Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to echo the statement of my friend, Senator Tester, and urge all my colleagues to support our amendment.

The Tester-Franken-Levin amendment gives individuals and communities impacted by closures a voice. It will give Minnesotans real recourse to challenge closure decisions and a fighting chance to keep their local post offices and processing facilities open.

Right now, individuals affected by post office closures can appeal the decision to the Postal Regulatory Commission, but the commission cannot stop closures. Our amendment will give the PRC the authority to reverse post office and processing facility closure decisions.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on amendment No. 2056.

I yield the floor.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the importance of the Postal Service to Minnesota and to urge my colleagues to make thoughtful changes to strengthen S. 1789.

The Postal Service has proposed a cost-cutting plan that would close or consolidate nearly 3,700 mostly rural post offices. This plan will eliminate thousands of jobs in communities across the country and will leave many residents and businesses without direct access to the Postal Service. Of course, that includes Oregon, the Presiding Officer's State.

In Minnesota, 117 post offices are on the closure list. That includes the post office in Calumet, MN, a town of 367 people in northeastern Minnesota. I have heard from the mayor of Calumet, John Tourila, about the hardship that closing the post office would have on his community. He told me about disabled residents who can't get a driver's license and how important it is that they are able to walk to the post office. He also told me about an elderly couple in the town. The husband has Alzheimer's, and he and his wife take a walk every day, hand in hand, to the post office.

When the Postal Service held a public meeting in Calumet to discuss the proposed post office closure, over 70 residents showed up. That is a lot. That is about one-fifth of the town.

These are the stories I hear when I travel across Minnesota, especially in rural Minnesota. Post offices are the center of so many communities. They serve as the gathering place and a source of information. Individuals and businesses rely on the Postal Service to receive medications, paychecks, absentee ballots, equipment, and even livestock. If the Postal Service's closure plan is implemented, it will have a devastating impact on rural Minnesota.

The Postal Service has also proposed to close 250 processing facilities. Five of Minnesota's processing facilities are on the block. Under the Postal Service's plan, all of the mail processing activities currently taking place in Duluth, Bemidji, Mankato, Rochester, and Waite Park would be moved to the Twin Cities.

For anyone who hasn't driven around Minnesota, let me explain what that means. When someone in Bemidji, MN, sends a birthday card to her neighbor or a local small business sends an invoice to a customer a few streets away, that letter will be sent more than 200 miles south to the Twin Cities to be processed before it is sent 200 miles back north to Bemidji.

That doesn't make any sense. During Minnesota winters when roads are impassable, that is going to mean severe mail delay. It is going to drive business away from these communities.

The processing centers in Rochester and Duluth are also on the list. These are the third and fourth largest cities in Minnesota. Duluth is over 150 miles away from the Twin Cities. Closing these processing centers will significantly impact local businesses and will drive business away from the Postal Service. One important example is the Duluth News Tribune. This one business distributes over 2 million pieces of mail annually through the Postal Service. Last year, they paid the Postal Service well over $400,000 for these

services. If the Duluth processing center is closed, the Postal Service will no longer be able to guarantee overnight delivery of local newspapers. The Duluth News Tribune is going to have to find a different way to deliver their papers--the daily paper. That will cost both the businesses and the Postal Service a lot of money.

I have heard from hundreds of Minnesotans and met with postal workers, mayors, concerned community members, and business leaders who rely on the Postal Service. What they all agree on is that we need a strong and financially sound Postal Service. They understand that tough choices need to be made and that some cuts are on the way. But not like this, not by closing five of Minnesota's seven processing facilities and forcing the workers to move to the Twin Cities if they want any hope of keeping their jobs, not by closing nearly 3,700 post offices to save less than 1 percent of the budget, not by slowing down mail so much that it will basically render it useless for many businesses.

The Post Office is in the Constitution. It is in the Constitution. It has been around since the beginning of our country. There is a reason for this. For centuries, universal service has been at the heart of the Postal Service's mission. It is the mission that is described in the Constitution. No matter where people live--be it in Minneapolis or International Falls, MN--people count on the Postal Service delivering their mail. The Postal Service gives us a connection to the outside world. Somehow we have lost sight of that.

Senators Lieberman, Carper, Collins, and Scott Brown put forward a bill to reform the Postal Service. I wish to thank them all for their important work moving this bill forward. S. 1789 would refund overpayments the Postal Service has made to the Federal pension program. It will also reduce the requirement that the Postal Service prefund retiree health care benefits. I am very supportive of both of these provisions. It could save the Postal Service over $15 billion over the next 2 years.

However, I believe the bill can be strengthened to maintain delivery standards and better protect rural post offices. I have been working with a group of my colleagues, including the Presiding Officer, led by Senator Sanders, to improve the bill. I wish to thank Senators Carper and Lieberman for working with us.

The managers' amendment addresses some of our concerns. Most importantly, it would require the Postal Service to retain regional overnight delivery standards. This will protect many processing facilities. Importantly for Minnesota, it will likely keep the Duluth processing facility open.

But the substitute still doesn't do enough to protect rural post offices. I have introduced an amendment with my friends and colleagues, Senators Tester and Levin, that will give communities the opportunity to fight to prevent the closure of their local post offices and processing facilities.

Right now the Postal Regulatory Commission can review post office closure decisions, but it can only issue advisory options. Our amendment would give the commission authority to reverse post office and processing facility closure decisions. That would guarantee that individuals and communities impacted by closures would have real recourse. I urge my Senate colleagues to support our amendment.

We need to make thoughtful changes to S. 1789 and we need to act now. Last December, I joined with a number of my Senate colleagues in pushing the Postmaster General for a 5-month moratorium on postal closures. The moratorium is now running out and the Postal Service is not waiting. It can't. On May 16, the Postal Service will close thousands of post offices and hundreds of processing centers. We need to act now.

Mr. President, I wish to now change the subject to speak about a topic that hits close to home for many Minnesotans.

(The remarks of Senator Franken pertaining to the introduction of S. 2295 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. President, Gladys Mensing lives in Owatonna, MN. She loves being around people. That is a good thing when one has a family as big as Gladys does. She is the loving mother of 8 children, with 15 grandchildren and 12 great-grandchildren.

