.

These two amendments will accomplish that. These two amendments are not going to make the bill perfect, but it will be a lot better.

While the IPO measure before the Senate today is an important piece of legislation, experts agree its impact on job creation will be somewhat limited.

This legislation is something that is before this body. Yesterday, Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would create, in 1 year, as it did this year that we are in, 300,000 jobs. It is hard to comprehend, but people who sponsored the amendment voted against it. But this isn't anything new. I think it is such callous disregard for what is fair and right.

The Republican leader has been talking nonstop about how important it is for Congress to continue to create jobs. So I am disappointed--and that is an understatement--that yesterday Senate Republicans, led by my friend the Republican leader, rejected an opportunity to help American exporters grow and hire.

The Ex-Im Bank helps American exporters compete in a global economy, and it has always enjoyed broad, bipartisan support--until this Republican minority stepped in here. The last time it was offered, in 2006, a Republican offered it. It got unanimous consent to pass. This legislation has been going since the 1930s. It is backed by the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, and labor unions. All my Republican friends can explain to the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Business Roundtable that not only did they kill this bill but they stopped the deficit from going down by $1 billion, because the Ex-Im Bank bill reduces the deficit by $1 billion. Of course, it had Republican cosponsors.

In fact, my Republican colleagues, including many who voted against this amendment yesterday, admitted they support the legislation. I had a number of Senators come to me saying, we like it. As I said yesterday in my remarks, they are voting against a bill they say they like. The Republican leader said a number of things yesterday, but he said he wanted to vote down this worthy proposal because he wants to pass it separately.

We understand what is going on here. The Republican-dominated House of Representatives wants to send over here a hollow shell of the Ex-Im Bank, and they would look to us and say that we now have an Ex-Im Bank bill. What they have come up with is so foolish, and that is a good description of it. Their offer is hollow. They want to appear to support the Ex-Im Bank and at the same time kill it.

Democrats actually do support the Ex-Im Bank, and we made that very clear to everybody and voted accordingly. We want it to become law.

House Republicans have shown no desire to even consider this important jobs measure--let alone pass it. The only way to ensure the Ex-Im Bank can continue to help American companies grow and create jobs is for the Senate to attach it to this IPO bill, and that failed.

Yesterday, Senate Republicans had an opportunity to join with Democrats to create hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country over the next many years. They passed up that opportunity. Once again, they chose to pick an unnecessary fight instead. They want to fight over even things they agree with. How do you like that one? They love this bill, but they want to fight about it.

Our No. 1 priority is to create jobs, and we have shown that. It is obvious that the Republicans don't have their priorities straight. But this is something we have had to live with.

We are going to work with the minority to come up with a time to have a vote. The time expires around 6 o'clock tonight. Because of a number of things going on here today, I hope we can have a vote earlier than that. We will do our best to work with the Republican leader to try to come up with a vote. There will be three votes: Merkley, Reed, and final passage.

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

Mr. President, the hour of 2:30 having arrived, it is my honor and my pleasure to rise to honor a patriot, a pioneer, and now the longest serving woman in the Congress of the United States ever, and that is the senior Senator from Maryland Barbara Mikulski.

Barbara and I served together in the House, and we came to the Senate together in 1986. I remember that day so well, when we had our first appearance in the Senate as new Senators. It was quite a moving event for me. But one of the events I remember about that day is the presentation of Senator Mikulski.

We all said a word or two, and everything we said will be long forgotten. But what Barbara Mikulski said, in the way she has of saying things, will not be forgotten.

Here is this woman who is not even as tall as my wife, who is 5 feet tall, but she said, ``I slam-dunked Linda Chavez,'' her opponent. That said it all.

That was the beginning of my working closely with this good woman. She has been a friend, an inspiration to me in so many different ways in the time we have served together. When we got on the Environment and Public Works Committee, she was here, and I was here. She was always ahead of me in seniority because of her longer service in the House. On the Appropriations Committee, for more than two decades, I was here, she was here. She was always one ahead of me.

Barbara was the first Democratic woman elected to the Senate in her own right. Last year, she surpassed the legendary Margaret Chase Smith of Maine as the longest serving woman in the history of the Senate. On Saturday, she officially surpassed Congresswoman Edith Nourse Rogers of Massachusetts, who, by the way, served in the House from 1925 to 1960 as the longest serving woman in the history of the Congress.

Senator Mikulski's service--and the service of many female Members of Congress--has paved the way for girls of today to know they can become Senators, they can become professional basketball players, and they can be engineers and doctors. The sky is the place they need to go, and that is where they believe they can go because of the work that has been done by Barbara Mikulski.

When I came to the Senate with her, she was the only woman who served in the Senate as a Democrat. There was one other Republican at the time. Now, since then, Mr. President, I have watched very closely on this side of the aisle. Now we have 12 Democrats, and if the elections turn out the way I hope they do--and I am cautiously optimistic they will--we will have 17 women who are Democrats in the Senate.

She has been truly a trailblazer. We recognize Barbara's achievements today and her outstanding record as a tireless advocate for the State of Maryland. She grew up in the Highlandtown neighborhood of east Baltimore. She learned the value of hard work by working in and watching her dad, especially, open that family grocery store and work from early in the morning until night. He sold lunch to steelworkers and other people who came by that little grocery store.

In high school she was educated by the nuns at the Institute of Notre Dame. She credits the nuns with instilling in her faith and a thirst for justice. She went on to study at Mount Saint Agnes College, which is now part of Loyola College in Maryland. She earned her master's degree in social work from the University of Maryland.

