Floor Statements

I rise in support of the nominations of George Hazel and Theodore Chuang to be U.S. district judges for the District of Maryland.

Let me say from the beginning that I am very proud of the manner in which Senator Mikulski, the senior Senator from Maryland, and I have established a process to review and make recommendations to the President for the vacancies in the U.S. District of Maryland.

We have used a process that we think works. It gets us the most qualified individuals, and these two today are certainly an example of highly qualified individuals who want to be judges for the right reasons. They have a demonstrated track record of public service.

I particularly appreciate their commitment to pro bono. They understand that the courts need to be open to all and that we have a special responsibility as lawyers and as judges to make sure that there is equal access to justice. They understand the appropriate role of a judge in our system to be objective and to carry out the laws of this land.

George Jarrod Hazel received his B.A. cum laude in 1996 from Morehouse College and his J.D. in 1999 from Georgetown University Law Center. He was nominated to fill the vacancy created by the taking of senior status in May of 2013 by Judge Alexander Williams, Jr.

I might just say Judge Williams had a very distinguished record on the district court.

Mr. Hazel began his legal career in private practice from 1999 to 2004. He then became a government prosecutor as an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia from 2005 to 2008.

He then joined the Greenbelt, MD, U.S. attorney's office for the District of Maryland. Finally, Mr. Hazel joined the office of the State's attorney for Baltimore City and now serves as the chief deputy State's attorney.

I can attest that being the chief deputy State's attorney in Baltimore City is a demanding position. In his present job, Mr. Hazel helps to oversee 200 prosecutors and 200 support staffers, and he has fought tirelessly to keep our communities safe and make them safer. In fact, he has played a key role in achieving those objectives.

He has demonstrated in his entire career as a lawyer a commitment to public service in each of the positions that he has held. He wants to serve the public, and these are the types of people I would hope we would like to see in our district court.

Mr. Hazel has extensive Federal and State court litigation experience, including civil and criminal matters, as well as jury trials. He has served as a prosecutor, private attorney, and manager of a large legal office.

Mr. Hazel lives in North Potomac with his wife and two children. He is an active member of his community. He is a leader in the Metropolitan Baptist Church of Largo, MD, and in Washington, DC, and has served as a member, trustee, and now as a deacon.

In terms of his pro bono commitment, Mr. Hazel has been president of his church's legal ministry, where he has assisted members of the church, including many who could not afford lawyers, in obtaining legal representation when they are in need.

He also prepares meals at the church and teaches Sunday school classes.

Mr. Chuang was nominated to fill the vacancy created by Judge Roger Titus when he took senior status in January of this year.

Judge Titus had a very distinguished record and continues to have a very distinguished record in our district court.

Mr. Chuang received his J.D. magna cum laude in 1994 from Harvard Law School and his B.A. summa cum laude in 1991 from Harvard University. He began his legal career as a law clerk for Judge Dorothy W. Nelson in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 1994 to 1995. From 1995 to 1998, Mr. Chuang served as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. From 1998 to 2004, Mr. Chuang served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of Massachusetts. He spent 3 years in private practice from 2004 to 2007.

He served as a deputy chief investigative counsel for the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform from 2007 to 2009. In 2009 he became the chief investigative counsel for the Committee on Energy and Commerce in the House of Representatives. Mr. Chuang currently serves as deputy chief counsel of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, where he has worked since 2009.

Like Mr. Hazel, Mr. Chuang has devoted his entire professional career to serving the public. He is very much interested in helping this community and, again, he is the type of individual I hope we would all like to see in our district court.

Mr. Chuang has extensive Federal court litigation experience, both civil and criminal cases, including jury trials. He has served in all three branches of government: as clerk, law clerk, congressional investigative counsel, and agency deputy general counsel. The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave him a ``well qualified'' rating. You can see that he has the type of experience and type of sensitivity to understand the appropriate role of a district court judge.

Mr. Chuang lives in Bethesda with his wife and his two children. He is an energetic member of his community. In terms of his pro bono work, he has served on the board of directors of the Asian Pacific American Legal Resource Center, a nonprofit legal services organization that serves low-income, limited-English proficient Asian Americans and immigrants in Maryland, Washington, DC, and Virginia, and which provides legal representation and referral services in cases involving domestic violence, family law, immigration law, employment law, and a variety of other areas.

Mr. Chuang also told us that from approximately 2002 to 2003, as president of the Asian American Lawyers Association of Massachusetts, he oversaw and promoted a project of the organization's Community Service Committee to provide a pro bono legal workshop in Boston's Chinatown, at which attorneys provided general information about immigration law, employment law, and other areas of law that may affect the lives of area residents.