Gladys, as I said, is from Owatonna. It is in southeastern Minnesota. A few weeks ago, I received some old family videos that showed her playing with her grandkids. Gladys used to work as a waitress and as an apartment manager, but what she truly enjoys is a good game of bingo.

In 2001, Gladys's doctor gave her a prescription for a medication known as MCP to treat a digestive tract condition. Gladys did what I would have done--she took her prescription to the pharmacy, got it filled, and started taking her medicine per her doctor's orders.

Meanwhile, however, evidence was mounting linking MCP to neurological disorders. Within a few years, Gladys began experiencing problems. She lost control of her face, tongue, and legs. It is very hard to understand Gladys when she speaks now. Her son says people sometimes give Gladys strange looks when she goes out in public. Gladys used to be very strong and independent. Now her family has to help her bathe and walk.

Gladys wanted to hold the drug manufacturer accountable for what happened to her. She believed the warning label that came with her prescription was inadequate; that it did not sufficiently disclose the risks of taking MCP. So Gladys, a bingo-playing grandma from rural Minnesota, decided to stand up for her rights.

Gladys took her fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that is where things took a bizarre turn. In Minnesota, as in many other States, the law requires drug manufacturers to warn patients of the known--the known--dangers associated with their products. Manufacturers that do not follow the law are held accountable to the patients who are harmed as a result--people such as Gladys.

But the Supreme Court--in a 5-to-4 decision--said those laws do not apply to generic drugs such as the medicine Gladys was taking. Rather, the Court said Federal regulations actually prohibit generic drug manufacturers from updating their labels--prohibit generic drug manufacturers from updating their labels--and it said the Federal regulations prohibiting label changes trump Minnesota's patient protection laws, which require full disclosure of potential risks. So under that ruling, even if a generic drug company wanted to provide better warnings of risks to consumers, it cannot.

Generic drugs are, for all intents and purposes, the same as brand- name drugs. They have the same active ingredients. They are used for the same purposes and, yes, in most cases, they should have the same labels. That is why current FDA regulations require generic drug labels to match brand-name drug labels. But it does not make sense to prohibit generic drug makers from updating their labels to accurately reflect new side effects or risks that have come to light. Yet that is the current state of the law.

So the Court dismissed Gladys's case just because she was taking a generic drug. Let me say that again. Because Gladys was taking the generic version of her medicine, she was unable to vindicate her rights under Minnesota law. If Gladys had suffered the same injuries from the brand-name version of the same pill containing the same warning, she would have had her day in court.

Since the Supreme Court dismissed Gladys's case last June, lower courts have dismissed dozens of similar cases because, as a recent article in the New York Times aptly said, ``What once seemed like a trivial detail--whether to take a generic or brand-name drug--has become the deciding factor in whether a patient can seek legal recourse from a drug company.''

That does not make any sense. Justice Thomas, who wrote the Supreme Court's decision in Gladys's case, admitted as much. He wrote this:

We recognize that from the perspective of Mensing . . .

[this decision] makes little sense.

I agree with him on this point. I would like to think he would agree with me on this: Prescription drugs should be safe and their labels should be adequate.

So Senators Leahy, Bingaman, Brown, Whitehouse, Coons, Blumenthal, and I are introducing a bill that would guarantee just that. Our bill, the Patient Safety and Generic Labeling Improvement Act, would allow generic drug makers to update their warnings--allow them to update their warnings--to accurately reflect the known risks associated with their drugs. That is it. It would not require them to do so. It just lets them do what other drug manufacturers already are allowed to do.

Our bill says that millions of Americans who are taking generic drugs are entitled to the same protections as people who take brand-name drugs, and it says people such as Gladys Mensing are entitled to their day in court when manufacturers fail to disclose risks.

I thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting this commonsense fix.

Mr. President, Gladys Mensing lives in Owatonna, MN. She loves being around people. That is a good thing when one has a family as big as Gladys does. She is the loving mother of 8 children, with 15 grandchildren and 12 great-grandchildren.

Gladys, as I said, is from Owatonna. It is in southeastern Minnesota. A few weeks ago, I received some old family videos that showed her playing with her grandkids. Gladys used to work as a waitress and as an apartment manager, but what she truly enjoys is a good game of bingo.

In 2001, Gladys's doctor gave her a prescription for a medication known as MCP to treat a digestive tract condition. Gladys did what I would have done--she took her prescription to the pharmacy, got it filled, and started taking her medicine per her doctor's orders.

Meanwhile, however, evidence was mounting linking MCP to neurological disorders. Within a few years, Gladys began experiencing problems. She lost control of her face, tongue, and legs. It is very hard to understand Gladys when she speaks now. Her son says people sometimes give Gladys strange looks when she goes out in public. Gladys used to be very strong and independent. Now her family has to help her bathe and walk.

Gladys wanted to hold the drug manufacturer accountable for what happened to her. She believed the warning label that came with her prescription was inadequate; that it did not sufficiently disclose the risks of taking MCP. So Gladys, a bingo-playing grandma from rural Minnesota, decided to stand up for her rights.

Gladys took her fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that is where things took a bizarre turn. In Minnesota, as in many other States, the law requires drug manufacturers to warn patients of the known--the known--dangers associated with their products. Manufacturers that do not follow the law are held accountable to the patients who are harmed as a result--people such as Gladys.

But the Supreme Court--in a 5-to-4 decision--said those laws do not apply to generic drugs such as the medicine Gladys was taking. Rather, the Court said Federal regulations actually prohibit generic drug manufacturers from updating their labels--prohibit generic drug manufacturers from updating their labels--and it said the Federal regulations prohibiting label changes trump Minnesota's patient protection laws, which require full disclosure of potential risks. So under that ruling, even if a generic drug company wanted to provide better warnings of risks to consumers, it cannot.

Generic drugs are, for all intents and purposes, the same as brand- name drugs. They have the same active ingredients. They are used for the same purposes and, yes, in most cases, they should have the same labels. That is why current FDA regulations require generic drug labels to match brand-name drug labels. But it does not make sense to prohibit generic drug makers from updating their labels to accurately reflect new side effects or risks that have come to light. Yet that is the current state of the law.