Barbara was a social worker and has always been proud of the fact that she has been a social worker. She was employed by Catholic Charities and the City of Baltimore's Department of Social Services. I can imagine what a dynamo she was--and she still is. There is no work harder than being a social worker. The problems one sees and has to deal with are extremely difficult.

During her years as a social worker, she was a powerful voice for children and seniors in need of an advocate. Barbara Mikulski then and now is an advocate. It was there the spark for service and activism was lit, but it was a plan to build a 16-lane highway that fanned the flames that had been lit by her activism.

The highway would have gutted historic Fells Point, a neighborhood that she believed should have been protected. It would have uprooted homeowners in a majority African-American neighborhood. She organized the residents of Fells Point and Baltimore's Inner Harbor and stopped the construction of that highway.

That is a testament to the power of democracy that she believes in with all her soul. Looking back on that triumph, Senator Mikulski said:

I got into politics fighting a highway. In other countries,

they take dissidents and put them in jail. In the United

States of America, because of the First Amendment, they put

you in the United States Senate. God bless America.

She has always been an advocate for the disenfranchised and disadvantaged in this country, but she has also been an advocate for dissidents in other countries, of whom she has spoken so eloquently on so many occasions. Her family was Polish. She has heard all the Polish jokes, and she has withstood a little of the ``barbs'' when neighborhoods were different than they are now. But she took special pleasure and was so proud of her heritage.

Barbara took a special interest in the plight of Polish people oppressed under communism. We know in 1980 the people of Poland started a fledgling little group called Solidarity--a movement to engage in nonviolent resistance against communism and in support of social change.

Senator Mikulski and I had the wonderful pleasure of traveling under the guidance of a trip led by John Glenn--a world famous man then and now. It was a wonderful trip for a couple of new Senators. The Iron Curtain was down, and it was down hard, but we went to Poland on a codel. I can remember we had the opportunity to meet with members of the Solidarity movement. We met in secret with them, in a secret location, and Senator Glenn talked, Senator Stevens, then a senior member of the Senate at the time spoke, and I said I would like to hear from Senator Mikulski.

Now, Mr. President, I am not articulate enough to explain the presentation she made extemporaneously, but this powerful woman stood and talked about her heritage and her religion and what that meant to the people of America and what it should mean to the people of Poland. It was truly--and I have told her this personally over the years on several occasions to remind her--one of the most heart-warming, stirring speeches I have ever been present to listen to. She spoke to the people assembled there--there weren't many of them--as a fellow activist. She spoke as an American of Polish descent and a fellow Catholic. She spoke as one of them. When that presentation was completed, everyone knew she was one of them.

It took almost a decade for the Solidarity movement to strike victory in Poland, and I know Senator Mikulski's speech was not the reason, but I guarantee you it was one of the reasons they had the audacity and the courage to proceed as they did.

Remember, Poland was an interesting country. It was the only country behind the Iron Curtain where the Communists could not destroy their educational system, and that was because of the strength of the Catholic Church in Poland at that time. Solidarity's victory in Poland inspired a stream of peaceful anti-Communist revolutions that eventually caused the fall of communism entirely all over Eastern Europe.

Barbara's Polish ancestry and the Polish community in which she grew up in Baltimore were very important to her, but I never knew it until that moment in Warsaw with those few members of Solidarity who were assembled to honor us.

Her great-grandmother had come here from Poland with just a few pennies in her pocket--literally--but she had a dream of a better life for her and her family. This is what Barbara Mikulski said about her great-grandmother.

She didn't even have the right to vote, and in this great

country of ours, in three generations, I joined the United

States Senate.

It was a remarkable feat for her. But, more importantly, it was a confirmation of the American dream. For Barbara, what began as community activism, a fight against a highway, grew into a successful career in public service.

I just want to add a side note, Mr. President, and talk about something very personal to me. When Senator David Pryor got sick, he was the Democratic conference secretary in the Senate. That opened up a spot in the Senate leadership. That was something I thought would be interesting to me. It was known who was interested in filling that spot, and I knew Barbara was interested.

I went to Barbara and said: Barbara, if you want it, it is yours. Two years later, Wendell Ford decided he was going to retire. He was the whip. I can still remember that morning walking from the Hart Building over to the Russell Building, in that long walkway there, and I saw Barbara Mikulski. I didn't say a word to her.

She said: I want to talk to you. She said: You supported me when I wanted to be the conference secretary. You

want to be the whip, I am supporting you. But for Barbara Mikulski, I would not have had that leadership position. Once the Democratic caucus knew Barbara Mikulski supported me, it was all over. I won. And I won because she came to me, as she did that morning.

So, Mr. President, my respect, admiration, and love for this woman is difficult for me to describe, but it is there. Barbara Mikulski ran for Congress and won after serving on the city council of Baltimore for 5 years. She represented Maryland's Third District for 10 years before winning the seat in the Senate she now holds.

Again, I appreciate all she has done for me--so many different things she has done for me. As a very able member of the Appropriations Committee and somebody who loves this institution, I am in awe of the legislative record of this amazing woman.

She has been a dedicated representative not only for the State of Maryland but the State of Nevada. One thing she did for me--and there have been a lot of them--when we were new Senators and she was on one of the subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee concerning veterans benefits and affairs, as a favor to me she traveled to Reno, NV, to look at an old veterans hospital. She went through it and said: This is not the way a veterans hospital should be, and I, Barbara Mikulski, am going to change it. And she did.

