Hire More Heroes Act of 2014

Madam President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Oregon for the work, the wide-open work he did for the committee because we did have an open process, but we only comprise a little less than 25 percent of the Senate. To have a bill this important and be foreclosed from amendments I think makes the case for the minority leader and for this side.

I know there are many people on the other side who would like to have an open process, who would like to see amendments, who would like to have this be a real debating society from time to time rather than just have a slam-dunk type of approach to everything. I have to say I think there are a lot of people who aren't on the Finance Committee who had no say at all on this bill and who might possibly want to participate in the process.

We have just had, time after time----

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

Time after time we have been foreclosed. It is time to end that and start acting as the U.S. Senate should act and allow both sides at least an opportunity to express their views and allow every Senator that opportunity, not just the ones on the Finance Committee.

Mr. President, I thank my dear friend from New York. I consider him one of the better Senators in the Senate and a dear friend and a person I have always been able to work with. He is tough--there is no question about that--but so am I, although nobody knows that.

I just want to speak for a few minutes on this extender package. It is a bipartisan bill. It took a lot of work to put it together. We had to bring everybody on the Finance Committee together, and that is about 25 percent of the Senate. We all had a chance to bring up amendments whether they were germane or not, which is the right of Senators. Sometimes we get some embarrassing amendments, but that is part of the charm of this body.

The fact is, if you just want to have germane amendments, that is not what the U.S. Senate stands for and that is not what the rules say. I don't blame anybody who wants to do that who is trying to push their bill, but let's not take away the rights of Members of the Senate. Let's not take away the right of debate we have always had on this floor that gives the Senate such charm and also allows everybody to participate and bring up whatever they feel is right.

Sometimes we have to call a halt to it. After days or weeks of debate on major bills, such as this one, the majority leader may want to end the debate because he feels as though it is enough. At that point--but not before--you can fill the parliamentary tree in order to get the agreement between the two sides to where there are just a few amendments left, but you don't do it by calling up a bill, filing cloture, accusing the other side of filibustering when there is no intention to filibuster, and then fill the parliamentary tree so you, as the majority leader, can determine the type of amendment and who does and who doesn't get an amendment. That is not the way this great Senate is supposed to operate. It is offensive, and it is starting to get to our side.

If we were in the majority and we did that to the Democrats, you folks would be so upset it wouldn't even be funny. I think it is time for us to start letting the Senate operate as it always has. We will get more done, and it will probably be better legislation than not, and frankly, every one of us will feel better about being Members of the Senate.

Let's be honest. The Republicans have been given nine amendments voted upon since last July in the greatest deliberative body in the world. That is just plain ridiculous and it is not right.

Let's take the House. The House is supposed to be more partisan. In the House you have a rules committee that is nine to four. Republicans have nine members and the Democrats have four members. They double the number in the majority party, plus one. They could stop anything from happening. In the House they have had well over 130 Democratic amendments since last July--if my recollection is correct on that, and I think it is--compared to nine in the greatest deliberative body in the world. Give me a break.

The fact is that is less than one amendment a month. You can imagine why our side is so upset about it, and then we get a bill as important as the extenders package. It is not $100 billion, but it is about $88 billion, as I recall. There are very important provisions in this bill. There are some I love and some I don't love too much, but we worked it out between the two parties and we each had our own ideas of what was right and what was wrong and we worked it out in a bipartisan way.

I want to personally pay tribute to the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Wyden of Oregon. His leadership was very much acceptable, and it was easier to work out in the end because he was so open and realized we had some ideas too.

Our constituents put faith in us to make these decisions and the tough choices around here, and that means making them. A democracy functions because the rules allow it to function. The rules, in my opinion, have been bogged down with partisanship and protection effort rather than allowing the Senate to work its will. This is not how a real representative Republic functions.

I think we have to find a reasonable way forward. I intend to work hard to find that reasonable way. I think we have to find a way that both Democrats and Republicans can have their voices heard.

When we marked up this bill, it was a fair and open process. Both sides had their opportunity to bring up the amendments they wanted, and that is why we came up with a bill that is as acceptable as this one is. We had an open amendment process in committee, and it should be that way here too. This bill passed on a voice vote out of the committee. It took a lot of effort on the part of Senator Wyden, the chairman, myself, and everybody else on the committee, but we were able to do that.

It is important that the American people know why this disagreement occurred today. The only procedural possibility that the Republicans had was to vote against cloture and to make it very clear that we don't like the way the Senate is being run today. We don't think it is fair, and we don't think it is right. It has nothing do with policy. It has to do with how we proceed, and frankly I think a message was sent today.

It is unconscionable to me that Members on both sides, Republicans and Democrats, do not have an opportunity to offer their amendments. I might add, it is nice for the majority to say, well, we only want the germane amendments, but I never heard that when they were in the minority. They wanted every nongermane amendment they could get that might embarrass Republicans. I personally don't like to see that very much, but it is a right that has always existed in the Senate, and it should not be taken away and it should not be dismissed by rote.

I am going to do my very best, in a bipartisan way with Senator Wyden, to work out this impasse, but it is going to have to be fair and Republicans are going to have to have a fair shot at having some amendments.

I hope we get rid of this process of calling up a bill and immediately filing cloture because they think Republicans are going to filibuster when there was no intention to filibuster and then filling the parliamentary tree to foreclose any amendments unless the majority leader approves. Come on. That is not the way the Senate should run.

Frankly, yes, it is a little unwieldy sometimes. Sometimes it doesn't run smoothly, but that is one of the charming things about the Senate, and it is one of the things that will bring us together if we can occasionally recognize that we have different points of view. The Republicans are more conservative, there is no question about that, and the Democrats are more liberal, there is no question about that. Actually, I find that to be probably a good thing in many ways because both sides have to try to work it out. But we can't work it out if we can't call up amendments and if it is a stilted process that is determined only by the majority leader.

I am going to do everything in my power to get this resolved. I have already chatted with Senator Wyden, the chairman of the committee. He says he is going to do the same, and I know that is true. He is an honorable man. We are going to see if we can come up with a way to bring both sides together so we can pass this bill, and hopefully it will be an example of what we can do if we are willing to work together.

We have to get rid of these procedural approaches on every bill. Sometimes it is appropriate to use any procedure we want to on some bills that should not see the light of day. This is not one of those. This is a bill that has to see the light of day. This is a bill that will make a difference in this country. This is a bill that virtually everybody in this body wants, to a more or less degree, and some want it very much. This is a bill that really needs to pass. This is a bill that, hopefully, when the House passes their bill, we can get together in a conference and work it out, as big boys and girls should.

What we have been going through here now for 4 years, really, has been a disgrace. I think it is time to end the disgrace and get all of us working together, not necessarily in agreement--sometimes we have to fight things out--but working together in a way that is fair to both sides.

So far, our side feels it hasn't been fair to the Republican side. There has been too much assertion of power in the wrong way, in derivation of the rules. It started long ago, but it really came to a full culmination when the majority broke the rules to change the rules. One reason they were able to do that is because many on the other side have never been in the minority in the Senate. I will do my part to see that my friends on the other side have that wonderful experience because then they will understand why these rules are made to begin with.

The filibuster rule in particular was formulated because they couldn't get anything done in the Senate, and it was a way of invoking cloture and ending debate so they could get the matter over with. It has worked amazingly well in spite of the fact that from time to time we couldn't get bills through that we wanted to get through. There was a reason for that rule, and to break the rules to change the rules was the wrong thing to do to begin with. It has caused a lot of bitterness on the floor.

I have heard some Republicans saying: Let's stick it to them. I am not going to allow that to happen. I hope the same is true on the other side because I have heard some of the Democrats are saying: Let's stick it to them with some special amendments.

Let's try to get this done in a way that is meaningful. Let's try to get it done in the best interests of the American people. Let's try to get it done so that all of us can hold our heads high and say we did our best. If we do that, I think we will have a new day in the Senate that literally will work in the best interests of everyone. I don't want my side treating the Democrats the way we have been treated. I just don't think it is right. I don't think it is fair. I think it is a big mistake.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the Republicans control the time from 3 until 3:45 and the majority control the time from 3:45 until 4:30 p.m.

Madam President, first let me thank my colleague from Oregon, our new shining chairman of the Finance Committee, who is doing such a great job. He is trying, in his own inimitable way--almost always successful way--to weave together ideas of Democrats and Republicans to create a bipartisan solution, first on the issue of extenders--and that will be the big test case, and he knows it--and second on tax reform in general. If we can't pass these tax extenders in a bipartisan way, it will not bode well for tax reform. I am hopeful, with the initial signs and the overwhelming vote yesterday, we can get that vote done.

As the Senator mentioned, it has many ideas from different parts of the country--ideas from Democrats, ideas from Republicans, ideas, as he was kind enough to mention, that we worked on together, such as the proposal Senator Roberts and I put together under the guidance of Senator Coons, who was the originator of the idea.

I thank my friend from Arizona. I know he has some important words to speak in the next few minutes and has let me go now. I appreciate that very much. I know everyone looks forward to hearing from him.

Immigration

It is apropos my colleague from Arizona is on the floor because we worked together for so long and hard--at least in the Senate-- successfully on this issue of immigration. So I rise today to continue a conversation I started 2 weeks ago about the House's incomprehensible refusal to do anything to try to fix our broken immigration system.

I remind everyone it has now been 320 days since the Senate passed a strong bipartisan bill that would secure our borders, hold employers accountable for hiring illegal workers, grow our economy, and provide a chance for people currently here illegally to get right

with the law and earn legal status. During all that time the House has failed to do anything to fix our broken immigration system.

To be clear, the problem is not that there is a difference of opinion between a House bill and a Senate bill on immigration that cannot be reconciled. The problem is that House Republicans have completely abdicated their responsibility to address the important issue of fixing our broken immigration system. Again, the problem isn't that the House has passed immigration laws that the Senate disagrees with; the problem is that the House won't put any immigration bills up for a vote no matter what is in those bills.

