Floor Statements

Mr. President, on March 19 of this year, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that Minnesota's tribal school districts were making plans to cut the school year short, increase class sizes, and let staff vacancies go unfilled. The White Earth Reservation is planning to consolidate its sixth, seventh, and eighth grades into a single class starting in the fall. This is happening because of the sequester.

On April 11, WDAZ, Channel 8 in Grand Forks, reported that special education programs in my State of Minnesota were going to be hit by a $90 million cut. This is particularly painful in the Crookston, MN, school district, where 20 percent of students benefit from special education programming. This is happening because of the sequester.

On April 17, Minnesota Public Radio reported that budget cuts were affecting our court system. Across the country, access to public defenders, a constitutionally guaranteed right, is becoming more difficult. This is happening because of the sequester.

It is not just happening in Minnesota, it is happening around the country. To take just two examples from the many I could cite from every State in the Nation, on March 13, the AP reported that an Indiana Head Start program was forced to use a random drawing to determine which 36 children would be cut from their program. On March 31, the Portland Press Herald in Maine reported that a local Meals on Wheels program, which had never before turned away a senior in need, was now using a waiting list and reducing the number of meals delivered to existing participants.

Then, on April 25, the Senate passed a bill to allow the Department of Transportation to shift funds from one account to another, therefore exempting DOT from the strict across-the-board cuts mandated by the sequester. The funding shift was needed to prevent the furlough of air traffic controllers, which was beginning to cause a significant inconvenience to American travelers and could have had harmful effects on our economy. The House passed the bill the next day and it has now been enacted into law.

I am pleased American travelers were spared this inconvenience, but as the reports I just cited from Minnesota and from elsewhere would suggest, there are a lot of people suffering needlessly because of the sequester.

A case-by-case approach is not the right way to handle the impacts of the sequester. The sequester, in fact, was designed to affect every government function equally, with just a few exceptions, and the extreme across-the-board nature of these cuts is the very definition of a thoughtless approach to deficit reduction. The sequester was designed to be replaced and that is what we must do. Just as the sequester affects every government function equally, our response to the sequester should be complete and inclusive, not piecemeal. We must replace the entire sequester with a mix of new revenues and smarter targeted cuts that do not inflict needless pain on those who can least bear it and that do not harm our ongoing fragile economic recovery.

There are both moral and economic consequences of allowing the sequester to continue. As Hubert Humphrey said:

The moral test of government is how that Government treats

those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who

are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in

the shadow of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.

If we ignore the effects of sequester cuts on the voiceless and address only the sequester cuts that are the most visible--in the form of longer lines at the airport, for example--we will have failed that moral test.

In April I received a letter from a family service worker with Head Start from Onamia, MN. She wrote:

The families I work with have no idea what it means to have

trillions of dollars cut from the budget. They are trying

hard to keep $10 in their pockets or checkbook. . . . These

cuts would be particularly catastrophic to the poor children

and families we serve. . . . Congress and the Administration

need to act quickly to restore fiscal stability and maintain

funding for our at-risk children. Our nation's budget simply

cannot be balanced on the backs of poor children.

Here is a letter I received from a mother in Hoffman, a rural community in West Central Minnesota. She wrote:

My heart was saddened today when I learned that due to a

sequester, my 4 year old daughter's Head Start program was to

end 2 weeks ahead of schedule, that 2 of her amazing teachers

will be looking for work come May 30th and her head teacher

will be having to take on a 2nd job to compensate for a pay

cut she took to continue with the program. Our Head Start

program is an amazing program. My daughter has benefited from

this program in ways a mother can only dream of and only a

classroom environment can provide. The fear that it maybe not

be there for her next year sickens me. We may not have the

numbers that are looked at when these kinds of decisions are

made, but our program is one of a kind with teachers that are

so special they deserve awards. My daughter wants them to

come to her birthday party. The people making these decisions

need to actually go to the class rooms, see what goes on.

Visit again and see the difference this program and these

women are making in these kids' lives. The decision makers

need to see what it is they are choosing to take away from

these young people. I will be writing a letter to all of my

local reps, and I'm committed to send them letters once a

week until my pleas are heard and our government stops taking

money and the education that comes with that from our rural

school!

That is a story from a mother based on her experience with her daughter.

Economists agree and studies have demonstrated that high-quality early education programs can produce anywhere from $7 to $16 in benefits for every dollar of Federal investment. The return on investment comes from the long-term savings associated with a quality early childhood education.

A child who has a quality early childhood education is less likely to be in special education, less likely to be left back a grade, has better health outcomes, and girls are less likely to get pregnant before they graduate high school. They are more likely to graduate from high school, more likely to graduate from college, more likely to have a better paying job, pay taxes on that job, and much less likely to go to prison.

If we care about the long-term sustainability of our debt, we should be putting more money into quality early childhood education, not less, as we are doing because of the sequester.

Here is a letter from Columbia Heights, MN:

As someone who has worked with seniors my entire career and

now volunteers to deliver meals on wheels, I would encourage

your support of this program and discourage cuts. This

program is one that allows seniors and disabled adults to

remain in their home and still receive proper nutrition. For

many it is also the only contact they may have with someone

during any given day. While providing a service it is also a

means to check in on these individuals' well-being. By

eliminating or making significant cuts to this program we

would be turning our backs on many of our citizens.

I am sure every Member of the Senate has received similar letters-- letters begging us to protect funding that assists poor children and the elderly in their communities. It is not just Head Start and Meals on Wheels which suffer as a result of the sequester, it affects so many other critical programs.

HUD estimates that sequester cuts could result in 100,000 formerly homeless people, including veterans, being removed from their housing and shelter programs and putting them back at risk for homelessness. The USDA estimated that it will result in 600,000 fewer participants in WIC, the nutrition program for mothers and their children.

Replacing the sequester is the right thing to do. The sequester is a perfect example of the moral test of government Hubert Humphrey talked about, and replacing it is the only conceivable response to it we can have as Americans. But apart from failing to protect our most vulnerable, the sequester cuts also do direct harm to our economy and prevent us from making the critical investments in education, infrastructure, and innovation that have always been what has made America great and prosperous.

As Secretary Arne Duncan wrote in a letter to Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski about the effects of the sequester:

Education is the last place to be reducing our investment

as the nation continues to climb out of the recent recession

and to prepare all of its citizens to meet the challenges

created by global economic competitors in the 21st century.

Indeed, I can assure you that our economic competitors are

increasing, not decreasing, their investments in education,

and we can ill afford to fall behind as a consequence of

indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts that would be required

by sequestration.

Secretary Duncan goes on to explain that the sequester will create particular hardships for recipients of Impact Aid, which includes schools that serve the Native American students and children of military families.

In addition to investing in education, we should be building up and repairing our Nation's infrastructure. Cuts to the Economic Development Administration will hinder the ability to leverage private sector resources to support infrastructure projects that spur local job creation--likely resulting in 1,000 fewer jobs created nationwide. The Department of Interior has warned that the sequester will delay high priority dam safety modifications.

Finally, America has always been at the cutting edge of global technologies, but the sequester may change that. Cuts to the National Institute of Standards and Technology will force

NIST to end its work on the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which helps small manufacturers innovate in their business practices and develop market growth at home and abroad.

The Department of Education is the operator of 10 world-class national laboratories that specialize in developing advanced commercial technologies. DOE's Advanced Research Projects Agency, ARPA, has achieved several remarkable breakthroughs in recent years, such as doubling the energy density of lithium batteries, increasing the capacity of high-power transistors, engineering microbes that can turn hydrogen and carbon dioxide into transportation fuel. Sequester cuts are going to slow and curb our Nation's progress toward a 21st century energy sector.

Not only does the sequester fail to invest in things that make America great and make America grow, the sequester is also costing the government more money for the same product in the long run. There are certain weapon systems that DOD knows it needs and will purchase in the future; however, because of sequestration, they have canceled the contract order for the time being. As a result, the manufacturer has shut down that production line and possibly terminated jobs. Restarting that process is expensive, and those costs are ultimately passed on to us, the government--the American people.

I urge my colleagues to rethink the current strategy of addressing the sequester crisis by crisis and whatever is on the front page of the news. It ultimately is not equitable. It disadvantages our Nation's most vulnerable and it is harming our economy.

In February, CBO's Doug Elmendorf testified that the effects of sequestration would reduce employment by 750,000 jobs this year. That is the opposite direction we need our job numbers to go during our economic recovery. I have not even been able to touch on the risk the defense sequester poses to our military readiness in my remarks here today.

The bottom line is we need to address every facet of the sequester together with a mix of new revenues and smarter targeted cuts. We should meet every new, high-visible consequence of the sequester with the same response. It is more evidence that we need to replace the entire sequester.

Democrats have put forward a plan to address the most immediate consequences of the sequester with a mix of new revenues and targeted cuts to replace the first year of sequestration, and it garnered a majority in the Senate. But because a majority is not enough to pass legislation in today's Senate when the minority chooses to obstruct, that plan failed to pass.

What we have passed in the Senate is a budget that proposes to replace the entire sequester in a balanced way that would also spare the most vulnerable pain and protect our economic recovery and our economic future. That is the kind of approach we need to take.

I hope in the days ahead we can begin a dialogue about fixing this problem so kids in Minnesota, Indiana, and in the Presiding Officer's State of Hawaii--kids all around the country--can return to Head Start. We need to help the senior citizens in Maine so they can get off the Meals on Wheels waiting list. We address this issue so that Minnesota's tribal school districts can finish out the school year as scheduled.

When we hear about the next highly visible problem the sequester has caused, we should think about all the problems the sequester has caused, and that is what I will be doing. We need to fix the problem in a comprehensive and balanced way.