Through the appropriations process we renovated and improved that hospital so it was one of the better hospitals at the time. So I am grateful for this good woman, an advocate for parity for women on everything from salary to health care access. But for Barbara Mikulski the National Institutes of Health would not have a center for women. She got a little upset when she learned they had done a study of the effect of aspirin on people's hearts and she realized they had tested 10,000 people and they were all men.

I had a situation that arose in Nevada about at the same time where three women came to me who had something called interstitial cystitis, a devastating, debilitating, painful disease that is described as running slivers of glass up and down your bladder. It was said to be a psychosomatic disease. These women had nowhere to go. I talked to Barbara Mikulski about this, and now 40 percent of these women have medicine that takes away their symptoms totally.

I could go on here a long time, as everyone can see. But I do it because I congratulate Barbara on this milestone, which is so important to me and the Senate, and to tell her how much Nevada appreciates her. It is not just for Maryland. She has done things for the entire country.

I wish her well for years to come.

Madam President, Senator McConnell and I have tentatively worked out something so we will have votes tomorrow, not today. That being the case, we are not under a crunch for time here today.

We have a number of Senators here who wish to say something regarding Senator Mikulski, and I wish to set up an orderly time to do that. So I ask that Senator Mikulski be recognized. Following that, we have Senator Cardin to be recognized for 10 minutes; Senator Boxer, 10 minutes. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has been here since before anybody else. So following Senator Boxer, I ask that she be recognized. And Senator Gillibrand?

Yes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of Senator Merkley and Senator Bennet, I be recognized.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I commend Senator Merkley and Senator Bennet for their extraordinary work, indeed, in collaboration I believe with our colleague Senator Brown from Massachusetts to make significant improvements in the crowdfunding provisions

of the House bill. As Senator Bennet and Senator Merkley have indicated, this represents a potentially very productive way to raise capital, and they have provided protections that will ensure investors in this process are not disadvantaged, and I commend them for that.

It addresses one of the significant issues in the House bill but, frankly, not all the significant issues. There are some extremely glaring, I think, provisions in the House bill that we attempted to address in the Reed-Landrieu-Levin substitute. That substitute amendment, although it received a majority of votes, did not receive enough to achieve cloture to be the bill we are now considering. We are now considering the House bill.

I have an amendment to that House bill that addresses one of several difficulties with the House legislation. Investors, when they buy stock in public companies, expect routine disclosures. They expect to know on a quarterly basis, and in a very real sense on an annual basis, what is the company doing? What are the prospects of the company? All that goes hand in hand with the widely dispersed ownership of a public company. The House legislation would allow many companies with a substantial number of beneficial shareholders, the actual owners, the real owners of the stock, the ones who can vote the stock, the ones who get the dividends, the ones who vote on the proxies or directly for the leadership of the corporation--it would allow them to remain dark. This might be appropriate for some companies that have a relatively small base of real owners, but the way the House has drafted this legislation it could risk allowing a significant number of larger companies to go or remain dark.

The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 set up a system of public reporting. Beginning in 1964, the SEC required that companies with at least 500 holders of record--and at least $10 million in assets, to follow the routine reporting requirements under the securities laws. The decision was made that at that point a company does have a size that is adequate and necessary so that they should be disclosing.

The issue that is motivating the House is this 500-person requirement. It was adopted, as I said, in 1964. There is a sense that the limit is probably too low. The House version is 2,000. We make no attempt to change the House limit of 2,000 now, the new limit. But what we want to be sure of is that the individuals who are being counted are not the record holders, they are the real owners, the beneficial owners. In fact, many companies are very astute and assiduous in assuring that these record holders fall beneath this 500 level.

There are many large companies, well-known companies, as I mentioned in my previously remarks, that have thousands of beneficial owners but still have, on their own records, less than 500 holders of record. The SEC defines record holders as ``each person who is identified as the owner of such securities on records of the security holders maintained by or on behalf of the issuer.''

Holder of record is very direct. It is the shareholders who are recorded as such on the books of the company. This is where the term ``beneficial owner'' comes from. In such instances, the shares are held of record by a third party, usually a broker, on behalf of the shareholder. For example--and this is one of many examples--if you buy shares from Charles Schwab, that discount brokerage firm would likely serve as the record holder and you would be the beneficial owner. It is your money; you paid for it. It is your vote because you are a beneficial owner. It is your right to sell the shares. But as far as the company is concerned, the holder of record is the broker, Charles Schwab.

I think we have all been familiar and all received in the mail a big package of proxy materials from our broker. It is not, in many cases, directly from the company. It is from the Wells Fargo Advisors, it is from Schwab Advisors, et cetera, because they are on the records of the company as the ones who are the record holders. They distribute the material to beneficial owners.

The consequence is that for companies that may have a very few or relatively few record holders, they have thousands and thousands of beneficial owners. Those are the individuals who will lose out if the company decides, under the House bill, to suddenly go or remain dark, to avoid public reporting.

As I have indicated before, most investors today do so through intermediaries--through brokers, through others. As a result, they would not necessarily be counted as a record holder. Record holders-- the brokers, the large entities--are increasingly purely passthroughs. They are agents with no economic interest in the company, no voting rights. Those are held by the beneficial owners. That is why I believe that beneficial ownership should be the test for whether companies have to report under the Securities Exchange Act. It should encompass those who have the power to sell and/or the power to vote the shares. They are the actual shareholders. They are the individuals who management is committed by fiduciary duties to work for. So I think it is appropriate that when we raise this level to 2,000 we also ensure that it is not simply record holders, it is the beneficial owners--the real owners, for want of another term.