Two weeks ago I stated on the floor that the reason the House has done nothing on immigration is because House Republicans have handed the gavel of leadership on immigration to far-right extremists, such as Congressman Steve King. Not only has this point not been refuted by anyone in the Republican Party, it has actually been confirmed in various news sources that have come out since the speech.

For instance, just 2 days ago Speaker Boehner was quoted as saying:

I do believe the vast majority of our members do want to

deal with this, they want to deal with it openly, honestly

and fairly.

Speaker Boehner is making clear that these folks are part of a ``vote no, pray yes'' caucus. But he said immigration hasn't been scheduled for a vote because ``there are some members of our party who just don't want to deal with this. It's no secret.''

Now, even by Steve King's analysis, 20 to 25 Members of the House Republican side would vote for the Senate's immigration bill. That number is clearly an underestimation of support in the House for the Senate bill, but it shows that even according to Steven King, if the Senate bill were brought up for a vote, it would pass. King added that about 100 to 150 Republican Members of the House could possibly vote yes on an immigration bill if it were presented for a vote.

Given this broad support for immigration reform that supposedly exists in the House, I would say to Speaker Boehner and the Republican House leadership: What are you waiting for? If you want to pass immigration reform, and you say the vast majority of your Members want to pass immigration reform, schedule immigration reform for a vote. It doesn't have to be our bill, although I think that is a good bipartisan, down-the-middle--not too liberal, not too conservative-- approach. But don't do our bill. Do another bill. Come up with your own ideas. That is fine with us.

But the problem is that the House Republican leadership is still too afraid of what Steve King calls the ``50 to 70 Republicans who would fight to the last drop of blood against any immigration bill.''

It is time for the House Republican leadership to decide whether they stand with the majority of the American people and the supposed majority of their conference or whether they are really going to let Steve King continue to dictate the policy of the Republican Party on immigration.

Just to be clear, right now Steve King is winning. Just last week he said:

If I had the power, the authority to kill everything

immigration-wise that comes through the House, if they

actually handed me the keys to the kingdom, and if I actually

had the gavel that controls the immigration issue, that would

be nice.

Well, who among us can say he has not been handed the gavel on immigration policy when nothing is being done on immigration--just as he said he would do if he were indeed handed the gavel?

What has the House actually done on immigration these past 2 years? Nothing. Look it up. This is what Steve King wants--he wants the House to do nothing. He is winning and America is losing.

I am not the only one who is frustrated with this inexplicable inaction. Just this week Tom Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said:

If the Republicans don't do it, they shouldn't bother to

run a candidate in 2016.

He added that ``failure to act is not an option'' and that ``we're absolutely crazy if we don't take advantage of having passed an immigration bill out of the Senate.''

I don't always agree with the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, but he is right. Not only is this inaction damaging the Republican Party politically, it is also inflicting needless damage to our economy. Our GDP could be growing by over 3 percent by passing this bill--more than any Republican tax cut or Democratic spending proposal. But Steve King says no and Speaker Boehner abandons ship.

Mario Diaz-Balart, another Republican working to pass immigration reform, said that Republicans need a deadline to get moving on immigration reform and that if no action was taken by the August recess, the Republican brand would be damaged with Latino voters for years to come.

Has Speaker Boehner said: Fine, we will schedule a vote before August recess? No, he has not. There is no sign that anything will ever be done on immigration reform. Even with the very small, microscopic measure known as the ENLIST Act, which would let certain immigrant youth earn legal status by joining the military, the House has refused to consider this so far as part of the Defense authorization bill.

Republicans keep trying to place the blame on the President, saying he can't be entrusted to enforce any laws. We believe that is a phony excuse, but if that is really their problem, let's pass a bill now and delay implementation until 2017. I would support that. And then we would have no President Obama enforcing any of these laws. Let's call their bluff. Is it Obama? Is he the problem? Then pass a bill where he can't enforce any of these laws. We can come to a reluctant agreement on that. If Republicans can't agree to pass a bill that goes into effect after the President's term, then we know that mistrust of the President is nothing but a straw man.

Let's be honest about what is happening right now. Republicans are currently doing nothing on immigration reform because they don't want to rock the boat with primaries happening in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Virginia, and other key States that are occurring between now and early June. But we can't keep having broken families living under a broken system forever without any idea of when Congress might act to finally provide badly needed reform.

So today I wish to be clear on what our window is for the House to pass immigration reform. It is the window between early June and the August recess. So today I am saying to Speaker Boehner, Leader Cantor, and other Republican leaders who refuse to schedule a vote on immigration reform during this window between early June and the August recess, it will not pass until 2017 at the earliest. I believe it will then pass in 2017 after Republicans take a shellacking in the Presidential and congressional elections. But in the meantime, if immigration reform is not passed during this window, Republicans will have to admit that Steve King controls the Republican Party platform on immigration. If nothing happens during this window, it will be clear that this occurred because Steve King calls the shots and he has won the immigration debate among the House Republicans. Whatever their supposed excuse for inaction, inaction is consent to Steve King's point of view.

Where are the leaders in the House--the Republican Party--with the courage to stand up to Steve King and the far right and say: Enough is enough. We will not let our party be hijacked by extremists whose xenophobia causes them to prefer maintaining a broken system over achieving a tough, fair, and practical long-term solution.

Make no mistake about it. Immigration reform will pass either this year with bipartisan support and a bipartisan imprint or it will pass in a future year with only Democratic support and Democratic imprint because Democrats will control Congress and the White House simply because Republicans have failed to pass immigration reform.

In the meantime, the President would be more than justified in acting anytime after recess begins to make whatever changes he feels necessary to make our immigration system work better for those unfairly burdened by our broken laws. If House Republicans refuse to act, it is incumbent on all of us to look at all the areas where we can act administratively to fix our broken system.

I hope immigration reform passes this year.

I see my two colleagues from Arizona who worked so long and hard and courageously and pulled the bill further away from what many Democrats might want, but they knew that America and their State of Arizona demanded a solution. Let's rally to their side. Let's rally to the side of all Americans, a majority of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, all of whom want comprehensive immigration reform.

I hope immigration reform passes this year because our broken families, our economy, and our country so badly need it. Let's hope the House finally stops talking and starts acting.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, first I want to thank Senator Hatch. I deeply respect his views. He is one of the most effective Members of the Senate. He has deep views and reaches across party lines to try to get things done, which I think is very important, and I respect him greatly.

I want to agree with the conclusion of Senator Hatch. The problem with corporate inversion is best fixed if we do comprehensive tax reform. I believe he is right. We have two paths we can take. One is to try and reform our current tax structure, which I think will not work, and I will give my reasons why; or we can look for a competitive tax structure that is fairer to the American people and makes measures such as corporate inversions something that would not be happening in our communities.

Pfizer and AstraZeneca are looking at a merger. AstraZeneca is a British company. They own major operations in my State of Maryland, affecting thousands of workers. We would think a merger between a British company and an American company would mean more jobs in America, but we know Pfizer has made certain commitments to the British Government about maintaining and expanding jobs in Great Britain, which we worry is at the cost of American jobs and jobs in my home State of Maryland.

We have heard one of the reasons for the merger is corporate inversion. What do we mean by that? It means Pfizer, an American company, will merge with a British company and then use that to transfer its revenues, which are legitimately earned in America, many as the result of intellectual property developed in America, and then attribute that income to foreign sourced, rather than to domestic sourced, trying to avoid U.S. taxes.

Our Tax Code should not encourage that action. Several Members of the Senate and I are working within our current Tax Code to make sure that doesn't happen here in America. Our Tax Code should not encourage companies to take their income offshore. They should pay their fair share of taxes in the United States.

But as Senator Hatch pointed out, and I agree, we need a more competitive Tax Code. We need a Tax Code that would allow for better competition for American companies, for our manufacturers, for our producers, for our farmers, that will allow easier capital formations so we could raise in America more of the capital we need and be less dependent upon foreign-sourced investment, although foreign-sourced investment is certainly helpful to our country and something we encourage.

We need a Tax Code that is fair, that people believe they are being treated fairly with their neighbor, which is not the current situation. Most Americans cannot figure out the income tax code and don't know whether they are being treated fairly with other taxpayers, and we need a code that is much more efficient.

So one path we could pursue and that Senator Hatch was alluding to is to try to reform our current income tax codes--our corporate income tax code and our personal income tax code.

We have an example of that. Congressman Camp has come up with a comprehensive proposal in the House of Representatives. I must say I don't think Congressman Camp's proposal adds up from the point of view of producing the revenue we produce today, let alone the revenue we need in order to pay our bills and not be dependent upon borrowing money from other countries. But putting that aside, I think we see the difficulty in the Camp proposal, which causes major disruptions among different industries, and we are hearing from those industries that it would create major problems for competitiveness for the United States.

I think the most fundamental flaw with trying to reform our current Tax Code is we tried that once before in 1986, and it was comprehensive and it did spread the burden and it did reduce the rate. It lasted for less than 1 year before Congress continued to change the Tax Code.

Today we have tens of thousands of changes since the 1986 tax reform and we have many temporary provisions. That is why we have the bill before us right now to deal with these expiring tax provisions. I don't think there is any way of getting around these types of problems moving forward under our current Tax Code.

I will point out a fact I don't think most Americans have understood. If we look at all the OECD countries--the industrial countries of the world, countries that we like to compare ourselves to, countries that we want to be competitive with--of all the industrial nations of the world, the United States is near the bottom in regard to their reliance upon government services. In Europe they have much stronger government services in health care and housing and income support-type programs than we do in the United States.