I stand ready to work with my colleagues and achieve that comprehensive and balanced fix for the sequester.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2013, at 10:15 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2013, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2013, at 10:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Border Security: Examining Provisions in the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744).''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Credit Reports: What Accuracy and Errors Mean for Consumers.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Forces be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Committee on the Library be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2013, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the legislation that will level the playing field for brick-and-mortar retailers in Minnesota and across our Nation. I join my bipartisan group of friends, including Senators Durbin, Enzi, Heitkamp, and Alexander, in support of the legislation we are debating this week, the Marketplace Fairness Act. It will simply allow States to help their brick-and-mortar retailers, including the mom-and-pop shops on Main Street, stay competitive in a marketplace where online sales

have become a fact of life. This legislation is a commonsense measure that brings our sales tax laws into the 21st century.

In Minnesota the retail industry includes nearly half a million workers--about one in five jobs in our State--and those retailers need to compete on price and on service every single day. But the current sales tax system makes it impossible for them to compete on an even playing field.

Take Michael Norby, who owns Norby's, a department store in downtown Detroit Lakes, MN, whom I met last August. His situation and what I have learned from him explains a lot about why I support this bill. Norby's has been in his family since 1906. Mr. Norby wants to compete with the big guys--with the Amazons and the Overstocks of the world. He said he can compete with anybody just as long as it is on a level playing field. He said: Once you bring those guys onto the same playing field as the rest of us, we will compete with them.

But there is a problem. Mr. Norby described what they see in Norby's every day. We have heard it from other Senators. It is called showrooming. The customers come and check out the merchandise, they get help from a sales associate, then they pull out their smart phones and say: I can get this cheaper online. When Norby's has to collect sales tax and the other guys don't, it makes it impossible to compete. Mr. Norby describes this simply as an issue of fairness. And he is right.

Brick-and-mortar stores such as his should be able to compete on the same terms as online retailers. That is what this bill does, and that is why Mr. Norby supports the Marketplace Fairness Act. But it is not just about fairness. When Mr. Norby is able to compete on fair terms, he will be able to hire more people. That is what will happen when the Marketplace Fairness Act passes. And what goes for Norby's goes for other businesses around Minnesota. The Marketplace Fairness Act is going to help the local businesses in our communities that provide jobs to our constituents. And when customers shop at local retailers, that money then supports the local community and it stays in that community.

The Marketplace Fairness Act will help our States and our communities in another way. State and local budgets have been hit really hard since the great recession. One thing that has meant is that even though the private sector jobs have grown for the past 37 months, the public sector has shed a tremendous number of essential jobs--teachers, firefighters, police officers. That is why so many Governors across this country support efforts of reform, because it is the right thing to do for their States.

Republican Governors in Alabama, Arizona, South Dakota, Georgia, South Carolina, Idaho, and many other States support the concept of leveling the playing field for small businesses because it brings much needed revenue to their States without creating a new tax. There is no new tax created here. It is simply going to improve compliance under existing laws.

Minnesota has lost an estimated $397 million in revenue in 2011 alone from taxes owed but not collected on remote sales. I am sure that $397 million could do a lot for the people of Minnesota, including hiring back some of those teachers and firefighters and police officers, making improvements in infrastructure, in education, and in so many of the things that create prosperity and that affect the middle class.

I have heard from big retailers in Minnesota, such as Best Buy and Target, about how important this issue is, but I have also heard from countless mom-and-pop stores, such as Norby's Department Store. I have spoken with the Minnesota Retailers Association and the Metro Independent Business Alliance. In addition to retailers, I have heard from the League of Minnesota Cities, from mayors across the State, and from our Governor--all who understand what that revenue they are missing can do for our communities.

The Marketplace Fairness Act is bipartisan, and it is a commonsense bill. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I heard the Senator from Colorado. My remarks are about 25 minutes. Are the remarks of the Senator from Colorado significantly shorter?

I yield to my colleague.

I will yield.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 25 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about climate change. But I first do want to say how pleased I am that we just got cloture to move to debate on the Marketplace Fairness Act. I am a strong supporter of the legislation. As I said, I am a cosponsor. I look forward to the upcoming debate. I plan to speak on this legislation further tomorrow.

Now I would like to talk about climate change. More specifically, I rise to suggest that we in this body talk more about climate change so that we can agree on taking action to address it. We need to address the environmental impacts that we are currently facing and the future impacts that will only become exponentially worse if we fail to act. 2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental United States. In fact, it beat the previous record by a full degree.

To give you some idea about how remarkable a full degree of warming in 1 year is, scientists tell us since the last ice age 20,000 years ago the Earth has warmed only 16 degrees at the most. Since we began actually measuring

temperatures in the continental United States and recording them 117 years ago, the variance between the coldest year and the warmest year has only been 4.2 degrees.

So for the temperature to jump a full degree in 1 year is not just remarkable, it is alarming. Often when people consider the harmful consequences of climate change and its cost, they are talking about the future. But make no mistake, climate change is already costing the United States serious money.

2012 was a year when a historic drought caused more than 70 percent of U.S. counties to be declared disaster areas. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has estimated the drought's impact on the agricultural sector to be around $50 to $60 billion. That cost gets passed on to every American. The drought destroyed or damaged major crops all over this country, making corn and soybeans more expensive, increasing animal feed costs. So Americans are paying more for meats and other animal-based products.

The 2012 drought dramatically lowered water levels on the Mississippi River, seriously interfering with our ability to transport our agricultural goods to market to compete with those from other countries. So that barges did not run aground, shippers sent them down the Mississippi River the last few months half full, say, with soybeans, making our beans less competitive with Brazilian beans.

More and more of my conversation with Minnesota soybean growers who export over one-third of their crop focused on this very issue. Climate change is exacerbating our Nation's wildfires, and that is costing us serious money. When Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell testified before the Senate Energy Committee, I asked him about the link between forest fires and climate change. He told us that throughout the country we are seeing longer fire seasons on average by more than 30 days. Wildfires are also larger and more intense.

I asked Chief Tidwell whether scientists at the Forest Service thought that climate change was increasing the size and intensity of wildfires and extending their season. Without hesitation he said yes. The Forest Service is spending more and more of its budget fighting wildfires, now about half of its budget. Longer fire seasons and larger more intense fires are just going to eat up more of that budget.

Not only is climate change worsening our forest fires, it is also exacerbating other problems plaguing our forests. That includes a very serious bark beetle crop. The bark beetle is normally kept in check because cold winters at high altitudes kill its larva.

Let's talk about the bark beetle at high altitudes. Their larva used to freeze. But now, because of climate change, that is not happening. The winters have gotten warmer and at higher altitudes, and the bark beetles are surviving. That means they are destroying more forests.

Similarly, in some Colorado forests scientists have shown that because of warmer weather, mountain pine beetles have gone from reproducing once a year to twice a year. In a little over a decade, this mountain pine beetle has killed more than 70,000 square miles' worth of trees. That is an area equivalent to the entire State of Washington.

Of course, we cannot talk about climate change without talking about sea level rise. I serve on the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Several months ago we had a hearing on sea level rise. We heard testimony about how rising sea level is increasing the size of flood zones and increasing damage that occurs from storm surges.

One of the witnesses told us that just a few extra inches of sea level could result in a storm surge that could flood the New York City subway system. It sounded like something out of science fiction. Yet a little over 6 months later that is exactly what happened. That is exactly what happened when Hurricane Sandy hit New York City and flooded the subways.

My colleagues do not need to be reminded of the cost of Hurricane Sandy. It is costing taxpayers a staggering $60 billion. Unfortunately, only one of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, the ranking member, Senator Murkowski, attended this hearing. This has been pretty much the case whenever we have a hearing that even tangentially relates to climate change.

A number of my colleagues in Congress do not believe that human activities contribute to climate change. Many others, I suspect, do not talk about climate change because addressing it requires making some difficult choices. But let's be clear about this. Climate change is already costing us. If we do not act now, it will worsen dramatically and be far more costly.

The Defense Department has studied potential threats to national security imposed by climate change. DOD's 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review states that climate change may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict. That, in turn, would place burdens on civilian institutions and militaries around the world. The top commander in the Pacific, ADM Samuel Locklear, has said the biggest long-term security challenge in the Pacific is climate change. As the Pacific commander he understands the impact sea level rise and extreme weather events can have on our military resources and on civilian populations in the Pacific.

My constituents in Minnesota also understand the threat of climate change. That is why recently nearly 400 people gathered at a local Lutheran church in Willmar, MN, to talk about climate change. Willmar is not a big city. So when this many people gather in one place, you know it is a big deal. They are concerned about climate change and the marked increase in severe weather occurrences.

But when they look to Washington they see a disconnect. They see a disconnect between what the country is experiencing and what Washington is doing about it--or, rather, what Washington is not doing. Outside of Washington, and not just in Minnesota, things are different. In fact, many respected Republican leaders outside of Washington understand the importance of addressing climate change.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, for example, Republican Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey acknowledged that climate change is a problem and that human activities are playing a role.

Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, also a Republican, has launched an organization to fight climate change. Former Utah Governor and Republican Presidential candidate John Huntsman has noted that whenever a party takes a position that runs counter to the position of 98 out of every 100 scientists, that party has a problem.

Governor Huntsman is right. Let me illustrate with an analogy. Say you went to a doctor who told you: You know, you better start eating more sensibly and start exercising because you are tremendously overweight. I see in your file that your father died of a heart attack at an early age. So you really have to go on a diet and start working out.

You say: You know what, I would like a second opinion.

So you go to a second doctor and he examines you, or she examines you, and says: OK, look, you have a family history of heart disease. Your father died of a heart attack at 40. You weigh over 300 pounds. Your cholesterol is out of control. Your blood pressure is through the roof. It would just be irresponsible of me not to immediately send you to the Mayo Clinic to this place I know. You have to go there.

Then you say: Thanks, doctor, but I would really like a third opinion.

The third doctor says: Wow. This is a problem. You know, looking at your family history and looking at you and your tests, I am amazed you are still alive. You have to do something about this.