There also could be, for example, two identical companies with identical numbers of beneficial owners but they might have different numbers of record holders because of the way the shares are held--in trust or by a broker, et cetera. And one company reporting and one not reporting does not seem to be to be a fair or efficient way to do business.

Companies already have to obtain numbers of beneficial owners from brokers and banks in order to know how many copies of annual reports and proxy materials they have to print, so every company knows about how many beneficial numbers they have. They have to provide the proxy material through the brokerage or bank to the beneficial owners, so they know very well--in fact, quite precisely--their beneficial ownership, their real shareholders.

But using record level as the trigger to remain private, to avoid public reporting, to me again is the wrong approach. My amendment would clarify the definition in this new shareholder threshold section of the underlying bill, and ensure that companies are not avoiding these public reporting requirements by using a threshold of 2,000 record holders if they have 2,000 or fewer beneficial owners. If this is a truly small business that has 1,500 individual shareholders, beneficial owners, and they want to remain dark--that seems to be something that we certainly would countenance, and with my language it would be possible to do so.

I think this approach makes it fair for everyone. It also doesn't frustrate the expectations of a person who buys a share of nationally known stock that is publicly reported and gets a 10 Q and every year the 10 K, and suddenly they don't get anything. They wonder what is going on at the company. Maybe the company merges with another company, creates a new company, and now has less than 2000 holders of record. I think that is not an approach we should countenance. I think transparency and accurate information are critical to the success of our capital markets, and I think this legislation will do that. Requiring quarterly reporting of firms with a large number of shareholders--real shareholders, beneficial shareholders--protects investors while at the same time improving overall market transparency and efficiency. From this information, those individual analysts and brokers who follow companies are able to determine their recommendations, are able to advise clients that you should buy this company, it is a good company.

When the company goes dark, that information source dries up and it is harder for individuals, brokers, investment advisors to give advice. I think this would not be helpful to the market. In fact, I think it might, ironically, impede capital formation, not facilitate capital formation.

There is one important point that has to be stressed, and that is my amendment does not affect the employee exemption in the underlying bill. The House bill has a blanket exemption for counting owners of the company for employees. We have reviewed this exemption in our legislation with eminent experts, including Prof. John Coates at Harvard Law School, and he concurs that employees would not be swept up into being

counted because they happen to receive compensation through stock in their company.

There are many companies--WaWa, Wegmans--that want to have active employee participation in the company through stock plans but are private companies and want to remain private. This should allow them to do so.

Again, my legislation makes no attempt to change the underlying House bill, which gives a very broad blanket exemption for employees, who are exempted from the shareholder threshold.

There is another aspect here, too, and that is ESOPs, employee stock option plans, because they do acquire stock on behalf of employees. We specifically asked Professor Coates, one of the preeminent experts in securities law, whether this would inadvertently trigger or inadvertently complicate the beneficial ownership rule. His opinion is that ESOPs typically count as one record holder and one beneficial owner because they do not pass through the votes or the right to direct sales. They do not have the characteristics which are typical of the beneficial owner: the right to vote and the right to sell the stock. They maintain those rights. They do not delegate those to the individual employees who might be part of the pool. So Professor Coates' view is that ESOPs also would be exempt from being counted, if you will, as more than one entity.

We have also reached out to the Securities and Exchange Commission and we have received some assurances, from talking to Meredith Cross of the SEC, that, given their rulemaking power, they have within the ambit of their power in implementing this legislation the ability to clarify any of these points. So that not just employees who receive stock through an employee plan, but an ESOP and other entities that hold stock--not on behalf of their investors but have the right as an entity such as a venture capital fund or a private equity fund--have the right at that fund level to vote and to direct the sale of the shares and receive the dividends--that they, too, would be counted as one entity.

Professor Coates, as I said, believes this will not affect the venture capital/private equity firm structures, which would typically count as one shareholder, whether of record or beneficially. The VC firm or PE firm does not pass through votes or the right to direct sales to its own investors, and the same might be said with mutual funds, pension funds, et cetera--the primary passthrough which would be counted as brokers and banks, who hold on behalf of beneficial owners.

What we have, I think, is legislation that recognizes the need to increase the number adopted in 1964, but also to recognize that the real owners of companies far exceed, in many cases, the holders or record, and that these real owners depend upon the routine reporting that is required under the Securities Exchange Act so they can be informed, so they can follow their stock. Indeed, the analysts who look closely at these companies, who make recommendations to buy and sell, also need this type of information. For this reason I have proposed this amendment. I think it is something that improves the bill. It was included in our substitute which did not receive 60 votes to pass cloture but did receive the majority of votes in this body. I think it is something, again, that will improve this legislation. I would not hesitate to add that many more improvements are necessary, but certainly this would be an improvement.

I would note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise, along with so many colleagues, to pay tribute to Senator Barbara Mikulski, an extraordinary woman and Senator, someone who has become the longest serving woman in the history of the

Senate, indeed, in the history of the Congress. She surpassed, on January 5, 2011, the record of Republican Senator Margaret Chase Smith as the longest serving Senator. Just this Saturday, she became the longest serving woman in the history of the Congress, surpassing the tenure of Edith Nourse Rogers, a Republican Congresswoman from Massachusetts, who served in the House from 1925 to 1960.