If we rely less on governmental services, wouldn't that mean we should have the lowest competitive tax rates among the industrial nations? Instead, as Senator Hatch pointed out, we have the highest marginal tax rates among the industrial nations, and the reason is quite simple. Of all the industrial nations in the world, only the United States does not have a national consumption tax. We rely on income tax revenues. Why? Because we thought that was the right way to go, and we didn't have to worry about international competition. After all, we are America.

Guess what. We are in global competition today, and the tax rates of this country matter in regard to our manufacturers being able to sell products overseas.

One other fact about international competition. International competition rules at the WTO were developed based upon consumption taxes. So if a company manufactures an automobile in Germany and wants to bring it into the United States, the taxes they pay--the consumption taxes--are taken off of that product. So basically their autos sell in America tax free; whereas, U.S. auto manufacturers that have to pay taxes, those taxes still apply to the cost of the product because it is not border adjusted.

Then, to make matters worse, if they manufacture a car in the United States and try to sell it in Germany, they not only have to pay the corporate taxes here, the income taxes--because they are not taken off at the border, they are not border adjusted--when they go into Germany, they have to pay the value-added tax, the consumption tax. How do we compete under those circumstances? The answer is it is very difficult. In global competition today, we have to be smart.

This is why we should have the lowest marginal tax rates in the world. If we did, corporate inversion would not be an issue because we wouldn't find a Pfizer trying to pay British taxes when the U.S. taxes are the lowest taxes among the industrial nations of the world.

So I have a proposal called the progressive consumption tax. ``Progressive,'' what do I mean by that? It means the taxes paid at the Federal level will be more reflective of a person's ability to pay than our current income tax code is. We make it progressive so it is fair, in that they pay according to their ability to pay a progressive consumption tax. That consumption tax rate will be the lowest among the industrial nations of the world.

I will give some examples. I will be the first to acknowledge we have to get these scored and these numbers can change as we go along, but we are looking at a consumption tax rate of about 10 percent. This would put us at the bottom of the consumption taxes among industrial nations. Individuals who earn under $25,000 and families up to $50,000 would pay no consumption taxes. They would get a credit for the consumption taxes they otherwise would pay.

Similar to the current income tax code where they do not pay income taxes, they would not pay consumption taxes. It would be immediately rebated to them. If they work, it would be rebated under the payroll tax payments. If they don't work, they would get a debit card to get instant rebates and use it as people use debit cards.

So we would make it progressive. We would then be able to start the income tax rates at $100,000, approximately, of taxable income, and 90 percent of Americans would pay no income taxes. It would start at 15 percent. There would be an additional bracket of 25 percent, starting at $40,000 of taxable income. So a progressive income tax, simplified, with only four deductions, not this complexity today as we figure out whether something is deductible and all the complications.

We would have four deductions for State and local--with respect to federalism--State and local taxes: for charitable deductions because our charities are critically important to carrying out the important work of our country, for real estate and the needs for the real estate to reflect--so we don't see destruction of the real estate market, and we also allow deductions for employer-provided health benefits and retirement benefits. It is simplified, it rewards simplicity, and allows for the progressiveness of fairness in our Tax Code that does not exist today.

The corporate tax rate would get down to 15 percent. That is what corporate America tells us we need to be competitive in the industrial world. This adds up.

Some say: Gee. Consumption taxes raise a lot of revenue. We put in our proposal an automatic adjustment of the rate to make sure it doesn't bring in more revenue than we say. So we are fair on the progressive side to make sure it is fair from the point of view of the ability of middle-class families to pay, and it is fair from the point of view of those who are concerned about government growing, in that it has a circuit break as to the rate based upon the revenue that you need.

What have we accomplished by this? We have accomplished a much simpler Tax Code that people can understand, a fairer Tax Code, one that rewards savings. Savings are not taxed. There is a greater ability to raise capital in the United States. It is border adjusted, which means the taxes come off our exported products so we can compete globally in a much easier way. This is what we accomplish.

So when people talk about fundamental reform, to me, this is what we need to do.

I am going to move this proposal as quickly as I can, but obviously it is going to take some discussion and debate. We are hopeful we will be able to answer anyone's questions on it. We are very optimistic, but in the meantime what do we do? We can't just stand by and allow Pfizer to take American jobs overseas because of corporate inversion. So I hope we will stand for what is right in our Tax Code, that we have the capacity to improve our current Tax Code to avoid the loss of jobs and shipping jobs overseas, as well as working to reform our Tax Code and provide the type of structure so the country that relies the least on government among the industrial nations has the lowest tax rate and has a fairer system for all Americans.

Mr. President, I ask to add 10 minutes to the 10 minutes I have already requested.

Mr. President, I listened carefully to Senator Lindsey Graham, who put forward a very dangerous bill for women and their families in this country. I will explain in a moment why I think it is dangerous, but what was interesting is that I believe he said he brought it forward today because it is the anniversary that Dr. Gosnell was convicted and sent to prison. This is a rogue doctor who committed despicable and illegal acts and is now serving life in prison without the possibility of parole for what he did--abusing the trust of being a reproductive health care doctor. Dr. Gosnell is away, as he should be.

How does my friend from North Carolina commemorate this? By putting forward a bill that will drive more women to rogue doctors. If we make it illegal for a woman, regardless of her circumstance, she is going to find a way to save her health, her life, and her family.

Women deserve to have protections. The bill that my friend proposed simply says that after a certain number of weeks, an abortion will not be allowed no matter what a woman's health situation is, and that is very dangerous.

I ask--just rhetorically--how can a Senator say he is doing something right for women and their families when there is not a health exception? If a woman goes to the doctor and finds out she is facing cancer, kidney failure, blood clots or some other tragic complication, why should the government step into the middle of her family? Why should the government and U.S. Senators be allowed to step between the woman, her doctor, her God, and her family? It is a disgrace, especially from a party that is known for saying: Get Government off our backs.

This is horrible. There is no exception for rape or incest victims who are unable to report those heinous crimes. Let's say initially they were too frightened and then suddenly they get their courage. Well, too bad. Have your rapist's child. This is not a government that cares about families. This is a government that steps into our business at the most tragic moments of our lives.

The bill is so extreme that the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which represents thousands of OB/GYNs, said these restrictions are ``dangerous to patients' safety and health.'' Who do you think stands up for the health of the women in this country? U.S. Senators or doctors who know the women, the family, and the circumstances of her health?

I have a letter from Christie, who lives in Central Virginia, and she said:

My husband and I were confronted with two equally horrible

options--carry the pregnancy to term and watch our baby girl

suffocate to death upon birth, or terminate the pregnancy

early and say good-bye to our much-wanted and much-loved baby

girl.

Why should a Senator tell her what to do? It is a war on women. When you tell a woman in that type of circumstance what to do and take away her right to use her mind, her brain, and the love she has for her family, her husband, and her children to make that decision, it is a war on women.

Christie was pregnant with her second child when that happened. She wanted this baby, but it was not until a 20-week ultrasound that she found out her daughter would suffocate to death at birth. What U.S. Senator has a right to make her watch that baby child suffocate to death? I am sorry, but that is not life-affirming.

Then there is Judy from Wisconsin. She says:

I know what it is like to live without a mother. My mother

died when I was only 4 years old, and it changed my life

forever.

Four months into her pregnancy, Judy developed a pregnancy-induced blood clot in her arm. The only guarantee she would not die and leave behind her 5-year-old son was for Judy to terminate the pregnancy. She and her husband made the very difficult decision to terminate that pregnancy.

What right does a U.S. Senator--who doesn't know her, doesn't know her husband, doesn't know her family history and how she lost her mother when she was young--have to step into that world at that moment and tell her what she has to do. Do we think so little of the women of this Nation?

We just had Mother's Day. We lauded our mothers. We are crying out for the girls who were taken by terrorists. If we all care, then why would we support legislation such as this?

Then there is Bridget's story. At the time, she was a 25-year-old mom looking forward to the birth of her third child. She initially had a normal ultrasound at 13 weeks. Her second ultrasound showed a major, complex fetal cardiac malformation, a fatal problem. Because tests could only confirm this fatal defect later in the pregnancy, she could not make a decision until after the 20 weeks.

What right does a U.S. Senator have to get in the middle of her most personal, most private, most difficult decisions? There is a place for government. It is to make life better for people. It is to say: We are with you. We have your back. We understand what you are going through. It is not to make life so difficult for people.

In Missouri, Julie and her husband were told relatively early in her pregnancy that the baby they were expecting had multiple abnormalities and would not survive outside the womb, but it took her 3 weeks to locate an abortion provider because they had shut down so many providers. They found out, under Missouri's restrictive laws, she would have to travel 2 hours to a facility on two separate occasions to comply with the State's 24-hour waiting period. When they were finally able to get the care they needed, her pregnancy was just over 20 weeks.

What right does any U.S. Senator have to step out there and tell the American people that we know better than their families know, that we know better than their doctors know, and that we know better than their clergy knows?

This bill targets doctors who risk their lives to help women who are at risk for paralysis, infertility, have cancer, and whose lives would be in danger if they continued the pregnancy. This bill would throw those doctors in prison for 5 years just for providing needed health care to their patients.

I don't know what kind of country people envision when we have the government policing the private health care decisions of women and their families. Why would we want to go back to the last century and open battles that have long been fought? Those battles were fought in 1973 when Roe v. Wade was the decision of the Supreme Court, and do you know what that court said? They balanced all the rights--the rights of the fetus with the rights of the mother--and they said early in the pregnancy, a woman has the right to choose. It is her decision, but as she goes along with the pregnancy, then later, yes, there will be restrictions, and that is fine as long as the health and the life of the mother are in the forefront.

This legislation that Senator Graham wants to vote on--before it goes to any committee as Senator Blumenthal was saying--it is not what is best for women and their families or our communities, it is about an extreme rightwing agenda that needs to stop. This is a moderate country. We work together. I don't get everything I want, you don't get everything you want, but we work it out.