So the Court dismissed Gladys's case just because she was taking a generic drug. Let me say that again. Because Gladys was taking the generic version of her medicine, she was unable to vindicate her rights under Minnesota law. If Gladys had suffered the same injuries from the brand-name version of the same pill containing the same warning, she would have had her day in court.

Since the Supreme Court dismissed Gladys's case last June, lower courts have dismissed dozens of similar cases because, as a recent article in the New York Times aptly said, ``What once seemed like a trivial detail--whether to take a generic or brand-name drug--has become the deciding factor in whether a patient can seek legal recourse from a drug company.''

That does not make any sense. Justice Thomas, who wrote the Supreme Court's decision in Gladys's case, admitted as much. He wrote this:

We recognize that from the perspective of Mensing . . .

[this decision] makes little sense.

I agree with him on this point. I would like to think he would agree with me on this: Prescription drugs should be safe and their labels should be adequate.

So Senators Leahy, Bingaman, Brown, Whitehouse, Coons, Blumenthal, and I are introducing a bill that would guarantee just that. Our bill, the Patient Safety and Generic Labeling Improvement Act, would allow generic drug makers to update their warnings--allow them to update their warnings--to accurately reflect the known risks associated with their drugs. That is it. It would not require them to do so. It just lets them do what other drug manufacturers already are allowed to do.

Our bill says that millions of Americans who are taking generic drugs are entitled to the same protections as people who take brand-name drugs, and it says people such as Gladys Mensing are entitled to their day in court when manufacturers fail to disclose risks.

I thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting this commonsense fix.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business Election Simplification Act with my friends, Senators Snowe and Enzi.

I want to thank them for this collaboration, and I especially want to acknowledge Senator Snowe for her leadership. As Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Senator Snowe is one

of the Senate's experts on small business issues. She is always working to make sure that the Federal Government meets the needs of small businesses and is committed to creating the best possible environment for entrepreneurs.

That is exactly what our legislation is about--making it easier and more straightforward for entrepreneurs to start small businesses.

When starting up a new business, entrepreneurs often choose to organize their business as an S Corporation because of its simplicity. Owners of S Corporations report business income on their individual tax returns. So instead of having their business profits taxed at the corporate level of 35 percent, they pay taxes at their individual income tax rate. Not only is this simpler, but it also often saves small business owners money.

To become an S Corporation, small business owners have to go through what's called an ``election process'' and submit an election form to the IRS. The deadline to submit this election form is currently set a year in advance of the tax return deadline for businesses. This means that a new small business owner must know to submit the election form a full year before they have to do their taxes.

Unsurprisingly, many first-time business owners are unaware of this rule and therefore miss the election deadline. These taxpayers must wait an additional year before their business becomes an S Corporation, which can have serious tax consequences. Or they must go through a late election process with the IRS, which can be time-consuming and costly.

This is a real problem. In 2009, nearly 100,000 S Corporation returns could not be processed as filed. That was almost a quarter of all new S Corporation fillings. Missing or late elections is one of the main reasons that returns are rejected as filed.

The National Taxpayer Advocate--whose job is to watch out for the needs of taxpayers--described the current S Corporation election process as an undue burden on small businesses. Simplifying the S Corporation election process was one of 11 legislative recommendations outlined in the National Taxpayer Advocate's 2011 Annual Report to Congress.

Our legislation does just that. The Small Business Election Simplification Act would extend and coordinate S Corporation deadlines. It would match the S Corporation election deadline for new businesses with the deadline for tax returns. This would reduce the number of taxpayers who inadvertently miss the S Corporation election deadline and suffer negative tax consequences.

To further simplify the process and reduce paperwork, our legislation would also allow new small businesses to elect to become an S Corporation simply by designating the election on their S Corporation tax return. This would eliminate the need for business owners to fill out an additional election form.

Here in the Senate, we are always saying that small businesses are the engine of our economy; that they are the job creators; and that we need to support entrepreneurs coming up with the next big idea that will get our economy growing again.

Passing the Small Business Election Simplification Act is one thing we can do to help them. It can make a difference right now. By making it easier and more straightforward for new small businesses to become S Corporations, our legislation would free business owners to concentrate on the important stuff--like growing their business and hiring new workers, instead of worrying about IRS election form deadlines and learning about complicated business tax rules.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and send it to the President's desk to be signed into law as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business Election Simplification Act with my friends, Senators Snowe and Enzi.

I want to thank them for this collaboration, and I especially want to acknowledge Senator Snowe for her leadership. As Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Senator Snowe is one

of the Senate's experts on small business issues. She is always working to make sure that the Federal Government meets the needs of small businesses and is committed to creating the best possible environment for entrepreneurs.

That is exactly what our legislation is about--making it easier and more straightforward for entrepreneurs to start small businesses.

When starting up a new business, entrepreneurs often choose to organize their business as an S Corporation because of its simplicity. Owners of S Corporations report business income on their individual tax returns. So instead of having their business profits taxed at the corporate level of 35 percent, they pay taxes at their individual income tax rate. Not only is this simpler, but it also often saves small business owners money.

To become an S Corporation, small business owners have to go through what's called an ``election process'' and submit an election form to the IRS. The deadline to submit this election form is currently set a year in advance of the tax return deadline for businesses. This means that a new small business owner must know to submit the election form a full year before they have to do their taxes.

Unsurprisingly, many first-time business owners are unaware of this rule and therefore miss the election deadline. These taxpayers must wait an additional year before their business becomes an S Corporation, which can have serious tax consequences. Or they must go through a late election process with the IRS, which can be time-consuming and costly.

This is a real problem. In 2009, nearly 100,000 S Corporation returns could not be processed as filed. That was almost a quarter of all new S Corporation fillings. Missing or late elections is one of the main reasons that returns are rejected as filed.

The National Taxpayer Advocate--whose job is to watch out for the needs of taxpayers--described the current S Corporation election process as an undue burden on small businesses. Simplifying the S Corporation election process was one of 11 legislative recommendations outlined in the National Taxpayer Advocate's 2011 Annual Report to Congress.

Our legislation does just that. The Small Business Election Simplification Act would extend and coordinate S Corporation deadlines. It would match the S Corporation election deadline for new businesses with the deadline for tax returns. This would reduce the number of taxpayers who inadvertently miss the S Corporation election deadline and suffer negative tax consequences.