Senator Mikulski is the first female Democrat to be elected to the Senate in her own right in 1986. She is a woman of many firsts. She is indeed the dean of the Senate women--I would actually say a dean of the Senate, with her great energy, her great eloquence, and her great passion, particularly for those who are often overlooked in our society. She comes at it honestly. She was a social worker in Baltimore, helping at-risk children and educating seniors about Medicare before being elected to the House of Representatives.

She has taken that concern for the vulnerable and a particular passion for the State of Maryland forward every day she has served in the House and Senate. She has served on numerous committees. She is a subcommittee chairperson on the Appropriations Committee--Commerce- Justice-Science. She has devoted herself to those issues, and many more. She serves on the Select Committee on Intelligence and has been a key member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. She has left her mark on a broad range of programs that touch each and every American family. She has been particularly active in women's health, ensuring that women were included in NIH clinical trials, where in the past they were ignored.

Since one cannot ignore Barbara Mikulski--which is virtually impossible--she made it a reality that they cannot ignore women in NIH clinical trials, requiring Federal standards for mammographies, ensuring uninsured women have access to screenings and treatment for breast and cervical cancer. She increased research dollars for Alzheimer's and enhanced the Older Americans Act.

She has been, since her first days in the House of Representatives, at the forefront in advocating for better health care and education particularly for the most vulnerable among us. She has been a champion of national service, understanding that in a great country one has to contribute as well as benefit.

She said one of the things she is most proud of--in her words-- ``strengthening the safety net for seniors by passing the Spousal Anti- Impoverishment Act. This important legislation helps keep seniors from going bankrupt while paying for a spouse's nursing home care.''

That is a fitting and representative example of her service. Throughout her service, she has maintained national priorities but has never taken her eye off Maryland. She commutes every evening back to Baltimore. She works hard to ensure that the people in Maryland benefit because of her activities.

I also thank her for the kindness and help she has given me personally--her concern, for example, with the fishing community in Rhode Island, which is under her jurisdiction on the Appropriations Committee, and in other ways. She has been terribly important and kind to us. She was instrumental in helping us to secure funding for the HOPE VI project in Newport, RI, which has created extraordinary beneficial housing for a mix of incomes in Newport. It is one of the most attractive as well as one of the most stable communities I think anyplace in the Nation. She has been there to help us constantly.

I could go on and on, as my colleagues have said. I simply want to say at this special moment in Senator Mikulski's career, we thank her, admire her, respect her, and she has set a great example for us. In the days ahead, she will not only continue to inspire and sustain us, she will continue to sustain and lead in her State.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this Friday the Nation observes an anniversary that most Americans would prefer to see removed from its calendar. I am talking about the second anniversary of the passage of the President's health care law. Rather than celebrate this day, it is one that citizens and taxpayers have come to rue and regret. The process by which Obamacare became law was an affront to republican principles of democratic self-government. The substance of this law is an historic threat to the liberties our Constitution was designed to secure.

A decent respect for the opinions of the American people cautioned against passing this law on a purely partisan basis. Yet in spite of the clear opposition of the American people to this massive expansion of government power, and to its historic spending and tax increases, the President and his congressional allies were determined to jam this bill through the Congress.

The architects of this strategy, if not the party loyalists who carried it out against the wishes of their constituents, sleep easy at night having done so, because they knew that this was a once-in-a- generation opportunity, the crowning achievement of the liberal bureaucratic state. A takeover of the Nation's health care sector and its top-down regulation by Washington had eluded Democrats for over 70 years.

The economic downturn of 2008 changed that. With the election of President Obama and significant majorities in the Congress, the left was not going to, in the words of the President's Chief of Staff, ``let a crisis go to waste.'' What this strategy meant in practice was that Democrats would advance a radical liberal agenda whether the American people supported it or not. That is the anniversary we are observing this week, and it is a dark spot on our Nation's history, in my opinion.

The Obamacare episode showed a fundamental disrespect for the opinions and constitutional common sense of the American people. Faced with growing unrest and real concerns about the impact of this law on families, the economy, and access to health care, the law's proponents assumed that the American people were too dumb to get it; that once Obamacare became law, the American people would come to love it, as well as the benefactors who gave it to them. That is what they thought. As Speaker Pelosi explained: We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.

The great liberal conceit was on full display in the process that led to this bill becoming law. We know better than you, they said. We can plan one-sixth of the American economy, and you will eventually come to like it.

Well, as we all know, the American people had something else in mind. They reminded Congress and the President that in this country the people are sovereign. They stood up as free men and women rejecting Obamacare before it became law and refused to embrace it afterwards. And as their understanding of the law has deepened, they have remained constant in their commitment to full repeal. According to a Rasmussen poll this week, over half of Americans support the full repeal of Obamacare.

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument on the constitutionality of this misguided law. In arriving at their decision later this year, they will consider Obamacare through the prism of past precedents and the

Constitution's original historic meaning. But the Justices of the Supreme Court are not the only ones evaluating the constitutionality of this law. The American people and citizens of this Nation have their own obligation to consider whether this law comports with our Constitution and principles of limited government, and on that the verdict is already in. According to a recent Gallup poll, 72 percent of American adults, including 56 percent of self-professed Democrats, believe that the law's individual mandate is unconstitutional.

The average American who opposes this law on constitutional grounds might not be a law professor or an appellate advocate, but those citizens and taxpayers understand our Constitution was designed to guarantee liberty and that it did so, in part, by limiting the powers of the Federal Government and maintaining the sovereign powers of the States.