He is committed to helping his community, and he has demonstrated that during his entire professional career.

Mr. Chuang's parents emigrated from Taiwan to the United States seeking freedom and opportunity. I would note that if confirmed, Mr. Chuang would not only be the first Asian-American Federal judge in Maryland but also the first Asian-American Federal judge in the Fourth Circuit, covering five States in the Mid-Atlantic and South.

President Obama nominated these two individuals in September of 2013 and the Judiciary Committee held their confirmation hearings in December of 2013. The Judiciary Committee then favorably reported both nominations in January of this year.

I urge the Senate to confirm these very well-qualified nominees and fill these important vacancies to better serve the people of Maryland.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I take this time on the floor as the Chair of the U.S. Helsinki Commission. The Helsinki Commission is the operating arm of the U.S. participation in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the OSCE. It has been in the press recently because of the circumstances in Ukraine, which is what I am going to talk about.

First, I will remind my colleagues that the United States, along with all the countries of Europe and Canada, formed the commission on security and cooperation in Europe in 1975. It was founded on the principle that in order to have a stable country, you need to deal not just with the direct security needs--the military needs--of a country and not just with its economic and environmental agenda, but you also need to deal with its human rights and its good governance, and all three of these are related.

Commitments were made by all the signatories to the OSCE about respecting the jurisdictions of the member states and dealing with the rights of your neighbors and dealing with the rights of your own citizens. The Soviet Union was a member of the OSCE, and now all of the countries of the former Soviet Union are members, including Russia and the countries of central Asia.

I am increasingly alarmed at the deterioration of the situation in Eastern UKraine, particularly in the Donetsk region, where Moscow- controlled pro-Russian separatists have seized 19 buildings and 14 cities and towns.

Late last week seven members of the German-led OSCE Vienna Document inspection team, charged with observing unusual military activities, along with five of their Ukrainian escorts, were kidnapped by pro- Russian militants. One observer has been freed, and the rest continue to be held hostage. Russia, an OSCE member, has not lifted a finger to secure their release. There is no doubt in my mind that if Mr. Putin gave the word, this hostage situation would cease to exist.

This hostage-taking of unarmed international monitors must continue to be condemned in the strongest possible terms, and everything possible must be done to secure their release.

In addition to the OSCE observers, 40 people--journalists, activists, police officers, and politicians--are reportedly being held captive in makeshift jails in Slovyansk.

Meanwhile, the violence in Eastern Ukraine continues. On Monday, several thousand peaceful protesters marching in favor of Ukraine's unity were attacked by pro-Russian thugs wielding clubs and whips, resulting in 15 seriously injured. That same day, Gennady Kernes, the mayor of Ukraine's second largest city, Kharkiv, was shot, underwent emergency surgery, and remains in serious condition. He is now in Israel for further medical treatment.

Furthermore, I am deeply dismayed at other flagrant violations of human rights by pro-Russian militants in Eastern Ukraine and in Russia's annexed Crimea. These include attacks and threats against minority groups, particularly Jews and Roma as well as Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea. Supporters of a united Ukraine have been targeted as well, including a local politician and university student whose tortured bodies were found dumped in a river near Slovyansk.

The joint statement on Ukraine signed in Geneva on April 17 by the EU, the United States, Russia, and Ukraine calls on all sides to lay down their arms, vacate buildings, and begin the process of dialogue and de-escalation. That was signed just 2 weeks ago. That agreement provided a basis for de-escalation. Yet, over the course of the last days and weeks, we have not seen the Russians follow through on urging separatists to stand down in Eastern Ukraine. What have we seen? Kyiv, on the one hand, is taking concrete steps and making good-faith efforts to live up to the Geneva agreement, including vacating buildings and offering dialogue. Russia has done nothing. Instead of working to de- escalate the conflict, it is doing the opposite--fueling escalation. Russia continues to violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and flagrantly flaunts its commitments under the Geneva agreement.

The Geneva agreement also calls upon the parties to refrain from any violence, intimidation, or provocative actions and condemns and rejects all expressions of extremism, racism, religious intolerance, including anti-Semitism. Clearly, both the spirit and the letter of this agreement have been breached by Russia.

In recent days we have seen troubling manifestations against ethnic and religious minority communities. The distribution of flyers in Donetsk calling for Jews to register their religion and property is a chilling reminder of an especially dark period in European history. While the perpetrators of this onerous action have not been determined, one thing is clear: Moscow, which controls the pro-Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine, is using anti-Semitism as an ingredient in its anti-Ukrainian campaign. Perhaps even worse, among the Russian special forces and agitators operating in Ukraine are members of the neo-Nazi and other anti-Semitic groups.