To further simplify the process and reduce paperwork, our legislation would also allow new small businesses to elect to become an S Corporation simply by designating the election on their S Corporation tax return. This would eliminate the need for business owners to fill out an additional election form.

Here in the Senate, we are always saying that small businesses are the engine of our economy; that they are the job creators; and that we need to support entrepreneurs coming up with the next big idea that will get our economy growing again.

Passing the Small Business Election Simplification Act is one thing we can do to help them. It can make a difference right now. By making it easier and more straightforward for new small businesses to become S Corporations, our legislation would free business owners to concentrate on the important stuff--like growing their business and hiring new workers, instead of worrying about IRS election form deadlines and learning about complicated business tax rules.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and send it to the President's desk to be signed into law as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I would like to associate myself with the words of the Senator from California for the tremendous work she did on the Transportation bill, which is a bipartisan bill that passed overwhelmingly in the Senate.

Madam President, I would like to join many of my colleagues who are each talking a little bit about the affordable care act, which celebrates its second anniversary of being signed into law by the President tomorrow. Even though the law will not be fully implemented until 2014, millions of Americans and Minnesotans are already enjoying the benefits from important provisions in the law.

For example, no child in Minnesota, no child in New Hampshire, and no child in America can now be denied health insurance coverage because he or she has a preexisting condition. Parents across Minnesota and around the country can sleep a little bit easier knowing that if their child gets sick, they will still be able to get the health care coverage they need. That is a big deal.

Speaking of parents, young adults can now stay on their parents' health insurance until they are 26. Thanks to the affordable care act, 32,189 young adults in Minnesota are now insured on their parents' policy. Because of this law health insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on health care benefits.

Just a few weeks ago, I heard from a Minnesotan in his thirties who has hemophilia. He had already hit his lifetime cap three times, but because of the health care reform law he still has insurance. No American can ever again have their health insurance taken away from them because they have reached some arbitrary lifetime limit, and I am proud of that.

Let's talk about seniors. I go to a lot of senior centers around my State. I know the Presiding Officer goes to senior citizen centers around New Hampshire. Because of the health care law more than 57,000 seniors in Minnesota receive a 50-percent discount on their covered brand-name prescription drugs when they hit the doughnut hole, at an average savings of $590 per senior. By 2020, the law will close the doughnut hole entirely. You know who likes that--seniors. You know what else seniors like--the fact that in 2011, 424,000 Minnesotans with Medicare received preventive services without copays, such as colonoscopies and mammograms and free annual wellness visits with their doctors. I could go on and on with what we have already gained, but I wish to talk a little bit about a provision I wrote with the catchy name ``medical loss ratio,'' which is sometimes called the 80/20 rule because of my medical loss ratio provision which I based on a Minnesota law.

Health insurance companies must spend 80 to 85 percent of their premiums on actual health care. This is 85 percent for large group policies, 80 percent for small group and individual policies on actual health care, not on administrative costs, marketing, advertisements, CEO salaries, profits but on actual health care. We have already heard the medical loss ratio provision is working. The plan is already lowering premiums in order for companies to comply with the law. For example, Aetna in Connecticut lowered their premiums on an average of 10 percent because of this provision in the law.

Another key provision in the law is the value index. The value index rewards doctors for the quality of the care they deliver, not the quantity--for the value of the care, not the volume.

My home State, Minnesota, is a leader--if not the leader--in delivering high-value care at a relatively low cost. Traditionally, in Minnesota, our health care providers have been well underreimbursed for it. For example, Texas gets reimbursed 50 percent more per Medicare patient than Minnesota does. This isn't about pitting Minnesota against Texas or Florida, it is about rewarding those low-valued States to become more like Minnesota.

Imagine if we brought down Medicare expenditures by 30 percent around the country while increasing its effectiveness. It will bring enormous benefits not just to Minnesota but across the country because it will bring down the cost of health care delivery nationwide, and that is what we need to be addressing, the cost of health care delivery, because we all know bringing down the health care costs is key to getting our long-term deficits in order. In fact, there is probably nothing more important that we can do. That is where the value index is so important.

I have gone over a number of the benefits from health care reform that have already kicked in, but I obviously didn't mention them all. According to the Wall Street Journal, health care reform has already added jobs to our economy. I barely touched on the great stuff that kicks in, in 2014, such as the exchanges which will allow individuals and small businesses to pool with others to get more affordable health insurance that is the right fit for them. Of course, while presently no child can be denied health insurance for preexisting conditions, starting in 2014 no American will be denied health insurance or penalized for having a preexisting condition.

The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency of Congress, has crunched the numbers and reported that the affordable care act will insure 31 million additional Americans and bring down our national deficit by billions of dollars in its first 10 years and by approximately $1 trillion in its second 10 years.

I ask the American people not to fall victim to disinformation. There are no death panels. The affordable care act cuts the deficit. Under this law, businesses under 50 employees don't have to provide insurance for their employees and will not suffer penalties if they don't. They will not have to pay fines and they will not be dragged into prison. There is so much junk out there that is just plain false, and it is doing everyone in this country a giant disservice.

My colleagues and I disagree on many things. Can we all at least agree to talk about this law in a factual manner? The benefits of this law are tremendous and Americans across the country are already experiencing it. I urge all my colleagues to acknowledge these benefits and to support the continued implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

(The remarks of Mr. Franken pertaining to the introduction of S. 2225 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I would like to discuss the votes that we have taken over the last few days. Tuesday, along with 54 of my colleagues, I voted in support of the INVEST In America Act as a substitute for H.R. 3606. In fact, I was an original cosponsor of the INVEST In America Act because it strikes the right balance between promoting entrepreneurship and protecting investors.

But before I go into a long explanation, I would like to begin with a story. Bemidji is a town of about 14,000 people in northern Minnesota and might not be the first place you would think of as being a hotbed for start-up investment. But you would be wrong. Three entrepreneurs there, Tina, Bud and Tim, harnessed the power of the Internet and the crowd-sourcing website Kickstarter to raise over $17,000. With that money, they are opening a micro-brewery--the Bemidji Brewing Company.

Two hundred and fifty individuals contributed to their efforts--about half of them were friends and family, and half of them were strangers. Many contributors gave $20--and in return, Bemidji Brewing is sending them a bottle opener and decal, and will carve their name into the walls of the future brewery. Bemidji Brewing hopes to have batches out to local establishments this summer.