They know the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare runs far deeper than the onerous individual mandate. The law is, at its core, a violation of our most deeply held constitutional principles.

It undermines personal liberty and puts more power in the hands of the Federal Government. In the interest of advancing what the left views as a constitutional right to health care, they undermine actual constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.

The law's mandate for abortion-inducing drugs undermines sacred rights of personal conscience and religious liberty.

Its expansion of Medicaid fundamentally transforms the relationship of the States to the Federal Government, undercutting the ability of those sovereign communities to make basic decisions about the welfare of their citizens by crowding out spending for police, infrastructure, and education.

The American people might not have submitted complex legal briefs in the Supreme Court litigation, but their conclusions about ObamaCare possess a unique and powerful wisdom. The people of Utah and the rest of this country understand the very DNA of ObamaCare--a commitment to more government control, the empowering of an already unaccountable administrative state, and an assault on free markets--is unconstitutional.

This was not what President Obama promised the American people. The President couched this government takeover of the Nation's health care sector as a modest reform designed to reduce costs.

When he spoke before a joint session of Congress in September of 2009 to push for his plan, the President promised it would ``slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government.''

The President swung and missed on all three. According to the President's own Actuary at CMS, national health expenditures would increase by $311 billion over the law's first 10 years. This comes as no surprise to the American people. The President's health care law promised all sorts of new free care. But we all know, contrary to the repeated assertions of President Obama and his administration, nothing in life is free.

The bill will eventually come due for all this so-called ``free care,'' and it is taxpayers who will pay that bill.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, ``Rising costs for health care will push Federal spending up considerably as a percentage of GDP.''

This is not what the President and his allies promised. We were promised lower costs. What we got were higher costs, more Federal spending on health care and, with it, more taxes and more debt.

When fully implemented, ObamaCare authorizes $2.6 trillion in new Federal spending over 10 years. It will increase premiums by $2,100 for families forced by ObamaCare to purchase their own insurance. Its Medicaid expansions will impose $118 billion in new costs on the States.

It will increase spending on prescription drugs, physician and clinical services, and hospital spending. It will increase the deficit by $701 billion over its first 10 years.

How does the President propose to pay for this? Here is how: He will pay for it by selling more Treasurys to China. He will pay for it by increasing taxes and penalties by over $500 billion, and American workers will ultimately pay for it with 800,000 fewer jobs than would have otherwise existed.

This is not the story the President or the Democrats in Congress responsible for this law want the American people to hear. So they will attempt to spin their way out of it.

In a memo obtained by the press last week, the advocates of ObamaCare laid out their strategy to sell the merits of this misguided law prior to oral arguments at the Supreme Court.

This week was designed to lay out all the great things provided by ObamaCare. But, naturally, that memo mentions absolutely none of the costs. It doesn't mention the cost of these benefits for Federal taxpayers. It doesn't mention the costs for employers and workers. It doesn't mention that the law could lead to as many as 20 million Americans losing employer-sponsored health benefits by 2019. It doesn't mention the impact the $\1/2\ trillion in tax increases and penalties will have on the economy, and it doesn't mention the harm this law does to our Constitution and its principles of republicanism, personal liberty, and limited government.

I wish I could say I was surprised, but I am not. ObamaCare is merely the capstone to a generations-long liberal project that has attempted to convince citizens that they can have their cake and eat it too. They can have all the benefits of an ever-expanding welfare state, and nobody--or only the very rich--would have to pay for it. ObamaCare exploded this myth. It is the culmination of generations of government expansion, and it shows once and for all that we are all going to be paying for the liberal welfare state.

Taxing Warren Buffet is not going to cut it. All American families will pay for this $2.6 trillion spending law one way or the other. After centralizing control of the Nation's health care system in Washington, DC, and putting health care decisions into the hands of government bureaucrats, we will all pay for it through higher taxes, less opportunity, and diminished access to care.

Our children are going to have to pay for it, as a nation conceived in liberty is increasingly burdened by an unsustainable national indebtedness; that is, unless the American people get the final word on this. They certainly should.

I believe in the American people. I know what my fellow Utahans think about the President's health care law. No less than legislators or Justices, they take the Constitution seriously. They know this law is unconstitutional. They know what it does to free markets and to free men and women. They know that if this law is constitutional, then there are effectively no limits on what the Federal Government can do. They know this law has to go. I look forward to showing it the door.

Mr. President, I came here to talk on another matter, but I wish to take a few minutes to talk about my friend Barbara Mikulski. We have served a long time together. When she came to this body, I think I may have been chairman of what was then called the Labor and Human Resources Committee, now the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

From the day she got on that committee, she made a difference in every way, not just for women but for every single American in this country. I have a tremendous amount of profound respect for Senator Mikulski and what she has been able to accomplish.

Let me mention one thing. Back in the early 1990s, she and I worked together on what was called the FDA Revitalization Act. That act was a very important one, because we had the FDA spread out all over the Greater Washington, DC, area, probably 30, 35 different offices, some of which were in converted chicken coops. It was ridiculous to have these top scientists in anything but a centralized location with top computerization and all of the other scientific instruments they need to do this work for the American people. I have to say that Barbara Mikulski played a pivotal role in helping to

develop that tremendous facility. I want you to know that I do not think it would have been developed without her effort and her dogged work to make sure that we now have a centralized--and it still needs improvement but centralized FDA campus that literally is saving the lives of millions of people and making the lives of millions of people better.