To come and offer legislation that is extremely dangerous to women is, in my opinion--I don't know what to call it. It is out of sync with what we ought to be doing. As Senator Baldwin said, we ought to be fighting, and she used that word ``fighting.'' We should be fighting for health care for women, fighting for the rights of our families, so they can have decent health care, and not putting rules in the books that are so onerous that a woman is desperate. I don't understand it.

I believe the Republican Party has moved so far to the right, it is unrecognizable to me. When I started out in politics--which was a long time ago--Republicans and Democrats worked together on the environment. Now we can't get a vote from them so we can ensure that the Clean Air Act is protecting our people. We can't get them to address climate change. We cannot get a vote from them. Maybe once in a blue moon we get a vote from one or two. George Herbert Walker Bush was the President who worked hard at Planned Parenthood, and that is where Republicans used to be. We would come together on protecting a woman's right to choose. There were more Republicans in Planned Parenthood than Republicans when I got started in politics. Now the Republicans want to run Planned Parenthood out. They want to shut down their clinics and stop all the good they are doing to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

I call it a war on women. We heard people say: Well, maybe there is such a thing as legitimate rape. Have you ever heard of anything so outrageous? We can't even get anyone to move forward on equal pay for equal work around here.

I am sad to say that I think this bill is part of the war on women. Clearly, they are the ones who will suffer, along with their doctors. We don't put women in grave danger. We don't put up legislation without a health exception. We don't step in the middle of our families' most difficult decisions.

Americans want us to focus on making life better for our families. They don't want us to create new health risks. God knows we have enough health stressors just breathing the air out there, getting the flu and everything else. We don't need legislation that restricts a woman's rights when she needs to have us at her back, helping her, making her safe. Let's not go back to the last century.

If somebody has a bill such as this, I hope they will let it go through the whole committee process. We need these women who I quoted today to look Senators in the eye and say: Senator, please stay out of my life. These decisions are difficult enough, but I know I can handle them with my family, with my God, with my support system.

Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. In the early stages, a woman has a pretty much unfettered right. As we go along, there are more restrictions. But we never, ever turn our back on a woman's health or her life. That is what Roe says.

Frankly, I hope this bill and others like it will not see the light of day because it could only make life very difficult for many of our families.

I thank the Chair. It is an honor to work with the Presiding Officer on this issue.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. President, there was a fairly remarkable hearing in the House of Representatives yesterday in the Energy and Commerce Committee, upon which I used to sit when I was there. It called together some of the Nation's biggest insurers to talk about the failures of the Affordable Care Act as seen through the lens of the insurance companies.

First up on the docket for Republicans was the claim that no one had paid their premiums, that people had signed up for plans, but a report which had been released by the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House suggested in fact only maybe about 60 percent of them actually paid their premiums.

So they asked representatives from WellPoint, Aetna, and other insurance companies to confirm that fact, and of course they did not. WellPoint said, in fact, 90 percent of the people who signed up for WellPoint plans--the biggest insurer through the Affordable Care Act-- have paid their premiums. Aetna said the number for them is somewhere in the low to mid-80s. Both numbers are actually representative of what people in the non-Affordable Care Act market pay with respect to their premiums.

When we dig deeper into the Energy and Commerce report, we found out the

reason they suggested that only about 60 percent of the people had paid their premiums is because most people's premiums hadn't been due yet. They didn't have to pay them when they had signed up for the plans in February and March.

So they tried another tactic. They said: We have heard all these reports and news media representations that you are going to be increasing premiums next year by double digits.

The insurers said: No, we have no idea what our premiums are going to be next year. We don't have the data yet. In fact, we are starting to get the subsidies coming into our plans that help keep these premiums affordable for low- and middle-class individuals across the country.

It turned out to be an absolute disaster for Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee because, as the insurers also pointed out, their profits have done pretty well, their stock prices have done pretty well over the past several years, because the Affordable Care Act is working for patients and, as it turns out, for the insurance companies that have offered plans on the exchanges.

It is representative of a whole litany of complaints Republicans have registered with respect to the Affordable Care Act's horror stories and worst-case scenarios which have simply not come true. I will take a few minutes to run through each of these arguments because I think it is important to have some context to understand that each one of their representations has not come true. Thus, as they turn to their next series of representations or challenges to the act, I think we can look back on history as a pretty good predictor of the future when it comes to Republicans' ability to prognosticate about an Affordable Care Act which is working now for millions of Americans.

The first thing they said is nobody is going to enroll. They said the Web site was unfixable. Of course we know that is the easiest to debunk now that we have 8 million people who have enrolled through the private exchanges and another 4 million to 6 million people who have enrolled via Medicaid expansion, and 3 million young adults who are now on their parents' plan. In fact, enrollment far outpaced what initial expectations were and beat the CBO estimates by 2 million people.

So clearly Republicans were wrong when they said nobody would sign up for the Affordable Care Act. They were also wrong when they said the Web site couldn't be fixed. There is no excuse for what happened in the fall of last year on the Web site, but it got up and running. Once it did, people were able to get on in record numbers.

They said the Affordable Care Act was going to kill jobs. We have done nothing but add jobs by the millions since the Affordable Care Act was passed. There is a chart, which I don't have on the floor, that shows what has happened since the Affordable Care Act went into law: Job growth has continued unabated.

Specifically, Republicans said: It is going to result in people who were working full time to move to part-time work. The Congressional Budget Office in a report which came out about 2 months ago said there is absolutely no economic evidence to suggest full-time work is shifting to part-time work. That is not a trend actually happening in the economy. I understand there are anecdotes and stories which are true where employers have made that choice, but there is no broader economic evidence that there is a shift from full-time work to part- time work.

Republicans said it is going to cost too much. Sylvia Burwell was before the HELP Committee today, and she was very articulate in explaining the simple fact that the Congressional Budget Office has revised downward Federal health care expenditures by $900 billion over the 10-year period from the passage of the Affordable Care Act to a decade later. We are going to be spending $900 billion less than the CBO initially thought we would, in large part because of all the wellness, prevention, and pay-for-performance measures built into the Affordable Care Act.

Premiums are lower than expected on these exchanges, which saves $5 billion in and of itself. The overall cost of the bill is 17 percent lower than what CBO initially estimated--huge savings for the Federal budget and for the specific line items within the Federal health care act.

OK. Fine, they said, but young people aren't going to sign up. It is ultimately going to be older, sicker people, and you will not have the right mix.

I think I said WellPoint was the biggest insurer. It is in fact the second biggest insurer. They said the average age of enrollment has come down every single day in a meaningful fashion. The risk pool and the product selection seem to be coming in the manner we had hoped. It is very encouraging right now.

Big companies such as United are going to be offering new plans on exchanges similar to those in Connecticut because they as well see the risk pools are exactly as they had hoped.

But the uninsured will not sign up. This is just people who were insured shifting to other plans which are perhaps better or cheaper for them--bunk as well. The new Gallup survey, which is the best data we have on the number of people who have or don't have insurance in this country, shows remarkable decreases over the last two quarters in the number of uninsured people in this country--frankly, numbers which almost seem too good to be true--a 25-percent reduction in 6 months' time with respect to the number of people without insurance in this country. One-quarter of the Nation's uninsured are now insured in the first 6 months of the full implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

Lastly, one of the biggest red herrings in this debate has been the issue of cancellations. No doubt there have been hundreds of thousands of plans all across the country that have been canceled since the Affordable Care Act was put into place, but Health Affairs, one of the most respected, nonpartisan health journals in the country, did an article, I believe a couple weeks ago, which said there is absolutely nothing different about the number of cancellations which happened in the wake of the implementation of the act as compared to what had happened in that same period before the implementation of the act; that there is high turnover in the individual market.

While there are certainly some plans which were canceled by insurers because they didn't meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act, there wasn't a surge in cancellations compared with the number of cancellations which happened prior to the act.

So if we just go through--whether it is the claim that no one is paying their premiums or that rates are going to go up or that nobody will enroll, that it will kill jobs, that it will cost too much or that young people will not sign up or that the uninsured will not sign up or that cancellations are higher than normal--every single one of these claims turns out to be wrong.

That is not to say this act and its implementation hasn't been without its significant warts. There are flaws in the bill. There have been big bumps in implementation, but the fact is that polls are starting to show a growing acceptance and approval of the law amongst the American public because they have listened to these claims that the sky is going to fall from Republicans, and not only has the sky not fallen, but 15 million or so people across this country have more affordable health care because of the Affordable Care Act. The uninsurance rate in this Nation has dropped by 25 percent. Taxpayers are saving $900 billion over the course of the 10-year period following the passage of the bill.

I haven't even gotten into the quality metrics. Rates of hospital- acquired infections are down. The number of people who are readmitted to the hospital after a complicated surgery is dramatically down.

This is why we passed the Affordable Care Act. It hasn't lived up to everyone's expectation, but to the extent that the goal of the act was to reduce the number of people who are uninsured in this country, lower the rate of growth of health care expenditures, and increase quality, the data coming in on a day-by-day basis is overwhelming and impossible to ignore. More people have insurance, cost is coming down, and quality is getting better.

At some point the facts have to matter. As former Senator Moynihan said: Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but you don't get to have your own set of facts.

Taxpayers, the uninsured, consumers of all stripes understand what the true story is; that all of the Republican prognostications about the failure of the Affordable Care Act have not come true in the past and they are not likely to come true in the future.

There is a lot of work to do to continue to make the Affordable Care Act better, and I hope every Senator is ready to do that work, but the data and the numbers tell us that increasingly, on a day-by-day basis, the Affordable Care Act works.

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

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about the health care law. I have visited with people in my home State of Wyoming and people from around the country who come to Washington, and many of them want to talk about the health care law and the side effects of the health care law. They want to talk about the health care law that the Democrats voted for unanimously in this body and Democrats on the other side of this building voted for overwhelmingly.