This is an amazing story. And there are thousands of others just like it. I support efforts to promote these types of crowd-sourced endeavors. But we don't need H.R. 3606 to produce more success stories like Bemidji Brewing. Instead, we need a balanced approach--one that limits investor risk and keeps our markets transparent and stable. When the public has the opportunity to contribute to start-up businesses, they should be aware of the risks--what are they getting in return for their money? Investing in securities comes with risks, but those risks are balanced with SEC requirements to provide full information and investor disclosure.

H.R. 3606 just has too many problems. H.R. 3606 opens the door for large companies to more easily cook their books. It lets companies with tens of thousands of shareholders evade SEC oversight. It eliminates provisions to prevent conflicts of interest in company research that contributed to the dot com bubble. There are so many downsides and dangers to H.R. 3606 that it will destroy more jobs than it creates.

The INVEST In America Act, however, promotes the same ideas contained in H.R. 3606--providing for investment opportunities for small business start-ups, easing the regulatory burden for emerging companies--but does so in a way that protects investors and our markets.

Don't take it from me--take it from securities law experts. I have heard from Richard Painter, a professor of corporate law at the University of Minnesota, a former Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush, and Chief White House Ethics Lawyer from 2005 to 2007. Here is what he said about this debate:

I strongly support these amendments to the JOBS Act.

Reckless and fraudulent conduct in connection with the offer

and sale of securities is a large part of what got us into

our present economic difficulties. Lowering the bar for the

offer and sale of risky securities to the public is no way to

get us out. If Congress changes the securities laws at all in

this Act, these amendments should be included.

The current Chairman of the SEC, Mary Schapiro, has said that one component of H.R. 3606 is ``so broad that it would eliminate important protections for investors in even very large companies.'' Former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt went much further, calling H.R. 3606 ``a disgrace'' and the ``most investor-unfriendly bill that I have experienced in the past two decades.'' Lynn Turner, former Chief Accountant at the SEC said, ``It won't create jobs, but it will simplify fraud.''

And this is what Mike Rothman, the Commissioner of Minnesota's Department of Commerce, had to say:

Too many Minnesotans have suffered too long from

unemployment. With nearly 170,000 Minnesotans out of work,

our State's highest priorities are supporting economic and

business growth and creating jobs. The Jobs bill passed

recently by the U.S. House of Representatives strives to

achieve much-needed job growth, but contains unwarranted

reduction in significant investor protections.

The Minnesota Department of Commerce works to prevent

securities fraud. Last year, the Commerce Department

registered over 7,000 new licenses to broker dealers, agents,

and investment advisers and has over 125,000 individuals and

entities currently licensed. Through our State registration

process, we work to ensure that those selling securities and

advising consumers about securities are both knowledgeable

and capable. This essential level of oversight helps ensure

basic protection of Minnesota investors and consumers.

The House version of the Jobs bill threatens to unravel

what years of experience teaches us is required to protect

investors by curtailing state oversight and, in the interest

of protecting our State's capital market, I urge you to

support the substitute amendment. Working together, we can

make every reasonable effort to create jobs while

safeguarding the need for basic and essential measures of

consumer protection.

That is from Minnesota's Department of Commerce, the primary watchdog for securities in the state of Minnesota.

Minnesota's AARP State President, Dr. Lowery Johnson, summarized the issues this way:

Older Americans who have saved their entire lives by

accumulating savings and investments are disproportionately

represented among the victims of investment fraud. This

legislation before the Senate undermines vital investor

protections and threatens market integrity. Older Minnesotans

deserve safeguards that ensure proper oversight and investor

protection.

We must not repeat the kind of penny stock and other frauds

that ensnared vulnerable investors in the past. The absence

of adequate regulation in the past has undermined the

integrity of the markets and damaged investor confidence

while having no positive impact on job creation. Please

preserve essential regulations that protect older investors

from fraud and abuse, promote the transparency, and ensure a

fair and efficient marketplace. We believe the amendment to

be offered by Senators Reed, Landrieu and Levin moves closer

to achieving this balance and deserves your support.

I have also heard from other consumer groups from around the country. The Consumer Federation of America supports the INVEST In America Act, and cautions against H.R. 3606, noting that it would ``undermine market transparency, roll back important investor protections, and, if investors behave rationally, drive up the cost of capital for the small companies it purports to benefit.''

All of these voices--from Minnesota and across the country--shaped my position on these bills. That is why I supported the INVEST In America Act. That is why 55 Senators voted in favor of it. The INVEST In America Act also included reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, which has supported almost $1.2 billion in export sales in Minnesota over the last 5 years, and well over half of those exporters are small businesses. That is a lot of jobs in Minnesota.

We have made some improvements to this bill. The amendment passed in the Senate is better than the language in the House bill. But it still leaves too many opportunities for harm. Here is the bottom line: I strongly support entrepreneurs, I support innovation, and I support job creation. The INVEST In America Act struck the right balance between promoting jobs and entrepreneurship while preserving the integrity that our markets have historically enjoyed.

American public companies have benefited from the lowest cost of capital in the world, and this is because of the low risks associated with investing in transparent, well-regulated markets. America is a great place to invest because the entire world has confidence in our markets. If H.R. 3606 increases fraud, or even just investment losses, this bill runs the risk of backfiring completely--decreasing investor confidence and ultimately increasing the cost of doing business. And this will ultimately destroy jobs, not create them.

In the end, I couldn't support H.R. 3606 for all those reasons. It is a bill that is going to enable fraud, a bill that turns our securities market into a lottery game, and a bill that will lead to many Minnesotans, especially seniors, losing their hard-earned savings and investments.

I rise to introduce the Rural Energy for America Program Reauthorization Act, along with my friend Senator Harkin from Iowa.

Farmers and rural businesses form the backbone of this country, and rural communities are particularly crucial to Minnesota's culture and economy. In fact, in my State, one out of every five jobs is related to the agricultural economy.

We all rely on farmers for our food. It is thanks to farmers that when we go to the grocery store there is an abundance of fresh food at cheaper prices than in many other countries. While family farmers and rural businesses work hard to keep our shelves stocked, they do so under difficult conditions. Weather and disease can wipe out a crop, profit margins can be small, and fluctuating market prices for their products can be devastating to a family farmer.