I could go on and on. But I have a lot of respect for my distinguished colleague from Maryland. I would feel badly if I did not get up and tell people how much I do respect her. She believes in what she does. She loves this body, most of the time, I think. And she cares for her follow Senators. We care for her. I want her to know that.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to our dear friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Maryland, Barbara Mikulski. This week, Senator Mikulski became the longest-serving woman in the history of the United States Congress. That is quite a milestone and I want to congratulate her on her many years of devoted service to the people of her home State.

Senator Mikulski is a Maryland native. Descended from Polish immigrants, she was born and raised in Baltimore. She attended college at both St. Agnes College in Baltimore and the University of Maryland.

After several years of working as a social worker in the Baltimore area, Senator Mikulski began her political career in 1971 when she was elected to the Baltimore City Council. She served there for 5 years before running for Congress in 1976. For 10 years, she represented the Third Congressional District of Maryland. Then, in 1986, she was elected to serve here in the Senate.

Although the milestone we are recognizing today is a significant one, it is not the first for Senator Mikulski. Indeed, throughout her time in the Senate she has been a pioneer for women in public service.

For example, Senator Mikulski was the first woman elected to statewide office in Maryland. She was also the first Democratic woman elected to a Senate seat that was not previously held by her husband. And, she was the first woman to serve in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

I have known Senator Mikulski a long time, having served with her in the Senate for over 25 years now. While she and I have often found ourselves on opposite sides of many issues, I have long admired her commitment to her principles and, most importantly, her devotion to the people of her home State. Indeed, she has been a stalwart and often times fierce advocate for the interests of Marylanders.

I want to congratulate Senator Mikulski on this important milestone and I am grateful for this opportunity to pay tribute to her and to her many years of public service.

Mr. President, I am pleased to stand and add my experiences with and admiration for Senator Barbara Mikulski. It is fitting that she is now the longest serving woman in the U.S. Congress.

When I first got here--I was elected in 1993--Barbara Mikulski, as the dean of the women in the Senate, had a workshop the previous year for the newly elected Democratic women Senators. When I arrived in 1993, she expanded it to include all new women Senators, and her sort of opening comment was, civility starts with us.

Surely, she has carried through as the dean of the women of the Senate to ensure that all the new women get their bearings in the Senate, that they get the advice of the ones who have been here before. It has been a huge help and really a fun opportunity for us to get to know each other on a personal level as we have our women Senators' dinners.

From this came a book Senator Mikulski and I worked on together. The genesis of the book--which became ``Nine and Counting,'' the nine women Senators who were here in the year 2000--came from a meeting called by Senator Mikulski to meet with the women of Northern Ireland, along with the women of Ireland, when there was so much strife in that country. Barbara Mikulski called all of the women Senators together, our nine, to give encouragement and advice to the women who were trying to bring the people of Ireland and Northern Ireland together so that there could be a peaceful conclusion to the conflicts in Northern Ireland. From that, as we were sharing our stories to show the women of Northern Ireland how much they could do, from our experiences and our overcoming of obstacles, Barbara Mikulski and I sat down and said:

You know, I think we have a book here. If each of the nine

women Senators could write a chapter about our obstacles and

our beginnings in politics and help encourage other young

women and girls to aspire to and be able to succeed in

politics, then we ought to do it.

So we worked with a publisher. We got together and decided how we would lay it out. We then decided as a group that we would give all of the proceeds to the Girl Scouts of America because almost each of us had been a Girl Scout at one point.

From so from that we put a book out, which is still being sold here in the Senate bookshop called ``Nine and Counting.'' It has given a lot of money to the Girl Scouts of America, to a leadership fund so that they can continue to create girls who will be leaders in our country. But that started with the meeting Barbara put together for those of us who could maybe give advice and help these women of Northern Ireland.

When I came into the Senate in 1993, the first thing I wanted to do was give equal treatment to women who work at home in their ability to save for retirement as those who workout outside the home. I had the experience, as a single working woman, of putting aside some money for my IRA, and then when I married my husband Ray, I found out I could put aside only $250 in an IRA. I said: Wait a minute. Why would someone working inside the home--a woman

who is probably going to need retirement security more than any of us-- not be able to save for her own retirement security if she is a married woman? So I authored the Homemaker IRA, and of course I wanted to have a Democrat lead because we had a Democratic Congress. So I asked Senator Mikulski, and she said she would absolutely sign on--as she always does--when it is something that is going to benefit women. So it became the Hutchison-Mikulski bill. I said to Barbara: I want this bill to pass. I don't care if my name is first. I would love to put your name first if you think that will help us get it through. She said: Absolutely not. I would not take your name off that bill for anything because it was your idea. There are not very many people in this body who would make that gesture and also put her weight behind the passage of the bill.

Of all the things I have done and that we have done together, Barbara, and of all the things that bill is going to affect the most people in our country because now we have the Homemaker IRA that passed in 1996 that allows women--whether they are married and working at home or outside the home and single or married--they will be able to set aside the same amount. Fortunately, that amount has grown, and so it is not $2,000, but it can be $2,500 or $3,000 or $5,000, depending on their age. It is a wonderful thing we were able to do together.

Senator Mikulski and I also worked on behalf of Afghan women. When we started hearing the atrocities that were happening to the women of Afghanistan that were brought back by great women's organizations, such as Vital Voices, that told stories of not only unequal treatment of women in Afghanistan but inhumane treatment of women in Afghanistan. Senator Mikulski, Senator Clinton, and I introduced the Afghan Women and Children Relief Act, which was signed into law in December of 2001, which authorized funding for women in Afghanistan and Afghan refugee women. Political participation was supported for Afghan women, and we followed up with appropriations. I have to say our Republican President, President Bush, and our Democratic President, President Obama, have always said American money will go into Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else to support equally the education of girls and boys; that we would support women where they are not being treated as equals on a human rights basis. So our Presidents have stood and, of course, our bipartisanship in Congress has done the right thing. Again, Senator Mikulski is a leader in that area.