You say: You know, I would really like a fourth opinion--and this keeps going. It takes months. Finally, you get to the 50th doctor. The 50th doctor examines you and says: Boy, it is a good thing you came to me because all this diet and exercise would have been a waste. You are doing just fine. Those other doctors, well, they are in the pockets of the fresh food and vegetable people. Enjoy life as much as you want and watch a lot of TV.

Then you learn this doctor was paid his salary by the makers of Cheetos. Don't get me wrong--Cheetos are a delicious snack. They can and should be eaten in moderation.

If 98 out of 100 doctors tell me I have a problem, I should take their advice. If those two other doctors are paid by

``Big Snack Food'' the way certain climate deniers are paid by ``Big Coal,'' I shouldn't take their advice. However, 98 out of 100 climate scientists are telling us we have a problem.

Governor Huntsman is right. Outside of Washington, many people get this. Even some of the very companies that previously funded anti- climate change efforts have turned the page on this issue. ExxonMobil used to fund the Heartland Institute, which is one of the leading climate change denial organizations. If you go to ExxonMobil's Web site today, it states, ``Rising greenhouse gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems.'' Shell Oil states on its Web site, ``CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change.'' Even the major oil and gas companies have begun to acknowledge that climate change is real.

I respectfully suggest that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle here in Congress also need to engage in a serious conversation on climate change. At a time when Americans are dealing with record droughts and devastating hurricanes, the Senate cannot afford to simply ignore climate change. We need to talk about this, as Democratic and Republican leaders outside of Washington are talking about it. Ultimately, we need to come together to address climate change before its damaging costs to society are out of control.

I do not pretend this will be easy. Some people will point out that climate change is a global problem. It is. We can't solve it alone. We can't, and they are right. Emissions in the developing world are now on the rise. China surpasses the United States in total greenhouse gas emissions--not per capita; we are still ahead on that. But China is also making major investment in renewable energy. According to the United Nations Environmental Program, in 2011 China led the world in renewable energy investments, with nearly one-fifth of the global total. This is in spite of the fact that China's GDP in 2011 was half of our GDP. If we are going to lead the clean energy race and create good-paying jobs for Americans, we must invest in our renewable energy infrastructure.

Last year the Senate Energy Committee heard testimony regarding a report from the American Energy Innovation Council's report entitled ``Catalyzing Ingenuity.'' The report, authored by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, and other business leaders, states:

The country has yet to embark on a clean energy innovation

program commensurate with the scale of the national

priorities that are at stake. In fact, rather than improve

the country's energy innovation program and invest in

strategic national interests, the current political

environment is creating strong pressure to pull back from

such efforts.

This is very important. I encourage my colleagues--especially those who oppose Federal funding for clean energy--to read this report because what people often forget is that this is nothing new. Government has always supported strategic energy priorities. As Mr. Augustine noted in his testimony, commercial nuclear power was the result of government investments in naval reactors. Do you know why natural gas is transforming our energy sector today? It is because of years of Federal support to develop hydrofracking technology. The Eastern Gas Shales Project was an initiative the Federal Government began back in 1976, before hydrofracking was a mature industry. The project set up and funded dozens of pilot demonstration projects with universities and private gas companies that tested drilling and fracturing methods. This investment by the Federal Government was instrumental in the development of the commercial extraction of natural gas from shale. In fact, microseismic imaging--a critical tool used in fracking--was originally developed by Sandia National Laboratory, a Federal energy laboratory.

The industry was also supported through tax breaks and subsidies. In fact, Mitchell Energy vice president Dan Stewart said in an interview that Mitchell Energy's first horizontal well was subsidized by the Federal Government. Mr. Mitchell said of the Department of Energy:

DOE started it, and other people took the ball and ran with

it. You cannot diminish DOE's involvement.

So the basis of the natural gas revolution that is helping make America more energy independent can be traced back to Federal support. In the same way, we must support the renewable energy sector now. We need to be the ones--our country, the United States, Americans--we must be the ones who sell this transformative and environmentally friendly technology to other nations. We must do this.

We need to start by having a conversation about climate change. It would be irresponsible to avoid the issue because it is uncomfortable to talk about. The stakes are too high and we would be shirking our responsibility to our constituents, to our children, to our grandchildren, and to posterity. The discussion is not going to be easy because there are going to be painful tradeoffs. I certainly don't have all the answers. I do know we need to have the conversation. We cannot leave this issue to future generations. I have a grandchild on the way--my first. I don't want to look back and tell him that when his grandfather was in a position to do something about climate change, he chose not to because it involved some politically difficult choices. I don't want to tell him that we compromised our moral integrity for political expediency.

We all have constituents who care about this issue. When I go back to Willmar, MN, I want to tell my constituents who met in a church and spoke about climate change that we heard them. I want to tell them we are working together across the aisle to talk about and address one of the most difficult problems we face.

I invite my colleagues to join in this endeavor and make dealing with climate change a bipartisan issue. We owe it to the Nation and to future generations.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Anna Henderson, a fellow on my staff, have privileges on the floor during today's session.

Mr. President, I want to start off by saying I am deeply saddened by the tragedy in Boston. Franni's and my thoughts and prayers are with everyone who has been affected.

Franni and I went to school in Boston. In fact, we met more than 43 years ago at a freshman mixer in Copley Square, so we know Boston. We have witnessed firsthand the kind of compassion and resilience we have seen from Bostonians, and I have faith we will find whoever did this and bring that person or those persons to justice.

Mr. President, I came to the floor today to speak in support of the gun violence legislation we are considering. Since the tragedy in Newtown, we have been asking ourselves what we should do to address this problem of gun violence in our country.

My primary focus in the wake of Newtown has been on mental health. Improving the access to mental health care has been one of my top priorities since I came to the Senate, and I am glad people are beginning to focus more on the issue. If we are going to make mental health a part of this, let's make it more than just a talking point. Let's make it a true national priority. Let's really do something to improve access to treatment for folks who need it.

Since the first day I got here, I have been pushing the administration to issue the final regulations for the Wellstone- Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, which requires insurance plans to cover mental health and addiction services and to do so to the same extent they cover medical and surgical services. Five years after that bill was signed into law, at long last the administration has promised to implement it, and to do so by the end of the year. I expect the administration to follow through on that commitment.

I have also introduced the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Act to help law enforcement officers respond to mental health crises in their communities and improve access to mental health treatment for people who end up in the criminal justice system. This is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that I have been working on since last year, well before the tragedy in Newtown.

In January I introduced the Mental Health in Schools Act which will improve children's access to mental health services. Catching these issues at an early age is very important. I met with some mothers from the Mounds View School District in Minnesota about this matter. Their children's lives, their own lives, and their families' lives were changed for the better because the kids got access to the mental health care they needed at an early age.

My bill has 17 cosponsors and key provisions have been included in a package which was recently reported out of the HELP Committee. I look forward to considering that legislation on the Senate floor soon. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

These are important measures, but let me be absolutely clear: The last thing we need to do is stigmatize mental illness. I said this many times before, and I will say it again because it bears repeating, and it is very important to me: The vast majority of people with mental illness are no more violent than the general population. In fact, they are more frequently the victims of violence than others are.

There is a very small subset of those with serious mental illnesses who may become more violent if they are not diagnosed and treated, and that is the one place where this issue of mental health intersects with the issue of violence. Improving access to mental health care is all about improving people's lives. It is about helping people with mental illness and their families by making them happier and more productive people. However, today we are talking about gun violence prevention legislation.

People have strongly held views on both sides--or all sides--of this issue. Not only is that true in Minnesota, it is true throughout the country. Minnesota has a proud tradition, like Indiana, of responsible gun ownership.

We are home to many sportsmen and sportswomen. Generations of Minnesotans have learned to hunt pheasants, deer, and ducks from their parents, their grandparents, their aunts and uncles, friends and neighbors. We cherish our traditions and our Second Amendment right to bear arms for collection, protection, and sport.

Minnesota has both urban and rural areas. It is home to moms, dads, teachers, law enforcement officers, and health care providers too. We have members of the National Rifle Association and members of the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence.

After the shooting at Sandy Hook, I reached out to my constituents. I got on the phone, I traveled across the State, I convened roundtables, I talked to hunters, school officials, law enforcement officers, and mental health experts. I wanted to hear Minnesotans' ideas, their hopes, their concerns, and their thoughts because it was and is important to me to approach this in a deliberative way.

Here is what I took away from these conversations: Minnesotans want us to take action to reduce gun violence and make our communities safer, but they want us to do it in a way that honors the Second Amendment and respects Minnesota's culture of responsible gun ownership. There is a balance to be struck there.

The overwhelming majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens who responsibly use their guns for recreation and self-protection. Their concern should not be dismissed or trivialized. Their rights should not be undermined because of the horrible acts of just a few. So I suggest that our goal should be to take whatever steps we can to reduce gun violence and improve public safety without unduly burdening law- abiding, responsible gun owners. I believe that is what the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act, the Manchin-

Toomey amendment, and the assault weapons ban do.

First, we need to improve the Nation's background check system, and we need to strengthen our laws to combat straw purchases and gun trafficking. This was one of the key recommendations I have taken away from my meeting with law enforcement leaders in Minnesota. I think background checks are the single most important thing we can do to save lives.

Today background checks are required only when a gun is sold by a federally licensed dealer. Background checks are used to determine whether a perspective buyer has a felony conviction, is a fugitive from the law, has a restraining order against him, or has a serious mental illness. The problem is that people who cannot pass a background check simply go to a gun show or go on the Internet or to the classified ads to get a gun instead, and that is exactly what they do.

By some estimates about 40 percent of all gun transactions are processed without a background check. This is like having two lines at the airport: one where people go through the security screening and one where they don't, and those passengers are the ones who choose which line they stand in. Would anyone feel comfortable on a plane if they knew that 40 percent of the passengers didn't go through the security check and they were the ones who chose not to go through the security check?