Farm work is also very energy intensive, so when energy and gas prices rise, farmers have to make tough choices. High energy prices mean laying off farm workers, increasing crop prices, if they can, and squeezed budgets all around. To make matters worse, many of our government programs that help manage rising energy prices are under attack and on the budget chopping block.

REAP, or the Rural Energy for America Program, can help farmers manage the cost of energy. The bill I am introducing today will reauthorize this important farm bill program that will help farmers and rural small businesses continue to cut energy bills and generate electricity on site.

Let me go through a few examples of what REAP projects can look like. It is putting solar panels on barns. It is wind turbines in fields. There are wind turbines all over Minnesota. It is anaerobic digesters on dairy farms which actually use waste to create methane gas and electricity. It means energy efficiency improvements in poultry houses and geothermal pumps in factories. It means agricultural producers and businesses can reduce their costs and generate an additional stream of income. It means rural America can make high-tech investments, create jobs, and lead the world in producing clean energy. I know in the Presiding Officer's State of New Hampshire there is tremendous biomass and potential for energy biomass and the low carbon footprint that represents.

The Rural Energy for America Program is a modest program, but it is a wise investment that effectively leverages private funds. Since it was

created in 2002, this program has helped almost 6,000 farmers and small businesses across the Nation invest in alternative energy projects. The program has generated or saved enough energy to power about 600,000 homes a year. By providing just $192 million in grants and $165 million in loan guarantees, the program has brought in $800 million in private and State investments. Plus, the Rural Energy for America Program helps create demand for new jobs in rural economies. These are jobs in installation and operations and maintenance work--good jobs that rural America needs. It also bolsters American energy independence and fosters homegrown energy sources such as wind and solar and biomass and geothermal instead of foreign oil.

Shirley Hovda's rural wood finishing and coating business, Quality Decorating, in Roseau, MN, is one of the 6,000 that benefited from the Rural Energy for America Program over the years. Roseau, in northern Minnesota, is cold in the winter and in the fall and in the early spring. When Shirley's heating bills spiked, she decided it was time to invest in a geothermal heating and cooling system to reduce costs in her newly constructed 6,000 square foot facility.

With the help of a $7,920 grant from the Rural Energy for America Program, she was able to purchase and install the geothermal system in 2008. Over the past 5 years, Shirley has seen her energy bills reduced by 40 percent, saving thousands of dollars she has invested in more productive parts of her business.

The bill we are introducing today reauthorizes the Rural Energy for America Program to continue helping farmers and small business owners such as Shirley to make smart investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. It makes improvements to the program too. While the program has had a fantastic impact on the country's rural economy, farmers tell me they are facing challenges accessing it. So our bill removes barriers while ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.

First, our bill simplifies the application process, making it easier for farmers and small businesses to access the program's grants and loans. The new application process matches the complexity of the application to the size of the project. That way, farmers and the USDA can avoid unnecessary and costly paperwork if the project doesn't warrant it.

Second, my bill removes a regulation that currently requires farmers to use the program's funding to install a second electric meter that currently goes unread. In these tight fiscal times, I think it is important that every taxpayer dollar is well spent, so the bill will eliminate this redundancy and remove an unnecessary burden on program participants.

Third, our bill requires the USDA to include stronger health and environmental criteria when evaluating potential projects, and it expands startup support and funds for feasibility studies so that farmers and businesses can start projects with sound planning.

We are very grateful for the strong support from the agricultural community, including the National Farmers Union, the Minnesota Farmers Union, the Environmental Law and Policy Center, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, the Agriculture Energy Association, the Distributed Wind Alliance, the Minnesota Corn Growers, and the Minnesota Soybean Growers.

With the Chair's indulgence, I have about 30 seconds left. I have an inner clock. I think I am up against my 2 minutes, so I wish to say I am proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Harkin, who is a true champion to farmers here in the Senate. Going forward, I look forward to working with all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to pass this reauthorization as part of the farm bill.

I see Senator Johanns, the former Secretary of Agriculture, on the floor, whom I hope to work with on this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I rise to introduce the Rural Energy for America Program Reauthorization Act, along with my friend Senator Harkin from Iowa.

Farmers and rural businesses form the backbone of this country, and rural communities are particularly crucial to Minnesota's culture and economy. In fact, in my State, one out of every five jobs is related to the agricultural economy.

We all rely on farmers for our food. It is thanks to farmers that when we go to the grocery store there is an abundance of fresh food at cheaper prices than in many other countries. While family farmers and rural businesses work hard to keep our shelves stocked, they do so under difficult conditions. Weather and disease can wipe out a crop, profit margins can be small, and fluctuating market prices for their products can be devastating to a family farmer.

Farm work is also very energy intensive, so when energy and gas prices rise, farmers have to make tough choices. High energy prices mean laying off farm workers, increasing crop prices, if they can, and squeezed budgets all around. To make matters worse, many of our government programs that help manage rising energy prices are under attack and on the budget chopping block.

REAP, or the Rural Energy for America Program, can help farmers manage the cost of energy. The bill I am introducing today will reauthorize this important farm bill program that will help farmers and rural small businesses continue to cut energy bills and generate electricity on site.

Let me go through a few examples of what REAP projects can look like. It is putting solar panels on barns. It is wind turbines in fields. There are wind turbines all over Minnesota. It is anaerobic digesters on dairy farms which actually use waste to create methane gas and electricity. It means energy efficiency improvements in poultry houses and geothermal pumps in factories. It means agricultural producers and businesses can reduce their costs and generate an additional stream of income. It means rural America can make high-tech investments, create jobs, and lead the world in producing clean energy. I know in the Presiding Officer's State of New Hampshire there is tremendous biomass and potential for energy biomass and the low carbon footprint that represents.

The Rural Energy for America Program is a modest program, but it is a wise investment that effectively leverages private funds. Since it was

created in 2002, this program has helped almost 6,000 farmers and small businesses across the Nation invest in alternative energy projects. The program has generated or saved enough energy to power about 600,000 homes a year. By providing just $192 million in grants and $165 million in loan guarantees, the program has brought in $800 million in private and State investments. Plus, the Rural Energy for America Program helps create demand for new jobs in rural economies. These are jobs in installation and operations and maintenance work--good jobs that rural America needs. It also bolsters American energy independence and fosters homegrown energy sources such as wind and solar and biomass and geothermal instead of foreign oil.