A little earlier today, one of my colleagues who is a supporter of the law came to the floor to say it is working and everything is great.

I am here to say it is not and to dispute some of the comments made by my colleague because I am hearing from people whose care has been affected. Their lives have been affected, the ability to keep their doctor has been affected, and the cost of their care and the cost of their insurance has gone up. Many have had their insurance canceled all because of the health care law.

One of the things the President promised the American people with the health care law--he said it would lower the cost of care, and people's premiums would go down $2,500 per family. He said he wanted to go after this because health care spending was too high in the country, and the spending was going up. Yet we had a colleague say that the health care law is a success.

On May 5, just a few days ago, USA Today had a headline that said ``Health Spending Up Most Since '80.'' Health spending is up. The President said it was going to go down because of his law, but it is up the most since 1980.

The article says:

Health care spending rose at the fastest pace since 1980

during the first three months of the year . . .

They say that ``Health care spending climbed at a 9.9% annual rate last quarter''--almost 10 percent. That is not what President Obama told the American people would happen.

I would point out that this is a drastic increase in spending when the health care law was supposed to do just the opposite.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports higher spending in hospitals--the largest rise since the 1980's third-quarter. It is astonishing when the President promises the American people one thing and delivers another.

In this same Monday USA Today there is a Pew Research Center poll which is interesting. When you read about this, it says:

The poll of 1,501 adults, including 1,162 registered

voters, was taken April 23-27 . . . Other findings help

explain the Democrats' woes. By more than 2-1, Americans are

dissatisfied with the direction of the country. They remain

downbeat about the economy. They aren't persuaded that the

Affordable Care Act is going to help them and their families.

Even the president's supporters worry he is a political

liability for fellow Democrats.

I come to the floor today as a doctor who has taken care of patients for 25 years in Wyoming, and my concern with health care is actually ``care.'' The President became fixated, as did the Democrats, on the word ``coverage.'' Coverage doesn't actually make sure that people get the care they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost. That is what people wanted with the health care law. They don't want what was pushed down their throats by the Democrats in the House and the Senate who said they knew better than the American people.

I find it fascinating to see that in States run by Democrats around the country--Maryland, Oregon, and Massachusetts--which have had the exchanges and have given up. They have said, no, our State exchanges don't work and can't work. Massachusetts has been in play for a number of years, and they had to shut it down and turn it over to the Federal Government because of the mandates and complexities of the health care law--hundreds of millions of dollars that should have gone to care for people. It should have gone to help people. Instead it has gone to consultants and computer companies. It is not helping people. It is wasted.

Massachusetts, Oregon, and Maryland have given up. They said: We can't even live under this health care law's mandates. Our computer systems don't work. So let's turn it over to Washington. The American people are fed up with turning things over to Washington.

It was interesting to hear my colleague from Connecticut talk about some of the concerns and stories that we are sharing with the American people about folks losing their jobs, part of their pay, and bringing home smaller paychecks as a result of fewer hours at work.

I would like to share a situation that is now happening in Iowa. It was reported a couple of weeks ago in the Ottumwa Courier. Iowa is a State where we have a Democratic Senator from Iowa who is a very active supporter of the health care law. He was on the floor day after day about how wonderful this health care law was during the debate.

Let's talk about what is happening in one community in that Senator's home State in Eddyville. It says:

Faced with a nearly $138,000 increase in insurance costs

the Eddyville-Blakesburg-Fremont School Board--

We are not talking about a business here; we are talking about a community school board--

this week approved reducing the hours of all para-educators

from about 37 to just 29 hours per week to avoid the

requirements of the National Health Care Act.

That is a side effect of the Obama health care law that every Democrat in this Chamber voted for when that came up for a vote.

So they had some meetings.

The article goes on and says:

In February, Superintendent Dean Cook recommended cutting

12 special education para-educators and three more working as

librarians.

My colleague from Connecticut said none of this is happening and that these are just incidental stories; don't pay attention to them.

The article goes on to say:

However, this week his recommendation instead was a choice

of either cutting eight para-educators or to reduce the hours

of all of para-educators (around 25 to 28 employees), for the

2013-14 school year.

One of the board members ``opted to reduce hours instead of cutting jobs.'' This is a tough situation to put a school board in--reducing hours and cutting jobs.

The board member noted:

It just gets pretty tight when we have cut paras in the

past. Those people play key roles in running the schools.

The article goes on:

In fact, several teachers spoke to or wrote letters to the

board, providing a detailed account of the jobs that para-

educators perform, urging the board not to cut these

positions.

The article quotes one of the members of the board, Gay Murphy, who said: ``I feel very frustrated that our hands are tied with the health care act.'' Fascinating. The board member has the same last name as the Senator who was down here on the floor saying: Oh, no; pay no attention to these important stories.

The article goes on to say that Gay Murphy ``asked that employees' hours be cut by working less days instead of less hours per day''--but still cut the hours under the President's health care law--``so it would be easier for employees to get a second job if needed.''

The President's health care law is cutting people's hours, and they are trying to find ways to make it easier for them to get a second job because their paychecks are being cut. Their take-home pay is being cut because of this health care law.

One other board member ``noted that quality employees may not stick

around for a 29-hour per week job and that special education students have a need for more consistency that comes with full-time employees.''

This is a sad story, and it is happening in communities all across the country. I think it is not a surprise that Republicans continue to come to the floor to say there are huge side effects of the health care law, and for some people who may have been helped by the law, many people are being hurt, and it is happening all across the country.

That is why when I heard my colleague mention on the floor that people are getting used to it or there is an acceptance of the health care law, I would just point out an article in the Washington Post:

Poll: Obamacare hits new low.

A new poll shows the public's opposition to Obamacare has

never been higher.

The Pew Research Center poll shows disapproval of the law hitting a new high of 55 percent. It comes on the heels of several polls last week that showed the law had very little, if any, bump after signups on the health care exchanges exceeded the goals.

So here we are, an all-time low for approval of a health care law, and the reason is because people's lives have been impacted. They have been hurt by this health care law. There are side effects of the law. People who were promised they would be able to keep the coverage they had--millions lost that coverage. They were told they could keep their doctor if they wanted to keep their doctor, and many Americans lost their doctor. They were told the cost of their insurance would go down and it has instead gone up. They are paying higher premiums, higher deductibles, and now people's paychecks are shrinking and their take- home pay is less because of a health care law that remains very unpopular.

That is why I felt compelled to come to the floor to point out to the American people, and to this body, that comments made previously by a colleague were not, at least in my opinion, based on what I have seen, heard, and read, consistent with the real impacts of this health care law and the impacts on patients, on providers, and on taxpayers.

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

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

Mr. President, there are new reports that the majority leader is considering bringing to the floor the so-called Smarter Sentencing Act, and to bring it to finality.

I rise again today to express my strong opposition to this bill and to argue against taking up the Senate's time to consider it. I will list several reasons.

This country has experienced a tremendous drop in crime over the past 30 years. We have achieved hard-won gains in reducing victimization. More effective police tactics played a very significant role.

Congress assisted with funds for law enforcement and mandatory sentencing guidelines to make dangerous offenders serve longer sentences. But after the Supreme Court applied novel constitutional theory, those mandatory guidelines were made advisory only. Federal judges then used their discretion to sentence defendants more leniently than the guidelines had called for.

Today, the only tool Congress has to make sure Federal judges do not abuse their discretion in sentencing too leniently is mandatory minimum sentences. So bringing this bill would cut a wide range of mandatory minimum sentences by half or more. Those sentences include people convicted of manufacture, sale, possession with intent to distribute, and importation of a wide range of drugs, including heroin, cocaine, PCP, LSD, ecstasy, and methamphetamines.

When supporters of this bill discuss how it increases discretion for judges and keeps current maximum sentences, what they really mean is that judges will gain discretion only to be more lenient. The bill does not increase discretion for judges to be more punitive.

When supporters of this bill say that the bill only applies to nonviolent offenders, don't be misled into thinking it applies to people in Federal prison for simple possession of marijuana. It doesn't. The offenses covered in this bill are violent.

Importing cocaine is violent. The whole operation turns on violence.

Dealing heroin also involves violence or threats of violence, and the offense for which the offender is sentenced may have even been violent. The defendant's codefendant might have used a gun.

While the bill does not apply to a drug crime for which the defendant used violence, it does apply to criminals where the defendant has a history of committing violent crimes. Supporters have failed to recognize that it would apply to drug dealers with a history of violent crimes.

Supporters of the bill also raise the argument of prison overcrowding. But prison populations in this country are decreasing and have been in fact decreasing for several years. States have been able to reduce prison construction and sentencing as crime has thus fallen.

Charles Lane wrote in the Washington Post that one reason States could do this is the reduction in the fear of crime that has accompanied falling crime rates.

The rate of increase in Federal prison populations has fallen a great deal. In recent years, the number of new Federal prisoners receiving prison sentences has declined. New policies the Department has adopted with respect to clemency and its unwillingness to charge defendants for the crimes they have committed will only further reduce overcrowding and prison expenses.

It is also important to recognize that drug offenders are an increasingly small proportion of the new offenders who are being sentenced to Federal prison as Federal law enforcement shifts more resources away from drugs and toward immigration and weapons offenses.

The reduction in prison populations is not really so much about the cost saving as cost shifting from prison budgets to victim suffering. This is happening as the number of State and Federal prisoners has dropped.

In 2012, the last year for which statistics are available, the FBI's Uniform Crime Report recorded an increase in the number of violent crimes for the first time in many years. Now, it is only 1 year and the increase was less than 1 percent, but it represents a dramatic change in the past downward trend of crime, and it bears a vigilant watch, not support for a reckless, wholesale, and arbitrary reduction in mandatory minimum sentences.