The Manchin-Toomey amendment will expand background checks to gun shows and other congressional transactions. These checks are not an undue burden. They can typically be conducted in a matter of minutes through NICS, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The amendment excludes certain exchanges, such as when a Minnesotan hands his gun down to his son or to her daughter.

The Manchin-Toomey amendment fixes another problem. We all know background checks are only as good as the database they use. The problem is that a lot of States are not submitting court documents and other records to NICS. The amendment will provide new incentives and penalties to make sure the States do a better job.

This law will work. Since we started administering instant background checks more than 1.7 million felons, fugitives, domestic abusers, and people with serious mental illnesses have been denied access to firearms--and that is under the system that exists today with all of its loopholes and flaws.

We have seen that women are less likely to be killed by an intimate partner in States that have expanded their own background check systems. And, look, about 90 percent of Americans want us to pass this measure--90 percent. This is not a Republican idea, it is not a Democratic idea, it is just a good idea.

I think it would be a remarkable failure of our democracy if we cannot get this done. If we cannot get this done, I am afraid it is because we have relied on fears and falsehoods instead of on facts.

For instance, some have argued that an expanded background check system will result in a Federal gun registry, but Federal gun registries are banned under existing law and the legislation we are considering would not repeal or weaken that. In fact, the Manchin- Toomey amendment would strengthen the current prohibition on Federal gun registries.

The other argument we have heard is that we should not bother improving the background check system until we do a better job prosecuting those who cheat the background check system under current law. There is really no reason we cannot do both, enforce and improve the law. In fact, that is exactly what the legislation does.

This legislation expands the background check system and strengthens the penalties for straw purchasers and gun traffickers. So I strongly support these proposed improvements to the background check system and to our gun trafficking laws.

The Judiciary Committee also reported Senator Feinstein's assault weapons ban to the Senate floor. The bill would ban the future manufacture of large-capacity magazines and certain weapons with military-style characteristics. This bill will not require anyone to forfeit a gun he or she already has.

We saw the damage assault weapons or large-capacity magazines can do at Newtown, Tucson, Aurora, and elsewhere. Here is what Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn said about assault weapons at a recent Judiciary Committee hearing:

Assault weapons are built to inflict violence against

humans. Their military characteristics are not merely

cosmetic in nature. These weapons are designed for combat.

They are designed to quickly, easily, and efficiently cause

lethal wounds to humans.

We are not talking about just mass shootings. For instance, studies suggest that large-capacity magazines may be used in up to a quarter of all gun crimes and 41 percent of police murders.

I believe the assault weapons ban will make our communities safer without unduly interfering with the rights of responsible gun owners. I think the bill strikes an appropriate balance. Others disagree, and I respect their views, but there are a few arguments that have been advanced against the assault weapons ban that I wish to address.

The first argument we have heard against Senator Feinstein's bill is that Justice Department studies have proved the assault weapons ban was ineffective. During our first hearing, a witness said: ``Independent studies, including a study from the Clinton Justice Department, proved that ban had no impact on lowering crime.'' And others, including my colleagues, repeated this claim.

Well, I went back and looked at the studies. What they actually say-- and they say it over and over--is that it was premature to draw definitive conclusions about the ban's effectiveness. Here is what they said:

It is premature to make definitive assessments on the ban's

impact on gun violence.

The effects of the [assault weapon and large-capacity

magazine] ban have yet to be fully realized; therefore, we

recommend continued study.

The ban's reauthorization or expiration could affect

gunshot victimizations, but predictions are tenuous.

I could go on and on. The reports repeat this point time and time again. If anything, the Justice Department report suggests a ban would be effective. For example, they said: ``It could conceivably prevent hundreds of gunshot victimizations annually and produce notable cost savings in medical care.''

It is simply not possible to read those studies and honestly say they prove an assault weapons ban is ineffective.

Another argument we have heard against Senator Feinstein's bill is it will undermine one's ability to defend oneself. But here is the thing: The record contains no evidence of a real case in which someone actually needed a large-capacity magazine or assault weapon for self- defense.

During our first hearing, a witness submitted many examples where guns were used in self-defense, but I have not seen any evidence that any one of those cases actually involved a weapon that would be banned under Senator Feinstein's bill. At our last markup, one of my colleagues submitted some additional cases for the record, but, again, after reviewing that list, I am not persuaded an assault weapon or large-capacity magazine was needed for self-defense in any of those instances.

Rather than presenting real cases in which someone actually needed an assault weapon or a large-capacity magazine to defend oneself, opponents of Senator Feinstein's bill instead asked us repeatedly to imagine hypothetical situations where these weapons were needed for self-defense.

Sure, I can imagine hypothetical cases, but I am not sure what value that holds, because I can also imagine someone using a large-capacity magazine or an assault weapon to massacre people at an elementary school or a movie theater or a supermarket parking lot. I can imagine these things because they really happened. That is the reality. And it is reality we should be talking about.

I asked Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, the president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, about this and he said: ``This idea that these weapons are for self-defense is, based on our experience, completely absurd.''

The final argument I wish to address is one of the most important. Some have argued a ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines is unconstitutional. The problem with the argument is it typically rests on the premise that the Second Amendment is absolute or unlimited.

For example, during our committee markup, one of my colleagues asked Senator Feinstein whether she would ``consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?''

The point my colleague was trying to make, I think, is that banning certain guns is like banning certain speech, and that this ban would violate the Constitution. This line of argument assumes the Second Amendment is absolute and unlimited--that any new gun law necessarily is unconstitutional.

But one doesn't have to be a constitutional scholar to know that rights are not unlimited. In fact, my colleague's question actually makes that very point. There are books that are not protected by the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights does not protect libel. The Bill of Rights does not protect child pornography. One cannot yell ``fire'' in a crowded movie theater where there is no fire.

And, likewise, the Second Amendment does not protect the rights of everyone to carry whatever weapon he likes in anyplace he wishes for whatever purpose he desires. The Second Amendment does not entitle felons or fugitives or domestic abusers or people with serious mental illnesses to carry guns. It does not entitle Americans to own a fully automatic machine gun or a bazooka or to bear nuclear arms.

Here is what Justice Antonin Scalia said in the Heller decision:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment

is not unlimited. . . . The right is not a right to keep and

carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for

whatever purpose.

Senator Durbin chaired a hearing on this issue in February. I was persuaded by Professor Lawrence Tribe's testimony. He examined the legislation and said: ``I'm convinced that nothing under discussion in the Senate Judiciary Committee represents a threat to the Constitution or even comes close to violating the second amendment.'' Remember, Professor Tribe has supported gun rights. He argued for an individual's right to bear arms many years before the Heller decision.

I was also persuaded by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals' analysis in Heller II. There, the Court examined the District of Columbia's assault weapons ban by asking a series of questions. First, to what extent does this law burden an individual's right to bear arms for lawful purposes? Second, how does that burden compare with the public's interest in implementing the ban? Finally, is the ban sufficiently well tailored to that public interest?

This is the sort of inquiry that is typical in constitutional cases, and I think it is appropriate in the Second Amendment context too. It is nuanced and principled, not absolutist. The constitutional question is not whether a law touches upon Second Amendment interests at all. The question is whether the law unduly burdens those interests--whether it strikes an appropriate balance between the Second Amendment interests at stake and the public's interest in its safety. We don't have to choose between the Second Amendment and saving lives. That is a false choice.

The Heller II Court correctly concluded that the District of Columbia's law--their assault ban--struck an acceptable balance and upheld DC's ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. In fact, every court that considered laws banning assault weapons and large-capacity magazines has upheld those laws as constitutional. I am confident Senator Feinstein's bill will be upheld in the courts as well.

When my colleague began drawing comparisons to the First Amendment, I was reminded of what Justice Potter Stewart famously said of obscenity: ``I know it when I see it.'' The debate on this issue changed the day that gunman massacred 20 little children and 6 educators with an assault weapon and large-capacity magazines at an elementary school in Newtown. That was an obscenity. Americans knew it when they saw it.

I hope we will continue to debate these issues in the days ahead. Debate is important, especially when people feel so strongly on both sides of this issue. I respect those who hold different views, and I hope they respect mine.

As we debate this issue, I hope we keep in mind what Gabby Giffords, Miya and Sam Rahamin, and Neil Heslin told us during our committee hearings. Gabby Giffords was shot in the head during the massacre in Tucson in 2011. Six people died that day. The youngest among them was Christina-Taylor Green, the 9-year-old girl who loved to dance and who very well may have followed in Gabby's footsteps.

Christina-Taylor had just been elected to the student council at her elementary school and she had taken an interest in public service at a young age. That is why she was visiting her Congresswoman. Christina- Taylor was killed with the 13th bullet fired that day. Christina-Taylor Green is not with us anymore, but by some miracle Gabby is, and Gabby has used this second lease on life to be a voice for people such as Christina. Gabby mustered every bit of energy she could to appear before the Judiciary Committee in January. Let's not forget what she said, which was this:

Speaking is difficult, but I must say something important.

Violence is a big problem. Too many children are dying. Too.

Many. Children. We must do something. It will be hard. But

the time is now. You. Must. Act. Be bold. Be courageous.

Americans are counting on you.

Miya and Sam Rahamim asked us to take action too. They lost their father Reuven when a gunman opened fire at a sign factory in Minneapolis in September. Reuven is an immigrant from Israel and lived the American dream. He started a company that employed dozens of people over the years and exported products to the rest of the world, even to China--something Reuven was always eager to tell people. And Reuven was especially proud of his patented method for making Braille signs which, obviously, helped the blind. That was Reuven's thing--helping people. He was active in my synagogue and in his community, and he will always be remembered for his generous spirit.

Miya and Sam gave me a letter in January just a few weeks after Sandy Hook and a few months after the mass shooting that took their father's life, and others. This is what the letter said:

While Congress cannot prevent every death from gun

violence, it has a moral obligation to attempt to save as

many lives as possible. By passing this legislation, Congress

can prevent some Americans from receiving the call that is

dreaded most--that their father or mother, brother or sister,

spouse or child will not be coming home. . . . I want my

story told so that other families will not have to go through

the devastation that mine has been through.