Jewish communities in parts of Eastern Ukraine are not the only ones that have reason to be worried. In

Slovyansk, armed separatists have invaded Romani homes and beaten and robbed men, women, and children. Ukrainian speakers--including Ukrainian-speaking journalists--have reportedly experienced intimidation in the largely Russian-speaking Donetsk area.

At the same time in Crimea, which Russia forcibly annexed, Crimean Tatars continue to be threatened with deportation and attacked for speaking their own language in their ancestral homeland. Moreover, the longtime leader of the Crimean Tatar community and former Soviet political prisoner Mustafa Dzhemilev has been banned from returning to Crimea.

It is important to underscore that Crimea is the ancestral home of the Crimean Tatars, who in 1944 were forcibly and brutally evicted by Stalin to central Asia and only allowed to return to their home in the early 1990s.

Additionally, the separatist Crimean authorities have gone after the Ukrainian community, announcing that Ukrainian literature and history will no longer be offered in Crimean schools.

These attacks and threats underscore the importance of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission and other OSCE institutions in Ukraine in assessing the situation on the ground and helping to de-escalate tensions. They need to be permitted to operate unhindered--and most certainly not held hostage--in Eastern Ukraine and to be allowed access into Crimea, which Russia continues to block.

The actions against pro-Ukrainian activists and minorities are the direct result of Russia's unfounded and illegal aggression against Ukraine--first in Crimea and then in Eastern Ukraine. There is no doubt as to who pulls the strings. The Kremlin has been relentlessly flaunting their Geneva promises and has done nothing to rein in the militants they control. Mr. Putin needs to get Russian soldiers and other assorted military and intelligence operatives out of Ukraine.

We must not forget Crimea. We must never recognize Russia's forcible, illegal annexation of the Ukrainian territory, which violates every single one of the 10 core OSCE Helsinki principles. We must build on the punitive measures already undertaken against the Russian and Ukrainian individuals who so blatantly violated the international agreements in the Ukrainian and Crimean Constitutions. Violations of another nation's territorial integrity and sovereignty must not be tolerated. Russia's flagrant land grab of Crimea has set a horrible precedent for those countries harboring illegal territorial ambitions around the globe.

I welcome the President's stepping up of economic sanctions on seven Russian officials, including members of President Putin's inner circle and 17 companies linked to Mr. Putin. I also welcome the State Department and Commerce Department tightening policy to deny export license applications for any high-technology items that could contribute to Russia's military capabilities. I am confident Russia will feel the impact of these sanctions. These, along with the further targeted sanctions announced by the EU earlier this week, will only continue to have a growing impact.

Nevertheless, if the situation in eastern Ukraine continues to deteriorate, or even should the status quo persist, the United States needs to ratchet up these sanctions, and soon, including several sectoral sanctions against Russia's industries such as banking, mining, energy, and defense.

Of equal importance, we need to remain steadfast in helping Ukraine become a stronger democratic state and foster its political and economic stability. The millions of men, women, and children who demonstrated for months for human rights and human dignity spoke loudly and clearly, expressing the wishes of the vast majority of the Ukrainian citizens. The interim government has been working hard under exceedingly difficult circumstances to move Ukraine further on the path of economic and political reforms. We and our international partners need to keep making this progress our focal point. Ukraine needs a lot of help after the devastation wreaked on their economy by the incredibly corrupt and dysfunctional Yanukovych regime.

Ukraine has so many pressing needs. Among the most important are stabilizing the economy and preparing for the most important May 25 Presidential elections. Others include judicial reform, reform of the police and military, seeking justice and rehabilitation for the victims of the violence, including those suffering now at the hands of the pro- Russian militants, helping internally displaced people who are fleeing Crimea, and working to recover the billions in assets stolen by the previous regime.

I am pleased Ukraine's civil society, including Western-educated young people, is firmly committed to the rule of law and democracy and is playing a critical role in helping the Ukrainian Government work toward these ends. NGOs and think tanks have worked with the Parliament to pass a law on the independence of public broadcasting, a bill on public procurement, and one on how judges are appointed--all critical in fighting the scourge of corruption.

The United States is providing concrete assistance through a U.S. crisis support package for Ukraine, which includes support for the integrity of the May elections and constitutional reform, substantial economic assistance, energy security technical expertise, help to recover proceeds of corruptions stolen by the former regime, and other anticorruption assistance, and fostering greater people-to-people contacts. We need to be willing to provide more resources to the Ukrainians as they actively work to fulfill their aspirations.

Ultimately, these choices will lead to a more secure, democratic, and peaceful world, and that is something that reflects both American interests and American values.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to Margot Hecht, a member of my legislative staff, during today's session of the Senate.

Thank you, Madam President.