The bill represents a particularly misguided effort in light of current conditions concerning drug use. We are in the midst of a heroin epidemic right now. Deaths from heroin overdoses in Pennsylvania are way up. The Governor of Vermont devoted the entirety of his State of the State address this year to the heroin problem.

Marijuana decriminalization is leading to the greater availability of marijuana at a lower price. This is causing Mexican growers who formerly produced marijuana to grow opium for heroin importation into this country instead of marijuana.

The Obama administration says it is concerned about the heroin epidemic, but it supports a bill that cuts penalties for heroin importation and dealing.

The administration says it wants to fight sexual assaults on campuses--and I think that is the right thing to do and I applaud them for doing that. But they are also supporting this bill, which cuts in half the mandatory minimum sentence for dealing in ecstasy, the ``date rape'' drug.

The administration's support for this bill, then, makes no sense, and at least some administration officials understand that.

We had the privilege of having the Director of the Drug Enforcement Agency before our committee a little while ago. Michelle Leonhart said:

Having been in law enforcement as an agent for 33 years,

[and] a Baltimore City police officer before that, I can tell

you that for me and for the agents that work for DEA,

mandatory minimums have been very important to our

investigations. . . . We depend on those as a way to ensure

that the right sentences are going to the . . . level of

violator we are going after.

Current mandatory minimum sentences play a vital role in reducing crime. They do more than keep serious offenders in jail so that they cannot prey upon innocent citizens. They also induce lower-level drug offenders to avoid receiving mandatory minimum sentences by implicating higher-ups in the drug trade.

As FBI Director Comey recently stated:

I know from my experience . . . that the mandatory minimums

are an important tool in developing cooperators.

Recently, a bipartisan group of former Justice Department officials wrote to Leaders Reid and McConnell. Their letter expressed strong opposition to cutting mandatory minimums for drug trafficking by half or more. They warned:

We are deeply concerned about the impact of sentencing

reductions of this magnitude on public safety.

We believe the American people will be ill-served by the

significant reduction of sentences for federal drug

trafficking crimes that involve the sale and distribution of

dangerous drugs like heroin, methamphetamines, and PCP.

We are aware of little public support for lowering the

minimum required sentences for these extremely dangerous and

sometimes lethal drugs.

We are all going to be supporting National Police Week. Officers from all over the country have traveled to Washington to make their concerns known. We salute them for the work that they do and the dangers they face. If we really respect these law enforcement people and want to support them, then we ought to listen to what they have to say.

The National Narcotics Officers' Association has written:

As the men and women in law enforcement who confront

considerable risks daily to stand between poisoned sellers

and their victims, we cannot find a single good reason to

weaken federal consequences for the worst offenders who are

directly responsible for an egregious amount of political

despair, community decay, family destruction, and the

expenditure of vast amounts of taxpayer dollars to clean up

the messes they create.

The Federal Law Enforcement Officers' Association has also come out against the bill. They have stated:

It is with great concern that FLEOA views any action or

attempt . . . that would alter or eliminate the current

federal sentencing policy regarding mandatory minimum

sentence sentencing.

The mandatory minimum sentencing standard currently in

place is essential to public safety and that of our

membership.

Many of us will rightfully praise our law enforcement officers as they are in town for National Police Week. But what we really ought to do is listen to them. They are telling us that taking up this bill would be a slap in the face of all our brave police officers who protect us from harm every day. They deserve better than that.

Citizens who are finally less likely to become crime victims deserve it. The respect that is due those on the front line against wrongdoers demands that the Senate neither take up nor pass the mislabeled so- called Smarter Sentencing Act.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I sorrowfully rise this morning to take note of the sad state to which this great deliberative body has fallen, and I do so reluctantly because I must specifically criticize the majority leader of the U.S. Senate for bringing this body to what many historians observe is a new low in terms of our ability to move legislation and our ability to have open debate and open amendments in the Senate.

We see what has become a new normal in the Senate. Earlier this week a bipartisan and popular piece of legislation on energy efficiency was derailed by the majority leader's resistance to the open amendment process. Certainly, it is not only members of my party, it is not only persons on my side of the aisle who have concluded this. There was a very scathing opinion piece on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal this morning entitled ``Harry Reid's Senate Blockade.''

I ask unanimous consent to have this opinion piece printed in the Record.

I will quote at length from the Wall Street Journal this morning, because in mentioning this popular piece of legislation, the editorial gets right to the point. It says:

. . . the reason [the bill failed this week] tells the real

story of Washington gridlock in the current Congress. To wit,

Harry Reid has essentially shut down the Senate as a place to

debate and vote on policy.

I absolutely agree. Additionally, the editorial says:

The Majority Leader's strategy was once again on display as

the Senate failed to get the 60 votes to move the popular

energy efficiency bill co-sponsored by New Hampshire Democrat

Jeanne Shaheen and Ohio Republican Rob Portman. Mr. Reid

blamed it on Republican partisanship. But the impasse really

came down to Mr. Reid's blockade against amendments that

might prove politically difficult for Democrats.

Once again, the majority leader has made it clear he doesn't intend to let the Senate work its will on amendments. Instead, the new normal is that the majority leader comes to the floor and says: If the bill is worded as I think it should be, if we can come to an agreement with how it should be written, I will bring it to the floor and we can vote it up or down. But this idea of amendments, that is unacceptable to the majority leader, and it is a complete departure from the way this Senate has operated for decades and decades on important pieces of legislation.

I would point out that in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, one of the major accomplishments of the Congress in the 20th century, there were 115 amendments called up during its consideration. The leadership didn't know how those votes would turn out. They had probably done a whip count and they had a decent idea, but the idea was the Senate was going to be allowed to vote up or down with the light shining on the process and the American people seeing how their elected Senators felt on that issue. There were 115 amendments called up during the consideration of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. The Panama Canal Treaty of 1978 was another major piece of deliberative work that was done by the Senate. There was a total of 89 amendments offered to the Panama Canal Treaty. Those amendments were called up and debated in the clear light of day. Votes were held and the American people

found out how their elected representatives in the Senate felt about those amendments. This week and for the last 52 weeks that has not been the case with the majority leader currently in power in the Senate.

The Wall Street Journal goes on to say that the majority leader

. . . used parliamentary tricks to block energy-related

amendments to an energy bill. This blockade is now standard

procedure as he's refused to allow a vote on all but nine GOP

amendments since last July. Mr. Reid is worried that some of

these amendments might pass with support from Democrats, thus

embarrassing a White House that opposes them.

I wish to point out that during the time when Republicans--in this supposedly greatest deliberative body in the world--have been given nine amendments over the last year, Republicans, which hold the majority in the House of Representatives, have given their Democratic colleagues 125 minority votes. This is in a House which routinely shuts down debate, has a rules committee, and historically limits the number of amendments and the number of votes. Minority Members in the House have had 125 votes during that same time period. This Senate has allowed minority Members nine votes during that same period of time, and that is an outrage, which the Wall Street Journal continues to point out.

The editorial goes on to say:

In the case of Portman-Shaheen, Republicans had prepared

amendments to speed up exports of liquefied natural gas; to

object to a new national carbon tax; to rein in the

Environmental Protection Agency's war on coal plants; and to

authorize the Keystone XL Pipeline.

I believe these amendments were good amendments. I would have voted for them. The case could be made on the other side of the aisle that they were bad policy. But make the case. Let elected Senators from North Dakota, Mississippi, and all across the United States of America be heard and vote the wishes of their particular constituencies on these issues. Instead, the majority shut down these amendments.

The editorial goes on to say:

Yet the White House and Mr. Reid's dominant liberal wing

won't take the chance that a bipartisan coalition might pass

these amendments, most of which the House has passed or soon

would. President Obama would thus face a veto decision that

would expose internal Democratic divisions. So Mr. Reid shut

down the amendment process.

As I said, he has shut down the amendment process in every case except for nine lonely votes.

The editorial goes on to say:

It's important to understand how much Mr. Reid's tactics

have changed the Senate. Not too long ago it was understood

that any Senator could get a floor vote if he wanted it. The

minority party, often Democrats, used this right of amendment

to sponsor votes that would sometimes put the majority on the

spot. It's called politics, rightly understood. This meant

the Senate debated national priorities and worked its

bipartisan will. Harry Reid's Senate has become a deliberate

obstacle to democratic accountability.

And sadly so, I might add.

This Harry Reid gag rule is new to the Senate. We have had a number of distinguished majority leaders whose names will go down in history as the giants and statesmen of our time, and they did not resort to this gag rule. This is largely a Harry Reid invention.

I will give the facts. Mr. Reid has used the gag rule to fill the amendment tree--which is a parliamentary term. He has used his gag rule to cut off amendments 85 times, more than twice the number of the previous six leaders combined, and these were Democrats and Republicans.

Senator Dole invoked the procedural tactic only seven times. Senator Robert Byrd, a giant, a historian, and an expert in the use of Senate rules, invoked it only three times. Senator Mitchell of Maine invoked it 3 times; Senator Lott, 11 times; Senator Daschle, 1 time; and Senator Frist, 15 times. Yet time after time--some 85 times--this majority leader has decided that the Senate doesn't have a right--that the people of Mississippi and the people of North Dakota don't have a right--for their Senators to come up and offer an idea and let it rise or fall based on whether it is good policy or not. This is an outrage that the people of the United States need to understand.

It seems past majority leaders, when entrusted with protecting this institution, recognized that the gag rule should be used sparingly. Its current abuse undermines the Senate's ability to address pressing national issues and to carry on the tradition of debate that has always defined this body. That really cannot be denied.

Senator Robert Byrd, who I alluded to earlier, called the Senate ``the last bastion of minority rights.'' That was true during Democratic majorities when Senator Byrd was the majority leader. Sadly, it is not the case any longer.

The Wall Street Journal editorial--I would commend it to the attention of anyone within the sound of my voice--concludes this:

The lesson for voters is simple: If they want anything

meaningful done in the last two years of the Obama

Administration, they will have to elect a Republican Senate.