And then there is Neil Heslin. He came to Washington to testify at a Judiciary Committee hearing a few weeks ago. Neil told us about the morning of the shooting at Sandy Hook when his son Jesse was killed. On the way to school that morning, Neil and Jesse stopped at the deli to get breakfast. Neil got coffee. Jesse got what he called coffee, which was really hot chocolate. That is the part of the story that has really stayed with me. It is a small detail but it is a pure detail. It says something about how an innocent child looks up to his dad.

Neil was in a good mood. Christmas was around the corner and he had plans to make gingerbread houses with Jesse and Jesse's classmates that afternoon. Talking to Neil, you kind of got the sense that he was just as excited about this as the kids were--maybe more so. He really cherished this time together.

After they had their ``coffees,'' Neil dropped Jesse off at school. It was 9:04 a.m. Neil told us this:

Jesse gave me a hug and a kiss. And he said, ``Goodbye, I

love you.'' Then he stopped, and he said, ``I love mom,

too.'' That was the last I saw of Jesse.

Neil is not a political guy. In fact, he told us:

Half the time, I think it doesn't matter which group of you

guys runs things out there, no offense.

But he continued:

Let me tell you, when you're sitting at a firehouse and

it's one in the morning and you're hoping against hope that

your son is still hiding somewhere in that school, you want

any change that makes it one bit more likely that you'll see

your boy again.

For me, that is what this is about, to make any change that will make it one bit more likely that the next Jesse will live to make gingerbread houses at Christmas. To see so many innocent lives lost on that December morning,

so many hopes and dreams dashed, so many families grieving, the country was heartbroken, my wife and I were heartbroken, and we are still. I wish we could offer more than our thoughts and our prayers and the thoughts and prayers of our fellow Minnesotans.

We cannot turn back time. We cannot bring back the lives we have lost. But if there is something we can do today in this Chamber--this week in this Chamber--to save lives in our communities tomorrow, to make it more likely that boy will be coming out of the school, then I think we should do it.

Thank you.

I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate only be extended until 8:30 p.m. and that at 8:30 p.m. the majority leader be recognized.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I rise today to discuss the confirmation of Mary Jo White as Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Ms. White has had an impressive career--from prosecuting terrorists and white-collar criminals as a U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York to heading a large litigation department in private practice. There is little doubt that Ms. White has the Wall Street expertise necessary to navigate the complex issues before the SEC.

I come to the floor today to discuss a critical problem I have asked Ms. White to prioritize as Chair of the SEC. Currently, when a bank issues a structured finance product, it needs to get the product rated by the credit rating agencies, and the bank pays them for the ratings. The banks have an interest in getting high ratings, and the credit rating agencies have an interest in getting repeat customers. Of course, this creates a fundamental conflict of interest. This conflict played a key role in the financial meltdown. It is a problem we sought to address in the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation we passed in 2010. Yet it is a problem that remains. It is awaiting action by the SEC--more than 5 years after the financial crisis hit and nearly 3 years since Dodd-Frank was signed into law.

Resolving the problem of the conflict of interest in the rating industry will be a vital test of the SEC under Ms. White's chairmanship. In a meeting we had together last month in my office, Ms. White expressed her appreciation of the importance of this issue and her commitment to scrutinize conflicts of interest inherent in the credit rating industry. I look forward to working with her to find a meaningful solution to alleviate the ongoing threat to our financial system posed by these conflicts of interest. The next concrete step in that process is a roundtable the SEC will hold on this issue in May. That roundtable must be a balanced assessment of the issue, and it must lead to meaningful action by the SEC.

This is not, to be sure, the only issue in financial reform facing the SEC. I wish to talk a little bit about why I

care so passionately about reforming the credit rating process and why this is so important.

In the years leading up to the 2008 financial collapse, the credit rating agencies were enjoying massive profits and booming business. Of course, there is nothing wrong with massive profits and booming business in and of themselves, but there was one fundamental problem: Booming business was coming at the expense of accurate credit ratings, which is supposed to be the entire reason for the existence of the credit rating agencies.

The fact that the credit rating agencies were not providing accurate ratings should come as no surprise given the industry's compensation model. Credit rating agencies were and still are paid to issue ratings directly by the big Wall Street banks issuing the paper and requesting the ratings. If a rating agency--let's say Moody's--doesn't provide the triple-A rating the bank wants, the bank can just take its business over to Fitch or S&P's. That is called ratings shopping, and it continues to this day. The opportunity for ratings shopping creates an incentive for the credit raters to give out those triple-A ratings even when they are not warranted, and that is exactly what happened with the subprime, mortgage-backed securities that played such a crucial role in the financial crisis, and it happened over and over again. It became ingrained in the culture of the industry.

The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Senator Levin, took a close look at the big three credit rating agencies, examined millions of pages of documents, and released an extensive report detailing the internal communications at Moody's, S&P, and Fitch. Among the many troubling e-mails, there was one from an S&P official that sums up the prevailing attitude quite nicely: ``Let's hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters.''

With all the risky bets in the financial sector--and bets on those bets--our financial sector had indeed become a house of cards. But without the conduct of the credit raters, the house of cards would have been one card tall because it gave triple-A ratings to these bets on bets on bets--these derivatives.

Two years after that e-mail was written, that house of cards didn't just falter, it collapsed. Because that house of cards had grown so tall--thanks to the credit rating agencies--when it collapsed, it brought the entire American economy down with it. The financial meltdown cost Americans $3.4 trillion--let me say that again--$3.4 trillion in retirement savings. It triggered the worst crisis since the Great Depression with its massive business failure and mass foreclosures and job losses and the explosion of our national debt.

The crisis profoundly affected the everyday lives of millions of people across the country in so many negative ways, including in Minnesota. People lost their homes, their jobs, their health insurance. I know the Presiding Officer saw it in New Mexico. I saw it in Minnesota. Every Senator here saw it in their State.

In May 2010 I called on Minnesotans to participate in a field hearing to learn about their experiences during the financial collapse. I would like to share some highlights from the testimony presented by Dave Berg of Eden Prairie, MN.

My situation mirrors the situation of thousands of

Minnesotans in my age group--and illustrates why it is so

important to reform the way Wall Street operates. I am 57

years old and looking for a job. After having spent most of

my career in the IT field, I have been out of work for 14

months . . . Throughout my working career, I saved for

retirement. I participated in pension and 401(k) plans that

my former employers matched. I thought I would have a secure

retirement because I was doing the right thing . . . Much of

my overall retirement security is now gone . . . At the age

of 57, I need to again start building up a nest egg so I can

hopefully retire in my seventies. This was not my plan.

As a job seeker in my 50s, I am not alone. Twice weekly, I

meet with groups of job seekers, many of whom are in the same

situation as I am. While we keep our outlook positive, most

of us are faced with the prospect of starting over and we are

resigned to the fact that we could be working in our

seventies.

The downturn of the economy, caused in part by the abuses

on Wall Street, led to the loss of my retirement security.

Reforming the way Wall Street operates is important to me

personally, because I have a lot of saving yet to do--and I

simply cannot afford another Wall Street meltdown. I need to

have confidence in the markets--and I need to know that there

is accountability to those who caused this financial crisis.

As Dave points out, he is not alone. Everyone in this body has heard stories like this. It is hard to overestimate the extent to which the credit rating agencies contributed to the financial crisis in which thousands of Minnesotans lost their homes, thousands lost their jobs, and far too many Minnesotans had their hopes for the future dashed.

They are not seeking retribution from Wall Street, they just need to know it will not happen again. They know that there is a problem and that the problem needs to be fixed. We do not need further proof of that, but we get it in the recent complaint filed by the Department of Justice against S&P in which DOJ alleges--as it said when it filed the complaint--that the credit rating agency ``falsely represented that its ratings were objective, independent, and uninfluenced by S&P's relationships with investment banks when, in actuality, S&P's desire for increased revenue and market share led it to favor the interests of these banks over investors.''

The complaint highlights the patently problematic way the credit rating agencies habitually did their business. One e-mail obtained in the investigation from a high-level S&P official reads:

We are meeting with your group this week to discuss

adjusting criteria for rating CDO's of real estate assets . .

. because of the ongoing threat of losing deals.

CDOs--collaterized debt obligations--are one of those derivatives or bets that added stories to the house of cards. This official had apparently become so comfortable with the culture of conflicts of interest that he appeared to have no reservations about putting it in writing.

I am glad the Department of Justice is pursuing a case against the S&P, but DOJ's action is not enough. It is backward-looking and addresses past harms, but my concern is that the conduct continues to this day. The credit raters are still influenced by the relationships with the banks because that is who pays them. It is a clear conflict of interest and we need to prioritize actions that will prevent another meltdown in the future.

That is exactly what Congress--and I--did as part of the financial reform legislation in 2010. As part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform act, I proposed a solution with my friend and colleague Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi. If our provision is implemented in full, it would root out the conflicts of interest from the ``issuer pays'' model. The amendment Senator Wicker and I offered to the financial reform bill directed the Securities and Exchange Commission to create an independent self-regulatory organization that would select which agency--one with the adequate capacity and expertise--would provide the initial credit rating of each product. The assignments would be based not only on capacity and expertise but also, after time, on their track record. Our approach would incentivize and reward excellence. The current pay-for-play model--with its inherent conflict of interest-- would be replaced by a pay-for-performance model. This improved market would finally allow smaller rating agencies to break the Big Three's oligopoly.

The oligopoly is clear. The SEC estimates that as of December 31, 2011, approximately 91 percent of the credit ratings for structured finance products were issued by the three largest NRSROs--Fitch, Moody's, and S&P--each of which was implicated in the PSI investigation. The other five agencies doing structured finance make up the remaining 9 percent.