Shirley Hovda's rural wood finishing and coating business, Quality Decorating, in Roseau, MN, is one of the 6,000 that benefited from the Rural Energy for America Program over the years. Roseau, in northern Minnesota, is cold in the winter and in the fall and in the early spring. When Shirley's heating bills spiked, she decided it was time to invest in a geothermal heating and cooling system to reduce costs in her newly constructed 6,000 square foot facility.

With the help of a $7,920 grant from the Rural Energy for America Program, she was able to purchase and install the geothermal system in 2008. Over the past 5 years, Shirley has seen her energy bills reduced by 40 percent, saving thousands of dollars she has invested in more productive parts of her business.

The bill we are introducing today reauthorizes the Rural Energy for America Program to continue helping farmers and small business owners such as Shirley to make smart investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. It makes improvements to the program too. While the program has had a fantastic impact on the country's rural economy, farmers tell me they are facing challenges accessing it. So our bill removes barriers while ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.

First, our bill simplifies the application process, making it easier for farmers and small businesses to access the program's grants and loans. The new application process matches the complexity of the application to the size of the project. That way, farmers and the USDA can avoid unnecessary and costly paperwork if the project doesn't warrant it.

Second, my bill removes a regulation that currently requires farmers to use the program's funding to install a second electric meter that currently goes unread. In these tight fiscal times, I think it is important that every taxpayer dollar is well spent, so the bill will eliminate this redundancy and remove an unnecessary burden on program participants.

Third, our bill requires the USDA to include stronger health and environmental criteria when evaluating potential projects, and it expands startup support and funds for feasibility studies so that farmers and businesses can start projects with sound planning.

We are very grateful for the strong support from the agricultural community, including the National Farmers Union, the Minnesota Farmers Union, the Environmental Law and Policy Center, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, the Agriculture Energy Association, the Distributed Wind Alliance, the Minnesota Corn Growers, and the Minnesota Soybean Growers.

With the Chair's indulgence, I have about 30 seconds left. I have an inner clock. I think I am up against my 2 minutes, so I wish to say I am proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Harkin, who is a true champion to farmers here in the Senate. Going forward, I look forward to working with all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to pass this reauthorization as part of the farm bill.

I see Senator Johanns, the former Secretary of Agriculture, on the floor, whom I hope to work with on this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today also to pay tribute to my colleague, the senior Senator from Maryland, Barbara Mikulski.

As everyone has said, this is a landmark, this is a milestone: the longest serving woman Senator and Member of Congress in the history of Congress, serving more than 35 years.

As a relatively junior Member of this body, I love Barbara Mikulski. I love her because she calls me ``Franken.'' That is music to my ears. We are in the caucus lunch, I may be in her way, and she says: Franken.

I am not only a relatively junior Senator, I actually kind of recently was a comedian at one point. And she is really funny--Barbara. I remember the first time I saw her speak--it was years ago, years ago; I cannot remember what the event was--and I am going to try to quote her joke. It was her joke, remember, about herself. She talked about her first campaign effort. I think it was for city council or something like that. She said: I knocked on 7,387 doors, and I walked a total of 372 miles, and I didn't lose a pound.

So I love Barbara. And she is a force--a force--of nature. Being the dean of women here is not her most commanding title. Her most commanding title is: a fighter. She is a fighter. When she commits herself to a cause, she is a true champion.

She is a true champion for America's seniors, preserving pensions; of Medicare, defending Medicare--boy, do not attack Medicare around Barbara Mikulski--and combating poverty. No one works harder for quality education, fighting to make sure every child has a quality education, so that child can pursue the American dream. And she is committed to fulfilling our country's promises to our veterans, which is so important, and to increasing community service and voluntarism.

As anyone who has watched proceedings here in the Senate knows, Barbara Mikulski, as my colleague from Washington stated, is the greatest champion in the body for women's health. Here is something that is pretty amazing to understand. I want the pages to hear this. She fought to include women in NIH clinical trials. Women were not included in the National Institutes of Health clinical trials until she made sure they were. This is hard to believe, isn't it? But in your 16 years of life, you--at 16, you cannot conceive of this. This is how backward we were. Think of what she did. That is who we are talking about today.

She has improved access for women to mammograms and cancer screenings--for all women. She has fought for women to have their own say over their own body and reproductive system. Basically what I am saying is, when you have Barbara Mikulski on your side, you have a strong voice in the U.S. Senate.

We have heard reference to her accomplishment on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. When advocating for this bill, Senator Mikulski said:

Women earn just 77 cents for every dollar [their] male

counterparts make. Women of color get paid even less. The

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will empower women to fight for

fair pay by once again making employers accountable for pay

discrimination. I will fight on the Senate floor to get this

bill passed.

And the bill was passed. It was the first bill President Obama signed in office.

Senator Mikulski and I share a number of passions. One of them is early childhood education. Increasing early childhood education--access to it--is one of my top priorities because we know over and over that the benefits of early childhood education have been demonstrated. And Barbara knows this.

I wanted to have a hearing on just the economic benefits of early childhood education--just the economic benefits--because a child who has a quality early childhood education is less likely to be a special ed kid, is less likely to be left back a grade, has better health outcomes; a girl is less likely to get pregnant before she graduates from high school, a child is more likely to graduate high school, more likely to go to college, more likely to graduate college, more likely to get a good-paying job and pay taxes, and much less likely to go to prison. It has been shown over and over that the cost-benefit is, for every $1 spent, like $16 in return.

I wanted to get a hearing just on this. Because we were talking about education, I thought this needed to be discussed, and we needed experts, economists who were credible on this. So I went to Barbara and she, of course, said: Oh, yeah. OK. Let's do it. She is Chair of the Subcommittee on Children and Families. I thought that would be a good place to do it, except I am not on that subcommittee. I am on the HELP Committee, which this is a subcommittee of, but I am not on that subcommittee. She said: OK, that doesn't matter. You come anyway. And not only that but: What witness do you want?