Those are the words of the Wall Street Journal and not my words.

What has become of the Senate under this Harry Reid gag rule is unconscionable. It should be reversed and Senators of both parties should stand in resistance to the idea that we cannot offer amendments and have them debated as they have always been debated in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, one would think, now more than ever, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would recognize the American people really want us focused squarely on jobs and the economy. It is what every poll says. It is what the vast majority of all of our constituents say, and it is absolutely what is needed at a time when families, especially working women, continue to struggle to make ends meet. But instead of working with us across the aisle to give every American a fair shot, it seems as though Republicans are focused on something else entirely: Politics.

Today, the senior Senator from South Carolina came to the floor and attempted to pass a bill that not only undermines women's access to their doctors but restricts their rights to access reproductive health services. I am not sure what our colleagues think has changed since they last introduced this bill in November, but just as it was back then, this extreme, unconstitutional abortion ban is an absolute nonstarter. It is not going anywhere in the Senate and, as they know, it is a cheap political ploy. I would like to think that over the last 41 years, since the historic decision of Roe v. Wade, we have moved on from debating this issue. I would like to think that after four decades, many of those who want to make women's health care decisions for them have come to grips with the fact that Roe v. Wade is settled law. After all, many of the signs of progress are all around us.

In this Congress there is a record 20 women serving in this body. In 2012 women's power and voice at the ballot box was heard pretty loudly and clearly. In fact, when Republican candidates for office thought that rape was a political talking point, that idea and their candidacies were swiftly rejected, thanks in large part to the voices of women.

So sometimes it is tempting to think that times indeed have changed and that maybe, just maybe, politicians have finally realized that getting between a woman and her doctor is not their job, that it is possible rightwing legislators have a newfound respect for women. But the truth is that the drumbeat of politically-driven, extreme, and unconstitutional laws continues to get louder.

In 2013 our Nation saw yet another record-breaking year of State legislatures passing restrictive legislation barring women's access to abortion services. In fact, in the past 3 years, more of these restrictions have been enacted across this country than in the previous 10 years combined. And anti-choice lawmakers here in our Nation's capital have filed 50 legislative attacks on reproductive rights in this Congress alone.

By the way, these haven't just been attacks on a woman's right to choose, they have been an all-out assault on everything from shaming pregnant women to drafting politically-driven legislation intended to create geographical roadblocks for low-income and racial minorities wishing to access safe reproductive services.

Not surprisingly, these States that have enacted some of the most extreme and archaic restrictions are also the same States that fail to achieve even mediocre standards when it comes to critical issues such as education and the economy. But despite these shortcomings, some Members of this body refuse to work with us to address those critical issues and instead want to distract the American public with these purely political bills until the small pocket of their extreme audience is satisfied.

In fact, according to the Senator from South Carolina, debating a woman's access to her own doctor is a ``debate worthy of a great democracy.'' The fact is it is a debate we have already had. This is a directed attack on Roe v. Wade, and it is attack on what is already settled law.

I wish to remind my colleagues today that real women's lives and the most difficult health care decisions they could ever possibly make are at stake.

Let me share with my colleagues the story of Judy Nicastro. She is from my home State of Washington. She bravely shared her story publicly in the New York Times. I have told her story before, but it bears repeating now because we are under attack again. In an op-ed she wrote, just days before the House passed a bill that was virtually identical to the one that was introduced today, Judy talked about being faced with every pregnant woman's worst nightmare.

In describing the news that one of the twins she was carrying was facing a condition where only one lung chamber had formed and that it was only 20 percent complete, Judy captured the anguish countless other women in similar positions have faced. ``My world stopped,'' she wrote.

I loved being pregnant with twins and trying to figure out

which one was where in my uterus. Sometimes it felt like a

party in there, with eight limbs moving. The thought of

losing one child was unbearable.

She went on to say:

The MRI at Seattle Children's Hospital confirmed our worst

fears: The organs were pushed up into our boy's chest and not

developing properly. We were in the 22nd week.

Under the bill proposed today, the decision Judy ultimately made, through very painful conversations with her family and with consultation with her

doctors, would be illegal. The decision to make sure, as she put it, that ``our son was not born only to suffer'' would be taken from her and given to politicians.

I am here today to provide a simple reality check. We are not going back. We are not going back on settled law such as Roe v. Wade or the Affordable Care Act. We are not going to take away a woman's ability to make her own decisions about her own health care and her own body.

Just as with the many attempts before this bill, there are those who would like the American public to believe that all of these efforts are anything but an attack on women's health care. They try to say it is a debate about freedom, except, of course, the freedom for women to access care.

It is no different than when we were told attacks on abortion rights are not an infringement on a woman's right to choose; they are about religion or States rights. Or when we are told that restricting emergency contraception isn't about limiting women's ability to make their own family planning decisions, but it is somehow about protecting pharmacists. Or as demonstrated last month when a Republican State lawmaker in Missouri introduced legislation to triple the State's mandatory waiting period for abortion services, claiming it would give women more time to do their ``research.''

Not that we should be surprised, he went on then to compare this deeply personal and difficult choice to that of purchasing an automobile saying: ``In making a decision to buy a car, I put research in there to find out what to do.''

The truth is this is an attempt to limit a woman's ability to access care. This is about women. Instead of playing a game of political football with women and their health, Republicans should instead consider joining with us in working on what women truly want.

Women today want to have a fair shot at success. First and foremost, that means not rolling back the clock or eroding the gains we have made. We took a very good step forward with the Affordable Care Act, which now prevents insurance companies from charging women more than men for coverage, ensuring preventive services such as mammograms and contraception coverage is covered and increasing access to comprehensive health coverage, thanks to the Medicaid expansion and the exchanges. There is no doubt we need to make sure women have access in this country to opportunities such as getting equal pay for equal work or giving the millions of women earning the minimum wage a raise, which would go a long way towards that effort. We need to update our Tax Code so that mothers who are returning to the workforce do not face a marriage penalty.

There is much more we could be doing to address the issues of concerned women. Those are the issues we ought to be focused on--how to move our country forward, not backward.

So if it wasn't clear the last time the senior Senator from South Carolina made this attempt, it ought to be clear now. Senators such as myself are not going anywhere. Advocates and doctors who treat those women every day and know their health must be protected are not going anywhere. And women who continue to believe their health care decisions are theirs and theirs alone are not going to go anywhere. By the way, the Constitution is not going to go anywhere. Therefore, this extreme bill that was offered today is not going anywhere.

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

I thank Senator Klobuchar for her moving tribute to Jim Oberstar. We both had the honor of speaking today at his funeral. We were both honored by his wife Jean and by his family.

Jim served the Eighth District for 36 years as their Representative. He served it for 11 years before that as a staffer on the Hill, as Senator Klobuchar said. As she said, he died last weekend in his sleep. I think Senator Klobuchar told me that the family said he wasn't 99 percent, he was 100 percent. So this came as a shock to all of us who knew Jim, and it obviously deeply saddened us all.

I announced for the Senate in February of 2007, and a few days later I had my first public event where I took questions from folks. This was at a coffee shop in St. James, MN, in the southwest corner of our State, in the First District.

The first question I got was from a woman asking if I believed there should be term limits. From the way she asked it, I knew she thought there should be term limits, and I thought: Great. My very first question and I don't agree with the person who is asking it.

So I said: No, I don't believe in term limits, and let me tell you why--Jim Oberstar. Jim has been Congressman for the Eighth District for 33 years now, and he is chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and he knows more about transportation than anybody else in the country.

Everybody in the coffee shop, including the woman, kind of went, yes--they nodded--yes, that makes sense.

Jim was a walking advertisement against term limits. He was the consummate public servant, and it was all because he was a man who sought knowledge. He had a fierce curiosity about the world and an intense need to understand how it worked. All that enabled him to accomplish so much.

If Jim were here today, if he had one more chance to speak to all of us, first he would say how much he loved his family and his friends and the people who worked for him. Then he would tell us the history of American infrastructure, starting with the Erie Canal and how it opened Midwestern agriculture to Europe because, he would explain, it was 97 percent more efficient to ship those goods over water, down the Hudson and over to Europe, than before. He would tell us how the Erie Canal made New York Harbor, New York City, made it what it is today. Then he would take us through the transcontinental railroad, rural electrification, the Interstate Highway System, and all the way to rural broadband. Then he would go back to the Roman aqueducts, which were built by slave labor, and make an impassioned speech about the history of the labor movement. Jim sometimes had a tendency to go too long, but it was because he believed that everyone was as curious about the world as he was, and he was almost always wrong about that.

I once had the opportunity to speak before Jim at the naming ceremony for the James Oberstar Riverfront Complex, the headquarters for the Voyageurs National Park in northern Minnesota. Since I was speaking before him, I took the opportunity to predict what Jim would talk about. I said that he would tell us the legislative history of Voyageurs National Park; he would tell us about all the different streams of funding for the park; he would tell us the history of the French voyageurs, the first White men in Minnesota; and that during part of the speech, Jim would speak in startlingly fluent French. Everyone laughed, including Jim, but that didn't stop Jim from telling us the legislative history of the park, all the different funding streams, and all about the voyageurs--and that part in French--and delighting in every word of it.

The first time I ever saw him chair, I went over to the House to see him chair a committee on high-speed rail. He had witnesses from China, Japan, France, and some other European country. When it was time for him to do his questioning, I learned that Jim had piloted every one of those high-speed rail systems. Of course, when he questioned the French witness he did it in French, and it was a tour de force--which I believe is French.

Jim understood the importance of infrastructure to our economy, to economic development, and, as Amy was saying, for recreation. His legacy will be in the ports, locks, dams, highways, bridges, and water systems throughout our country, but it will also be in the bike paths in Minnesota and around the country.