The current oligopoly doesn't incentivize accuracy. However, if we move to a system based on merit, the smaller credit rating agencies would be better able to participate and could serve as a check against inflated ratings, helping to prevent another meltdown.

In our proposed model, the independent board would be comprised mainly of investor types--managers of endowments and pension funds--who have the greatest stake in the reliability of credit ratings, as well as representatives from the credit rating agencies and banking industries, and academics who have studied this issue.

Our amendment passed the Senate with a large majority, including 11 Republican votes, because this is not a progressive idea and it is not a conservative idea--it is a commonsense idea.

The final version of Dodd-Frank modified the amendment and, to be frank, put more decisionmaking authority in the hands of the SEC in how to respond to the problem of conflicts of interest in the credit rating industry. The final version directed the SEC to study the proposal Senator Wicker and I made, along with other alternatives, and then decide how to act.

The SEC released its study in December. The study acknowledged the continued conflicts of interest in the credit rating industry and reviewed our proposal and many of the alternatives, laying out the pros and cons of each without reaching a definitive conclusion on which route to pursue.

The next step is a roundtable the SEC is holding on May 14. I will be participating in the event, and I hope that under Ms. White's leadership the SEC will make the roundtable a meaningful and balanced discussion of the different possibilities for reform. I have said all along that I believe the proposal of Senator Wicker and myself is a good one--and the right one--the more I have thought about it and looked at it over these few years. But if someone makes a compelling case for an alternative--an alternative that truly alleviates this danger of this inherent conflict of interest--I will gladly lend it my support. Following the roundtable the SEC must take prompt and decisive action to implement a meaningful plan for reform.

But don't get me wrong. The need for reform is obvious and necessary, and I will pursue this issue until the American economy is no longer subject to these unnecessary risks. Too many Minnesotans--too many Americans--were devastated by a financial crisis to which the credit rating agencies contributed mightily. The conflicts of interest in the credit rating agencies must be addressed so they don't contribute to yet another crisis.

Ultimately, it is up to the SEC to act, and the action they take on this issue will be an important measure of Ms. White's tenure as chair of the Commission. Ms. White has assured me she will give this critical issue the attention it deserves. I congratulate Ms. White on her confirmation and I do intend to hold her to that commitment. I look forward to working with her and the rest of the Commission on this very important issue.

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

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the budget we are proposing. It has three basic guiding principles: First, we must protect our fragile economic recovery by creating jobs and investing in economic growth.

I remember when we did this during the Clinton administration. President Clinton proposed as a deficit reduction package raising income taxes on those who earned above $250,000 at 39.6 percent. Every Republican voted against it, and many of them went on record saying it was going to cause a recession. Some Members of this body voted against it saying it was going to cause a recession and it would be Clinton's recession. So 22.7 million jobs later there was no deficit. We had a surplus.

This idea we hear from the other side that every time we raise taxes we hurt the economy just defies history. All we have to do is look at recent history, and especially now, at a time when there is a growing disparity in income in our country.

What we are trying to do is to promote growth. We promote growth by investing in that which creates growth. We know what they are. One is education. We are going to cut Pell grants? When my wife was 18 months old her father died in a car accident. He was a decorated World War II vet, leaving her mom widowed at age 29, with 5 kids, four girls and a boy. The boy, my brother-in-law, went into the Coast Guard and he did 20 years in the Coast Guard and he still works for the Coast Guard. He is an electrical engineer in the Coast Guard. He is the second most important man in my son's life. My son was able to get a master's degree in mechanical engineering from MIT.

My three sisters-in-law and Franni went to college on Pell grants and scholarships. At that time the full Pell grant paid for 85 percent of a public

college education. Now it pays for less than 35 percent. The Presiding Officer knows, because my mother-in-law ended up going to the University of Maine. But the Presiding Officer knows that today, kids who go to the University of Maine have debt. All of us know our kids, our students have debt. In Minnesota the average debt is $29,000.

My wife's family lived on Social Security survivor benefits. My mother-in-law went to college on the GI bill. She got a loan on the GI bill. She became a teacher, teaching title I kids--because of Social Security, because of the GI bill. My wife's family was able to just barely get by. They barely made it. Sometimes there wasn't enough food on the table. Sometimes they turned the phone off, but they made it.

We have people now--they all made it into the middle class. The ladder was there. We are trying to preserve that. They tell us to pull ourselves up by our boot straps in this country. Sometimes people just need the boots first. The government gave my wife's family the boots, and they are all productive members of our society because of programs.

We had a hearing in the HELP Committee, and we had a witness whom the Republicans called, and he testified about what creates the middle class. They called a witness who was from the American Enterprise Institute. They are good people at the American Enterprise Institute. The witness's testimony ended with the idea that government can create jobs is a myth. So when it got to my turn to question him, I said: Have you heard of the Erie Canal? He had. The Erie Canal opened the Midwest to Europe. It made shipping our timber and our agricultural goods 97 percent more efficient. I asked him if he had heard of the Interstate Highway System. He had. I asked him if he understood that we were on C- SPAN, as we are right now, the Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network. I asked him if he knew who put up the first satellites; it was the Defense Department.

I noted that he had gone to the University of California at San Diego. I asked him if any of his professors had helped him at all. He said they had. He got his doctorate at UCLA. I asked him if he had heard of the Internet. He had.

By the end of my questioning, he said: To say that the government can't create jobs would be absurd. It started with the idea that government can create jobs is a myth, and he ended his testimony with saying: To say the government can't create jobs would be absurd. There was a 180-degree difference except he added absurdity. So he injected it. That is what I used to do. I used to identify absurdity.

There is absurd stuff going on and being said here. We are hearing things cited that have been disproved so many times.

The budget we are proposing today is based on three guiding principles. First, we must protect our fragile economic recovery by creating jobs and investing in economic growth. Second, we must tackle our deficits in a responsible way. And finally, we need to honor the promises we have made to our seniors, our veterans, and our middle class families. This budget does all of those things--and in doing so, it reflects our values and our priorities. In contrast, the budget being debated in the House provides massive tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations, while slashing critical investments that will endanger our economic recovery.

Everyone agrees we shouldn't saddle our children and grandchildren with insurmountable debt--addressing our debt is a responsibility we take very seriously. But at the same time, if we fail to make the necessary investments in economic growth, public health improvements, quality education, rural development, and clean energy, our children and grandchildren will inherit an equally unacceptable burden.

Drastic cuts to infrastructure, innovation, and education are penny wise and pound foolish. Even if we save a little on paper upfront, the realistic long-term effects are costly and devastating. That is why our budget includes a $100 billion infrastructure recovery plan that will get workers back on the job, repairing our crumbling schools and bridges, and building up our technology infrastructure, so schools and small businesses, even in rural Minnesota, can stay competitive.

It also lays the groundwork to pass a comprehensive 5-year Farm Bill that will provide certainty and support for Minnesota's farmers. This budget plan protects Head Start, early childhood education, and Pell grants--which make a quality education possible for all students, regardless of background, and will prepare our children for the 21st century workforce.

This budget demonstrates our commitment to responsible deficit reduction. Since the Simpson-Bowles proposal, Congress has reduced the deficit by $2.4 trillion--$1.8 trillion coming from spending cuts, and $600 billion from allowing tax rates for the wealthiest to return to prior levels. This budget builds on that deficit reduction with an additional $1.85 trillion. That is a total of $4.25 trillion in deficit reduction--which exceeds the goal set out in Simpson-Bowles.

This budget shares other principles of Simpson-Bowles--that deficit reduction should be achieved through a mix of spending cuts and new revenues, and that deficit reduction should not be done on the backs of the most vulnerable.

At one point in time, there was enthusiasm among some of my Senate colleagues from the other side of the aisle for Simpson-Bowles. One such Senator said, ``Say yes to Simpson-Bowles . . . I'm willing to say yes to Simpson-Bowles.'' Another said, ``Everybody knows what the solution is, and that's Simpson-Bowles . . . I mean, everybody knows that that's the template for what we need to do.'' Another called the plan ``a good starting point and should be seriously considered by Congress.'' Our budget exceeds the deficit reduction goal in Simpson- Bowles, and follows the same general principles--yet my colleagues on the other side have not yet come around to supporting it.

Finally, in addition to growing our economy and responsibly addressing the deficit, our budget honors the promises we have made to our seniors, our veterans, and our most vulnerable. This is in sharp contrast to the budget being considered in the House.

My colleagues and I pay into Medicare every month, and so we are entitled to Medicare benefits when we reach age 65. The fact that we are entitled to these benefits is not a bad thing. In fact, it is a very important thing for millions of American seniors. In 1965, we created Medicare and Medicaid so seniors could count on having access to medical care in their retirement. As a nation, we promised our parents and grandparents they could count on Medicare and Medicaid as a safety net in their golden years. And the Senate Democratic budget protects that safety net.

However, the House Republican budget would undermine the very foundation of the promise, and end Medicare as we know it. Their budget would replace Medicare's guarantee of health coverage with a voucher, and would raise the Medicare eligibility age. In my home State of Minnesota, this proposal would shift costs to more than 800,000 seniors when they can least afford to bear that burden. It would end the guarantee of health coverage that Medicare has made for decades. In fact, it would end Medicare as we know it.

The House Republican budget would also turn Medicaid into a block grant. Now, a lot of people think Medicare will provide long-term care services for seniors since Medicare is thought of as the health care program for seniors. But it is actually Medicaid that provides those long-term services and supports. Medicare does not cover those.

So when the House Republicans talk about turning Medicaid into a block grant, what they are actually talking about is ending the guarantee that seniors can get the care they need when they need it most. In my home State of Minnesota, that means the nearly 100,000 seniors who depend on Medicaid would no longer be able to count on getting the care they need. Our Senate budget protects the Medicaid program so seniors can access that care when they need it.

I also want to talk for a moment about the SNAP program, or food stamps. The House Republican budget would cut the SNAP program by $135 billion. This could mean that as many as 13 million people would be cut from the program. More than a quarter of these people would be low- income seniors and people with disabilities. That

is as many as 3 million seniors who would no longer have the assistance they need to buy food. Fortunately, the Senate budget protects the SNAP program so that seniors can continue to buy food.