I cannot think of a stronger supporter in this Senate than Barbara Mikulski in the area of NASA. I wish to say Senator Bill Nelson also has been such a strong supporter, as well as Senator Lamar Alexander, but Senator Mikulski and I now are the--she is the chairman and I am the ranking Republican on the committee that is appropriating for NASA. We are also fortunate to have Chairman Jay Rockefeller on the authorizing and oversight committee for NASA. He, too, has been such a strong leader in assuring that we continue America's preeminence in space.

When the rubber hits the road in appropriations, Senator Mikulski has been there to say: We are going to have the science in the Hubble telescope, which has given us so much information, as well the James Webb telescope. Now, of course, we have the human space flight issues and Barbara Mikulski has been right there saying, of course we are going to utilize the International Space Station, of course we are going to keep America's priorities in space because it has done so much for our economy and our jobs and our technology and our health care improvements, but it has also been a national security issue that Barbara Mikulski recognizes, first and foremost.

I cannot match a lot of the stories about Barbara Mikulski and her personality, but I can tell you I took Barbara Mikulski to tour the Johnson Space Center in 2001, and we did a wonderful event at Baylor College of Medicine to talk about the research that is being done in the biomedical sciences and on the space station. I thought, I am going to bring Barbara where we can show her a little bit of Texas.

We know Texas has a lot of personality and sometimes we are thought to have a little too much fun, but I will tell you what, Barbara is one of us. I brought her to the Houston rodeo. During the month of the Houston rodeo, everybody is ``Go Texas,'' and everybody dresses Texan, which means cowboy, and we have a great time. So I took Barbara Mikulski into the steer auction, where just this past Saturday a steer was sold for $460,000.

It is a grand champion steer, I might say. All of that money goes for scholarships for our young people to go to college.

Barbara came into the steer auction, and she looked around. There were 2,000 people at the breakfast before all these people are going to go and bid on the steers so we can fund scholarships. We were all dressed appropriately for Texas, and she reached over to my ear and she whispered: Now, Kay, if we were here on Monday morning and we went to a chamber of commerce meeting, do these people look like this? I love to tell that story in Houston because it gets huge laughs. She won over everybody in Houston. They adored her from the beginning. She put on her cowboy hat, she rode in the grand entry on a buckboard and she became an honorary Texan in our hearts. So Barbara Mikulski knows how to win over others.

Let me mention one of my early experiences when I first came into the Senate. There was an effort to have health care reform. A program was put forward and this particular program had some things that were good, but one of the things in it was that no health insurance coverage would be required for women to have mammograms if they were 40 or below. I will tell you something, the biggest eruption in the Senate was Barbara Mikulski saying: Are you kidding? I will not let this go by me in the Senate. We are not going to say that a woman who is 40 or under is not going to be eligible for insurance coverage for a mammogram. It is not going to happen. Barbara Mikulski took the lead, and I am going to tell you, the first thing that came out of that plan was that provision, and it will never be in a plan as long as Barbara Mikulski is in the Senate. So I am just going to tell anybody who is looking at health care reform, take a little advice, don't mess with Barbara Mikulski because we are going to have mammograms.

Not only that, Barbara Mikulski came forward in the next month and passed unanimously in the Senate a mammogram standards bill. During this process she learned that there were varying degrees of standards of mammography. She was going to make sure there were standards that every clinic would have, that every piece of equipment would have and she led the effort. It is law today.

I will end with yet another accomplishment; that is, single-sex education in public schools. Senator Jack Danforth of Missouri started looking at the issue and said: We need to allow our public schools to offer single-sex education--meaning girl schools and boy schools-- because so many of us have seen that we have to adapt education for the needs of each individual child to the best of our ability. We know there are so many wonderful private schools for boys and girls, but we could hardly have a public school that would be single sex in this country in the 1990s.

So Jack Danforth started the effort, and when he left the Senate, I picked it up. The more I looked at it, the more I saw the benefits to boys and to girls--particularly in the middle and high school grades-- were palpable. Senators Clinton, Barbara Mikulski, Susan Collins, the three of them, had gone to an all-girls school. I had not, but they knew the benefits firsthand of single-sex education. Barbara was the product of single-sex education, having gone to a parochial school.

I first introduced the amendment in 1998, but it was in 2001--when the four of us came together--that we actually got the bill passed through an amendment and that amendment then not only made public single-sex education an option and legal, it also made it eligible for Federal funding grants similar to all our public schools.

I wish to say it has been one of the joys of my time in the Senate to work with Senator Barbara Mikulski, and I think this 4-foot-11-inch mighty-might has 10 times the impact. She has made an impact on Congress and an impact

on America because she is relentless, she is reasonable, she understands an issue, and she understands the importance of listening as well as talking. She is effective and she is respected. If there is anyone in the Senate who doesn't like her, respect her, and work well with her, I have not met them. When one is the longest serving woman in the Senate and Congress, they have worked with a lot of people. She is unanimously so well regarded, I have never met an enemy of hers.

I will close by saying the people who know her best love her most, and I cannot think of a finer thing to say about any person.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.