She let me pick a witness, Art Rolnick, an expert in early childhood education--on the economics of it--who started out as an economist at the Federal Reserve in Minneapolis and got into the economic benefits of it.

She is a true ally. She is someone who used her resources as chairwoman of a committee to make sure something you feel strongly about will be aired, will be discussed.

You learn from Barbara that what we do around here is not so much about policy, it is about people. For her, it is about the people of Maryland. She goes to bat for them time and time and time again. It is about kids. And it is about women, who often have to be both the breadwinner and the caregiver, and who should have every right and every opportunity at work and in society that men have.

As both a Member of the Senate and as a father of a wonderful daughter, I am enormously grateful to Senator Mikulski for being a tremendous role model to women in this country, for having fought her way to the Senate, and for proving that legislating was not a man's job--or only a man's job--it is a man's job too.

This body is so much the richer for her, and Americans are so much better off as a result. But her work, our work is not over. Out of 100 Senators, there are still only 17 women. Our Nation is facing tremendously difficult challenges, and having more women like Senator Mikulski in the room will help us solve those problems. I am glad she is here leading the way.

With that, I would like to thank Barbara for her leadership, her friendship, and for being such a fierce advocate. Congratulations, Barbara, on your achievements thus far and on this milestone. I look forward to many years fighting alongside you.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to remember the life of Minnesota Senator Gary Kubly, who died on Friday, March 2, after a battle with Lou Gehrig's disease.

Gary was a model Midwestern politician--one who worked hard, but quietly, on behalf of his constituents. He was a strong voice for the rural communities that he served, communities whose struggles continue to mount and are shared across this country. He cared deeply about issues from agriculture and rural development to education and the environment.

In 2010, Gary was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, more commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease. As a Lutheran pastor, Gary met his diagnosis with strong faith and determination. He chose to continue his work in public service, always putting his constituents first.

Gary wasn't the stereotypical politician whom many disparage so often in today's discourse. He kept his head down and just worked for the people who elected him, reaching across ideological boundaries to do his job. In his 16 years in the Minnesota House and Senate, he didn't seek out the limelight. He simply served as a voice for rural Minnesota, and he was remarkably effective.

We in this body have a lot to learn from Gary's style of legislating. Minnesota benefited greatly from his work, and we have lost a hard- working public servant and friend.

I would like to conclude with a prayer that Gary read at a Minnesota Farmers Union convention in 2010, which I think is a perfect reflection of his values:

Creator God, Redeemer Son and Indwelling Spirit, we thank You for bringing us together this weekend. Be with us as we attempt to move our industry forward in ways that benefit the people of our State and Nation.

Help us to see that the decisions we make in caring for the land, marketing local foods, sustaining our resources for all of these things are part and parcel of our call as Your people to care for our neighbor.

Help us to embrace once again the values of community that allow us to see our neighbors in the same light that You see them for You have created all of us in equal standing before You.

Move us from our tendency to isolate ourselves from one another to seeing our neighbors as benefactors along with us of Your love and grace.

Bless us now as we received these gifts of nourishment from Your hand that we might be sustained in our call to care for our neighbor coupled with our own call to farm the land You have given into our keeping.

In Your strong name, Amen.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about my amendment to the transportation reauthorization bill that I have introduced with Senator Blunt. I am grateful this amendment has been included in the base bill of Leader Reid's substitute amendment.

I will take a couple of minutes to explain this amendment. It is a simple commonsense amendment. I am glad it has been accepted. It is also particularly significant to my home State of Minnesota.

On August 1 of this year, we will mark the fifth anniversary of the tragedy in my home State of the collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis. The collapse killed 13 people and injured 145. That tragedy should have been a wake-up call in America and in this body. Bridges should not collapse in the United States of America.

Unfortunately, the state of many of our bridges today is still extremely concerning. According to the most recent data compiled by the Federal Highway Administration, one in nine highway bridges in this country is classified as ``structurally deficient.''

Let me say it another way. One of nine bridges in our country needs significant rehabilitation or replacement and requires yearly inspection.

In Minnesota alone, more than 1,100 bridges were listed as being structurally deficient. The bill we are debating today consolidates many varied surface transportation programs into five main pots of money. The Highway Bridge Program would be consolidated in the new National Highway Performance Program, and of this new program, 60 percent would have to be spent on restoring National Highway System roads and bridges into a state of good repair. The other 40 percent is more flexible and can be spent on a variety of projects, including Federal-aid highways that are not on the National Highway System, or the NHS.

However, if those non-NHS roads have a bridge that needs repair, that project would not have been an allowable use of this flexible pot of money. My amendment, which is now included in the base bill, fixes that. It allows the 40-percent pot of money to be used to repair bridges on non-NHS Federal-aid highways.

It is common sense. If roads are eligible for this funding, then bridges along these roads should be eligible as well. This is a no- brainer to me, especially given the poor state of our bridges today. The I 35W bridge collapse was a tragedy. It was a monumental failure of policy. I am determined not to let that happen again.

I thank Senator Blunt for joining me in this effort. I also wish to thank Transportation for America and Smart Growth America for their support on this important fix.

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

Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to honor the 125th birthday of South St. Paul, MN. First, I feel the need to clarify for this body that South St. Paul isn't exactly directly south of Saint Paul. West St. Paul is. And I know that's confusing. South St. Paul is closer to Southeast. And West St. Paul is South. And Minneapolis is, of course, West. I'm sure there's a very good reason for the confusing names, but I have no idea what that would be.

South St. Paul is the perfect example of the kind of hard-working, Midwestern industrial town that has been the anchor of America. The South St. Paul Stockyards opened in 1886 and eventually grew to be one of the leading livestock centers in the world, with millions of livestock being sold from its pens. A shifting marketplace finally forced the stockyards to close in 2008, but like much of America, South St. Paul has adapted along with the changing world.

The stockyards, which had existed since South St. Paul's founding, left an indelible mark on the city even after they closed. The people of South St. Paul are instilled with a hardy work ethic, which will serve the city well in its next 125 years.

As a part of the greater Twin Cities metropolitan area where I grew up, I know the sky is the limit for the people of South St. Paul. It is my distinct pleasure to represent them in the United States Senate. Congratulations to the residents of South St. Paul.