This budget also keeps our Nation's promise to our veterans. We just marked the 10-year anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War. We have responsibly brought that war to an end. We remain in Afghanistan, where we have been for well over a decade, though we are also bringing our participation in that war to a responsible end. Well over 2 million Americans have deployed during those wars as part of our all-volunteer force.

The budget funds veterans programs so that veterans can get the education they need, the jobs they are seeking, the homes every American should be able to depend on, and access to the health care they have earned and deserve.

I am proud of our budget, and of the values it reflects. It reflects a commitment to the success of future generations, and to the middle class. It puts the interests of regular people above those of our most profitable corporations. It tackles our budget deficits in a way that will promote growth and prosperity.

I have also filed several amendments that reflect priorities for Minnesota--in particular, the expansion of rural broadband, the promotion of college affordability, encouraging public-private partnerships in workforce training efforts, expanding access to skills courses for the unemployed, and promoting clean energy on tribal lands.

I thank Chairman Murray for her leadership during this process, and look forward to carrying out this budget's priorities alongside her in the coming years.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Marketplace Fairness Act. This act will level the playing field for small business retailers in Minnesota and across the country.

I want to thank Senator Enzi for his years of work on this. He had a retail shoe store. I thank Senator Durbin, Senator Heitkamp, and Senator Alexander for introducing this legislation. This legislation will simply allow States to help their brick-and-mortar retailers, including the mom-and-pop shops on Main Street, stay competitive in a marketplace where online sales have become a fact of life. The amendment we offered to the budget resolution today lays the groundwork for passing that legislation. It is a commonsense measure which brings our sales tax into the 21st century.

In Minnesota, the retail industry includes nearly a half million workers, which is about one in five jobs in our State. Those retailers need to compete on price and service every single day. The current sales tax system makes it impossible for them to compete.

Senator Cardin spoke about something that is very common around this country. I have heard the same exact story myself. It is where someone walks into an electronics store and wants to buy a big flat-screen TV, and they get the guy who knows everything to come over and point out what is the best for their needs. The salesman is a very skilled guy. He was hired because he knows what he is doing. He sells the TV, except he doesn't sell it, not for his store. Instead, the customer gets on their smart phone and buys it online. They buy the same exact model at the same exact price, but because he or she doesn't have to pay the sales tax--they are supposed to, by the way, but they don't--they buy it online. They end up saving $100 and the brick-and-mortar store, which pays for employees, sewer, schools, and everything which makes a society work, loses the sale and cannot compete. It is just not fair. It is just not fair.

This is a commonsense amendment. Small businesses have an exemption. The exemption is written in the amendment. People cannot say, well, just because they have an exemption, we are going to get rid of the exemption in some way. It is an exemption that is a part of the amendment we are proposing.

I am proud to be on this bill. I am proud of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The Marketplace Fairness Act is common sense, it is bipartisan, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.

I yield the floor.

I rise today to speak about the promise of biomedical innovation in our country, as did Senator Klobuchar. I talk a lot about the importance of biomedical innovation because in my home State of Minnesota there are 400 medical device companies, and there are more than 30,000 employees who support our economy while creating high- quality jobs. They do it while saving and improving patients' lives.

The industry is being punished for its innovation and growth. The medical device tax is cutting into the proceeds which go toward research and development and workforce training. By taxing companies on the first dollar of sales, they are especially hurting the very small companies, the startup companies, which may not be in profit yet. This is why I am happy to join with Senator Klobuchar, with Senator Hatch, in filing this amendment to the budget resolution to allow for the repeal of the medical device tax. This amendment is an important first step toward fully repealing the tax and providing much-needed relief for our innovators and doing it in a fiscally responsible way.

Along with Senator Klobuchar, I fought this tax from the beginning. The health care law will insure 30 million new Americans while also improving the health care of every American citizen. While I am proud to be a champion of that law, I believe the medical device tax is not the way to pay for it.

On this point, I disagree with the Obama administration, as I did from the beginning. Senator Klobuchar also disagreed from the beginning. We fought against the tax and ultimately we were successful in getting it cut in half from what it was when it came out of the Finance Committee.

As a member of the HELP Committee, I will continue to improve our regulatory process. I am very proud I had a part in helping create the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, a private-public partnership in this industry which is a first of its kind. Part of this, I believe, is the full repeal of the Medical Device Act. As a first step, I ask my colleagues join those of us who are cosponsors of this critical amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss tribal school construction funding--an issue that is central to the academic wellbeing and intellectual development of tribal children across the country.

It goes without saying that all kids need clean, safe places to study.

And making sure that every child gets a good education, in a safe, clean environment will benefit our economy and our society as a whole. Unfortunately, many Indian kids attending

schools run by the Bureau of Indian Education are forced to study in aging facilities that should be replaced.

As Senators, we have responsibilities to all children in our States to ensure that they all have access to safe and clean school buildings. The Federal Government has a particular responsibility to the tribes that includes taking care of tribal schools. That is why I offered an amendment to the continuing resolution with Senators Tom Udall, Tim Johnson, Klobuchar, Heitkamp, and Heinrich, to secure funding for tribal school buildings that need to be replaced.

In these times of tight budgets, everyone is making sacrifices. Programs across the Federal Government are forced to make difficult cuts and to do more with less. School construction is one small but vital program that I believe should continue to be funded. I was disappointed that the administration's fiscal year 2013 budget did not include funding for Indian school replacement construction.

I ask the Senator if it would be fair to say that the absence of funding for tribal school construction replacement in this CR should not be seen as a lack of support for this activity in future appropriations bills?

The continuing resolution we are now considering is needed to get us through the last 6 months of this fiscal year. It is my hope that as we return to a more regular appropriations process for fiscal year 2014, we can refocus on this important priority to support Indian school construction. I ask the Senator, would he be willing to work with me and our colleagues on that?

I thank the Senator for committing to work with us.

Mr. President, last spring, just before the Senate passed the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, I came to the floor to share some words from my late dear friend Sheila Wellstone whose commitment to ending domestic violence is an everlasting source of inspiration to my wife Franni and to me.

I shared with my colleagues something Sheila said, which was this:

I have chosen to focus on domestic violence because I find

it appalling that a woman's home can be the most dangerous,

the most violent, and, in fact, the most deadly place for

her. And if she is a mother, it is dangerous for her

children. . . . It's time that we tell the secret; it's time

that we all come together to work toward ending the violence.

Sheila's words rang true in her time, but they have perhaps never rung more true than they do today. It is time that we all come together to work toward ending the violence.

We passed the VAWA Reauthorization Act in the Senate last April, but the House did not let it go to the President for signature and enactment, so we are back here today voting on the bill again because those of us who believe in VAWA will continue to fight for the bill's passage until it is signed into law. I encourage my colleagues, both in the Senate and in the House, to come together to work toward ending the violence, to support this bill.

The bill's managers, Judiciary Committee chairman Pat Leahy and Senator Mike Crapo, have demonstrated remarkable resolve and leadership. We all are grateful for that. I also thank them for inviting me to author two parts of the VAWA reauthorization bill, which I would like to describe briefly.

First, the VAWA Reauthorization Act includes provisions from the Justice for Survivors of Sexual Assault Act. We just heard Senator Hagan talk about an aspect of that. This is one of the first bills I introduced after being sworn in to the Senate. When this bill becomes law, never again will survivors of sexual assault suffer the indignity of paying for the forensic medical exam, the rape kit. VAWA provides State and local governments with funding to administer these exams, which are used to collect evidence in sexual assault cases. The problem is that under current law, grant recipients can charge the survivor-- the victim--for the upfront cost of administering the exam, leaving her to seek reimbursement later. Too often survivors get lost in a maze of paperwork and they are not reimbursed. Under my bill, grant recipients will be able to charge insurance companies or victims' assistance funds or other sources, but they cannot charge the survivor. I believe survivors of sexual violence have endured enough already. They should not have to pay for rape kits, and they will not have to once this bill is passed and signed by the President and becomes law.

Second, the VAWA reauthorization bill includes the Housing Rights for Victims of Domestic and Sexual Violence Act, legislation I introduced with Senator Collins and Senator Mikulski in the fall of 2011. This bill will help women stay in their homes when they are the most vulnerable, when they need a roof over their heads the most. The link between violence and homelessness is undeniable. By one account, nearly 40 percent of women who experience domestic violence will become homeless at some point in their lives. Once a woman becomes homeless, she becomes even more vulnerable to physical or sexual abuse. In my State, nearly one in three homeless women is fleeing domestic violence, and half of those women have children with them. That is unacceptable.

Franni and I have visited battered women's shelters, and I have to tell you it is heartbreaking. They are crowded. They are full. And a lot of mothers are there with their kids. On a bitter-cold Minnesota night, these women often have nowhere to go. Transitional housing is really important. If a woman has a choice between going out in the cold winter night in Minnesota or maybe going back to her abuser and exposing children to that, that is wrong. This can be heartbreaking.

But there is something heartwarming too about seeing people come to each other's aid in their time of need. That is what the people who run the shelters do every day--the staff of Advocates for Family Peace in Itasca County, the Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women, the Casa de Esperanza, and the many other advocacy groups across my State. Talk to these folks about VAWA, and they will tell you what it means for women in Minnesota. It means nights spent under a roof instead of in a tent or in a car or on a street or, even worse, having to go back to live with their abuser and exposing their children to that danger, to witnessing that violence. We need these shelters and transitional housing programs for women who are fleeing danger. The VAWA reauthorization bill provides continued support for these programs.