Jim was an avid bike rider. He used to say he wanted to turn our transportation system--the fuel--from hydrocarbons to carbohydrates.

Jim will leave a legacy, and, as I said, it all came from Jim's thirst for knowledge. The pages are here, and I would urge them to thirst for knowledge, not just information. Some people in this town-- and in other places too--just look for enough information to achieve some short-term goal. Jim sought knowledge, an understanding of how things work. Because of that, he was able to get things done and was respected by all of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Amy and I were both there the day that colleagues in the House paid tribute to him, and it was both sides of the aisle equally.

We had a retirement tribute for Jim in Duluth in 2011, and Don Ness, the mayor of Duluth--about whom Amy spoke briefly and who was at the service today--told a story at that tribute that says everything about Jim as a guy.

Don was 23 years old, and he had just been hired to be Jim's campaign manager. Don's first thing to do with him was the Fourth of July parades. The Fourth of July parades on the Iron Range are a big deal, and there are a lot of them. There were six of them in 24 hours. This was his big chance to impress his new boss, and he screwed up every bit of it.

The first thing he did was he was so obsessed with making arrangements that he forgot to make his own hotel reservation on the Range. Don lived in Duluth. So he drove around the Range to get a room until 1:30 in the morning. He found one in Virginia, MN. He overslept and had to drive to Chisholm, and he was late. So he picked up Jim, and to make up the time, he drove fast and, of course, he got pulled over and got a ticket, which made them really late for this parade, and they got put at the end, behind the horses, on a very hot, sweltering day.

All during the day, Donnie made one screw-up after another. He offended a local DFL activist. He lost Jim for about a half hour. Jim knew where he was, but he didn't know where Jim was. He left this black car parked directly in the sun during the parade, and it became--well, you know what that means.

Thankfully, after the fifth parade, there was going to be a 3-hour break and they were going to drive to somebody's house where they would be able to eat and get in the air-conditioning and relax. Donnie decided to put the signs in the trunk, and as he was doing it, as he was closing it, he saw the keys in the car, locked in the car, and it took them 90 minutes to find someone who could open the car, so they lost their break.

Donnie was a 23-year-old kid, and he was certain he was going to be fired. He felt he deserved to be fired. Jim had been calm with him all day, been nice to him all day, but he figured Jim was stuck with him until the end of the day and at the end of the day he would be fired. He drives Jim home to Chisholm. It is 9 at night now. They get out of the car, and he starts to apologize and says: I blew it today. I know this was my chance, and I have blown it, and I will never be in public service.

This guy is now--what term is he in now, Amy? His third? Yes, his third term as mayor of Duluth. What did he get, 87 percent, or something like that?

But Jim stopped him and wouldn't let him finish. He stopped him and he said: I am really proud of you. You had a tough day. We had a tough day. You had a lot of adversity. You had a lot of things to overcome and you never lost your head, which was really not true; Donnie was panicking the entire time, which is probably why Donnie made those mistakes.

But then he gave Don a big hug--that big Jim bear hug that so many people talked about today. Then Don carried a

bag for Jim, and Jim one, too, up to the front porch, and Jim said, before Don went back to the car: I am proud of you. Don't worry about today. I am proud of you.

Don went back to the car, got in, with his head swimming, and he couldn't believe the kindness, the warmth. As he started to back out, he looked back and Jim was still on the porch, and he gave him this big wave and said: Happy Independence Day.

Minnesota lost a giant, the United States lost a giant this week, but we also lost a good guy. He was a great guy--a great man and a good guy.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to honor the life of a truly remarkable man--a devoted husband, a loving father and grandfather, a dedicated friend, and a true public servant. Jim

Oberstar was a man of purpose and grit who never stopped fighting for the people of his district, the people of northeastern Minnesota.

His resilience was the resilience of the people he represented. He was one of those rare people who was just as comfortable in the Aurora, MN, parade in khakis and tennis shoes as he was at the French Embassy. One unique thing about Jim Oberstar was that he always broke into French at a moment's notice, and he would literally speak French at the French Embassy and in Paris, but he might also speak French at the Aurora parade, even though no one else there spoke French.

Whether he was biking the Mesabi Trail or fishing on Sturgeon Lake or hanging out with some of his constituents at Tom & Jerry's Bar in Chisholm--which is where he grew up--he always loved northern Minnesota and the people he represented.

Jim never lost sight of where he came from or the values he grew up with. He knew that, among other things, his job in Washington was to be an advocate, and he approached every day with a fierce but disciplined urgency of purpose. What I loved most about him was that, in a day of sound bites and quick fixes, he was never afraid to give that long, long explanation of why he voted for something or why he thought it was important to his constituents.

As the Star Tribune noted this week, Jim was always a popular editorial guest and meetings with him were the ``equivalent of a graduate school seminar.''

When I think about Jim, I first think--as someone whose roots are also in northern Minnesota, whose grandpa worked in the mines--about how he fought hard to keep the mines open when times were tough, back when things were bleak and people were hurting.

Like my own grandpa, Jim's dad was Slovenian, and he was proud of that. And Jim's dad, like my own grandpa, was also an underground miner. They were part of a generation of immigrants who toiled hundreds of feet underground day after day to mine the iron ore that built this Nation and kept the world free in World War II.

It was a hard, hard life--long days and treacherous conditions, their families living in fear of that dread whistle that meant another miner had been injured or killed. Jim knew that sound well because he lived through it.

So when Jim got to Congress, he fought tirelessly to not only keep the mines open but to protect the rights of the workers and to improve safety.

During his first years in the House, Jim pushed for legislation that created the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Today, thanks to the hard work of Congressman Jim Oberstar, mining conditions have greatly improved.

That was bread-and-butter legislation for Jim--straightforward, commonsense policies that made people's lives better. It sounds simple, but we know in Washington today there are too many people who would rather score political points than get down to the hard work of governing. Not Jim Oberstar. He was a man of conviction.

In a business known for rewarding the expedient over the noble, he lived a life of principle. He played the long game, and he did it on behalf of the American people. That is a great American, and that is a legacy worth celebrating.

We lost Jim suddenly this week in the middle of the night in his sleep. The day before he had spent the day with his grandkids. He had gone to one of his grandchildren's plays. He had been going on long bike rides.

Even after he lost his election in 2010, he never let it get him down. He took all that energy and zest for life and put it into his family, put it into the continuing work he did on transportation, put it into his friends and everything he loved to do.

We mourned him today, but we also celebrated the incredible gifts Jim gave to our country. It is awe-inspiring to think about how much time he spent mastering Federal transportation policy: 47 years--nearly five decades--11 as a staff member on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and 36 as an elected representative. During that time he literally changed the landscape of Minnesota and the country. His fingerprints can be found on just about every major federally funded transportation project during the last five decades-- roads, bridges, tunnels, rails, locks and dams, and bike paths.

Jim loved bike paths. He was a visionary. He was in front of everyone on that. He would try to get money for bike paths, and people would laugh at him: Bike paths? Who cares about bike paths?

Now everyone wants bike paths. Everyone wants bike paths in their communities.

Every American who flies in an airplane or drives on our Federal highways can thank Jim Oberstar. Every American who bikes their bike trails and hikes places such as the beautiful Lake Superior Trail in northern Minnesota or drives on our national highways and bridges should remember him.

He was a treasure trove of facts, figures, and advice for every Member of Congress. He always used to kind of poke fun at the Senate because he claimed things came here and didn't get done. He would always say: All that ever happens in the Senate is you ratify treaties and confirm judges.

One day, close to my own election, I was looking at the newspaper clips and I saw my name next to Jim saying that and I thought: Oh no, what has he said.

It was in the International Falls paper, and I got it out and he had said: Well, all the Senate ever does is confirm judges and ratify treaties, but Amy is going to try to rescue this bill. She will try to get it done.

I was quite relieved.

One of the most memorable stories for me came on his last day in the House when Members came and told stories about him. There was a Congressman from Pennsylvania who talked about the time Jim visited his district to celebrate the opening of a new bridge. He said that Jim stood up with no notes and recited in incredible detail almost every infrastructure project that had ever been built in that district, along with the name of every Congressman who had ever served in the district, with all the right pronunciations, and he even included their middle initials. He did it with no notes. The Congressman was in awe. He walked back to his office, started looking back through the records and Googling things, and it was no surprise to anyone that Jim was exactly right. That was Jim.

He loved politics. He thought of government as an honorable profession, and he was so proud of the people who followed in his footsteps, whether what he taught Senator Franken and me as we started representing Minnesota or one of his favorites, the mayor of Duluth, Don Ness, who started working with him when he was 23 years old as a young aide or whether it was all the staff members who worked for him all those years. He was so proud of the people he taught, the people he mentored. He was so proud of the Members in Congress--Democrats and Republicans--with whom he worked. He would so often work to get amendments and get little projects for their districts, and then he would let them take the credit when they went home.

I wish to end today with something Jim said in his farewell speech to Congress. He was reflecting on why he had originally run for office, and this is what he said:

[The reason] why I came is to serve the people, to meet the

needs of their respective families, and to leave this

district, leave this House, leave this nation a better place

than I found it.

There is no question that Jim Oberstar left this world better than he found it. Through his incredible legacy of public service, he found immortality in the beautiful children and grandchildren who were and are his family. He has left the world a better place. The youngest one, a little baby we met today at the funeral, was recently adopted, and Jim's daughter named him ``Jim.''

He left the world so much. He not only taught us how to win elections because he knew how to do that, he also taught us how to act and what to do when you lose an election.

He has found immortality in the hearts of those who knew him and the lives of countless more who never will, in the majestic grandeur of stately bridges and in the cool shadows of quiet bike paths, in the hardhats hanging in the lockers of hard-working miners who go home safely at the end of

the day. That is where you will find Jim Oberstar. That is where his legacy lives on.

I yield the floor.