My housing rights legislation provides additional support. It is a preventive measure that is intended to keep women from becoming homeless in the first place. My bill will make it unlawful to evict a woman from federally subsidized housing just because she is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. A woman may be living away from her abuser in Federal housing and the abuser comes and knocks down the door and the landlord will say: Let's evict her. Under my bill, that cannot happen in Federally subsidized housing. This bill is for every woman who has hesitated to call the police to enforce a protective order because she is afraid she will be evicted from her home if she does so.

The VAWA Reauthorization Act is a crucial bill. It is a good bill. It is an important bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these letters from professional medical organizations in support of S. 47, the Violence Against Women Act.

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

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk about Medicare. My esteemed colleague from Alabama just talked about Medicare reform. The Presiding Officer and I--all of us--pay into Medicare every month, so we are entitled to Medicare benefits when we reach age 65. The fact that we are entitled to these benefits is not bad. In fact, it is very good for so many millions of American seniors. The fact that many call it an entitlement only means we have a right to expect to get the benefits we paid in for. Entitlements, in this case, should not be a pejorative.

We have heard a lot about entitlement programs recently and about the place of Medicare in the conversation about our Federal deficit. We just heard the Senator from Alabama talk about that. He said there is no discussion of reform of Medicare. But in these discussions sometimes I think a critical component is missing, which is we already reformed Medicare, and these reforms extended the life of Medicare by 8 years while expanding benefits for seniors.

During the recent campaign, as the Presiding Officer has pointed out, we saw a lot of ads about the so-called $716 billion in cuts to Medicare and how terrible that was, is, and will be. I would like to take just a few minutes to explain what these savings were, what they are, and what they will be.

The two biggest sources of the $716 billion are, one, insurance companies overcharging the government for Medicare Advantage and savings in payments to hospitals.

First, Medicare Advantage. As the Presiding Officer knows, as people watching no doubt know, seniors can choose to get their Medicare benefits directly from the Medicare Program or get them through a private insurance program that gets paid by Medicare, which is called Medicare Advantage.

Before we passed the Affordable Care Act, we were overpaying those private insurers by 14 percent. These insurers were getting much more than they should have based on the benefits they were providing to seniors. So we cut what Medicare gives to these private insurance companies. Over the next 10 years, we are going to cut these insurance payments by 14 percent, which CBO scored in 2010 as saving Medicare $136 billion over 10 years.

We were told by some of our colleagues that insurance companies were going to leave the market, that we were not going to have Medicare Advantage anymore. So far, enrollment in Medicare Advantage has gone up by 11 percent. That is many billions of dollars we were able to take-- instead of overpaying insurance companies--to extend the life of Medicare.

Second is the lower reimbursements to hospitals. Why does this work out for hospitals? When we insure 31 million more people, and those 31 million people go to the emergency room, go to the hospital, the hospital is no longer on the line to pay for that.

They are not left holding the bag. Those 31 million people now have insurance that pays for it. So the hospitals are now able to take lower reimbursements for Medicare patients. That is why it works out. So when people talk about the $716 billion, this is a huge part of what they are talking about. It is not cuts to benefits. It is not shifting costs to seniors. It is streamlining the program and making it more efficient.

We took these savings and we reinvested the savings in the program. We overall extended the life of Medicare by 8 years. That is entitlement reform, extending the life of the program. That is what we are talking about when we talk about reforming Medicare. That is what we did. But not only that, we actually expanded benefits for seniors.

I go to a lot of senior centers around Minnesota, nursing homes. I have to tell you seniors are very happy we expanded their benefits. They are happy about the new free preventive care they get, wellness checkups, colonoscopies, mammograms. They know an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. This saves us all money and keeps people healthier.

What else are we doing with this money in addition to expanding the solvency by 8 years? We are closing the doughnut hole, the prescription drug doughnut hole. I have to tell you, seniors are very happy about that too. For more than one-third of seniors, for them, Social Security provides more than 90 percent of their income. For one-quarter of elderly beneficiaries, Social Security is the sole source of retirement income. So when they hit their doughnut hole, that is serious.

Sometimes they have to make choices between food and heat and medicine. Because we are closing the doughnut hole, in many cases, people do not have to make that choice anymore. This is important stuff. When I was running for the Senate, a nurse who worked in Cambridge, MN, a town north of the Twin Cities, came to me and told me that in the hospital she worked in very often they would admit a senior who was very sick and the doctors would treat this senior and get them back on their feet and send them home with their prescriptions.

As this started happening, they would call the drug store, the pharmacy a few days later, 1 week later, and say: Has Mrs. Johnson filled these prescriptions? The pharmacist would say: No; because she was in her doughnut hole. A couple weeks later, Mrs. Johnson would be back in the hospital. How wasteful is that? How wise? That costs a tremendous amount of money to our system. This is saving money. This is health care reform. This is Medicare reform. It is improving people's health and saving money at the same time. So we have increased benefits. We have extended the life of Medicare. That was done as part of health care reform. That is Medicare reform.

In the election we had a discussion about this. There were a lot of ads about it. We know what Governor Romney would have done to Medicare. He said very explicitly that--and again the Presiding Officer has quoted this. He said very explicitly he would restore those billions and billions of dollars in overpayments to private insurance companies for no reason, for no good effect, just so, I guess, these insurance companies could have more profit. Instead, we reinvested this money into Medicare. But he would have given it to the insurance companies. He would have replaced this health care law. He would have made the 8 years we extended Medicare vanish. Governor Romney supported raising the Medicare eligibility age. If we raise the age from 65 to 67 as he suggested, that means hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of seniors would no longer have access to Medicare.

They would end up receiving Federal subsidies in the exchanges and some of them would go to Medicaid. They would be--these 65- to 67-year- olds--by definition, older and as a population sicker than the other people in the exchanges and in Medicaid. So they would make both these programs more expensive.

They would also make Medicare more expensive because they would be the youngest and least sick and be taken out. Although this sounds like a reasonable compromise, trust me, it is a bad idea. It would cost the health care system twice as much as it would save Medicare. This is exactly the kind of bad idea which explains why we pay twice as much as other developed countries around the world for our health care and in many, if not most, cases with worse outcomes.

Medicare reform was an issue in the campaign because we already did it. We extended the program by 8 years. It is not like it was a secret. It was part of the conversation during the election. In the election, the American people

voted to keep those reforms. As we continue this conversation about our fiscal future, I would love to hear from my colleagues across the aisle about how they would reform Medicare, how they would expand its life by 8 years while expanding or at least, at the very least, not cutting benefits. How would they do it? Because we extended its life for 8 years and increased benefits--very meaningful benefits.

I would ask my colleagues why, before the election--and this is the very point the Presiding Officer made a few days ago on this floor--why they were attacking us--incorrectly I might add, inaccurately--for making cuts in Medicare, but since the election they have been insisting we make cuts to Medicare.

Going forward, I think we need to move from talking points to taking a thoughtful look at policies and working together to tackle our Nation's fiscal challenges and do it based on a little bit deeper look at what we have done and what the health care reform was that we passed in the Senate and the House, now the law of the land, what that does.

I yield the floor.

I thank Senator Merkley.

I would like to echo the concerns of my friends and colleagues, Senators Harkin, Udall, Merkley, and Chairman Johnson. This legislation is intended to provide relief from a physical signage requirement that is subject to abuse, not reduce the disclosure available to consumers using ATM machines. I encourage the CFPB to issue regulations that clarify that consumers should have, at a minimum, the same access to timely information as they had prior to the passage of this legislation. Consumers are in the best position to make the financial decisions that are best for them, but to do so, they must have the relevant information at the appropriate time. I am pleased that so many of my colleagues have come together to support this legislative effort--one that remedies a problem affecting so many of our community banks and credit unions, but that retains protections for American consumers.

Mr. President, today I vote to support S.J. Res. 41, reinforcing President Obama's policy of preventing Iran from possessing a nuclear weapon rather than containing a nuclear Iran. I support this resolution, which explicitly states that nothing in

it should be construed as an authorization to use force, because its intention and its purpose is to echo and reinforce President Obama's policy toward Iran. It is particularly important to make that clear because there has been a lot of debate about the meaning of the term ``nuclear weapons capability'' in the resolution. But a brief examination of the issue shows that the resolution and its language support the President's policy of preventing Iran from developing or acquiring a nuclear weapon.

An authoritative definition of a nuclear weapons capability was offered in testimony by the Director of National Intelligence in 2009. He stated that there are three parts of an effective nuclear weapons capability: production of fissile material; effective means for weapon delivery; and design, weaponization, and testing of the warhead itself. According to this definition, the Senate and the President are articulating the same position: we are committed to preventing Iran from achieving all of those components of a nuclear weapons capability, which amounts to saying that Iran must not develop or acquire nuclear weapons.

That we are reinforcing the President's policy was one of the main themes in the debate on the resolution on the floor of the Senate. When this was debated in May, that is what both the sponsor, Senator Graham, and the lead cosponsor, Senator Lieberman, emphasized repeatedly. Senator Lieberman stated, ``This resolution's main focus is to essentially back up with a congressional statement the position President Obama has articulated: that no matter what happens, containment of a nuclear Iran is not an acceptable policy from the point of view of the security of the United States; that our policy is to prevent the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.'' And Senator Graham stated, ``We are intending to echo a policy statement made by President Obama that the policy of the United States will be--if you are listening in Tehran--not to contain Iran if they obtain a nuclear capability.'' Again, Senator Graham stated, ``We are not coming up with a new idea: we are just reinforcing an idea put on the table by our own President-- we are not going to contain a nuclear-capable Iran as a policy.''

Other leading voices on this issue in the Senate made the same point at the time. Senator McCain stated, ``So this resolution we are considering is no different in any way--in fact, it is less specific than what the President of the United States has said and what I believe most every Member of the U.S. Senate is on record one way or the other saying: that the development of a nuclear weapon by Iran would be an unacceptable situation.'' Senator Menendez similarly characterized the resolution as ``making the intentions or amplifying the intentions of the President crystal clear.''

Those intentions are to prevent Iran from developing or acquiring a nuclear weapon. I share those intentions, and that is why I support the resolution today.