I have been on the floor several times, and many of my colleagues, particularly on this side of the aisle, have been here to talk about a growing trend in America; that we see a concentration of wealth and a shrinking middle class. If you are a business owner, you should be very concerned about that. The growing middle class is what buys the products that go to the restaurants that keep our economy going. Time and time again we have asked to proceed on legislation that would allow us to help the growing middle class. This is not our first effort with the minimum wage. Many States have passed increases in the minimum wage. It is time for our Federal Government to do the same, to help a growing middle class.

The last effort was on behalf of gender equity, paycheck fairness, where we sought to have a fair shot for women in the workplace, so they don't have to work extra time to make the same income as a man for equal work. A woman receives on average about 77 percent of what a man does in the same job. So we tried to move forward with a fair shot for women with paycheck fairness. But, no, the Republicans said, no, we are not even going to consider it. We are not even going to take that up.

We are hearing some of the same arguments now in regard to proceeding on the debate on the minimum wage. My friend from Texas talked about the Affordable Care Act. We are proud the Affordable Care Act gives a fair shot for all Americans to have access to quality, affordable health care. Millions of Americans today have quality health insurance coverage they didn't have before the passage of the Affordable Care Act. It is working. We now know that insurance companies cannot discriminate against women or anyone based upon preexisting conditions. Those days are over. There is now a fair shot for health care access-- access for all Americans. We know small business owners now can get competitive plans and they can choose among a lot of different types of plans, a fair shot for small business owners to be treated equally with larger companies in regard to the insurance marketplace. We have done that.

We have expanded Medicaid to close that coverage gap known as the doughnut hole for prescription drug coverage, and there are no longer any copayments on preventive health care. We extended Medicare because we want a fair shot for our seniors for their security, and that is why our caucus defends the Social Security system, knowing how important it is for our seniors. Yes, we do fight for our children. A fair shot for our children means we support Head Start and we support help for higher education because we know that is the ticket to economic growth.

In a few moments--in a few moments--we will have a chance for a fair shot for working families in this country by moving to consider the minimum wage law. We haven't adjusted the minimum wage law for a long time. I heard my friend from Texas talk about job issues. Every time we have increased the minimum wage our economy has grown, and there is a reason for that. This legislation will put $34 billion into the economy, will help

grow the economy, and will lift 2 million Americans out of poverty.

Think about this. If someone works 40 hours a week and they receive the minimum wage, there is not a State in this country where they can get affordable housing. People cannot support their family on the minimum wage in the United States of America. By passing the Minimum Wage Act, we give 28 million Americans a raise. This is a fair shot for all workers in this country.

Let me dispel some of the rumors that are out there. The average age of a person on minimum wage is 35 years old. We are not talking about college students. We are talking about people trying to support a family on the minimum wage, and they cannot do it. Many have children. The majority are women. It is time we answer this inequity in our system. We haven't had an increase in the minimum wage--in fact, if we look at what it was in 1968, this increase will basically get us back to where we were in 1968. It will help our economy.

We have heard these projections before; that every time we do this it will kill jobs. It doesn't do that. Look at the history. Look at what has happened with the previous increases in the minimum wage: Our economy has gotten stronger. It has grown stronger.

So it is time to give a raise to American workers. It is time to help a growing middle class. It is time we give a fair shot to working families in America. I urge my colleagues to vote to proceed on this debate. Don't continue a filibuster. Let's give America a fair shot, and I urge my colleagues to support the motion to proceed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I would like to discuss global hunger. From April 28 to May 2, people across the United States and across the globe are participating in the Live Below the Line campaign to raise awareness for global hunger and to show support for the critical programs that seek to alleviate hunger. Participants in the Live Below the Line campaign, including many of my constituents in Maryland, are subsisting on $1.50 a day to demonstrate the challenges faced by millions of people each day. Right now, more than 1.2 billion people involuntarily live on less than $1.50 a day for food and drink.

Children are particularly vulnerable to hunger and undernourishment. Studies show a child's entire life is shaped by whether or not she or he receives proper nutrition during the first 1,000 days of her or his life. And tragically, 3.1 million children under the age of 5 die each year as a result of poor nutrition and hunger.

When we think of global hunger, we often think of Sub-Saharan Africa where 223 million people, 24.8 percent of the population, face food insecurity. Or we think of Asia, where more than 500

million people suffer from hunger. In Laos, for example, 50 percent of children under the age of 5 are chronically malnourished. And in Burma, it is estimated that about 35 percent of children are undernourished and stunted.

But hunger is not just a problem for developing countries. Families across America and in my home State of Maryland are also struggling. According to the latest U.S. department of Agriculture report on Household Food Security in the United States, 12.5 percent of all households in Maryland were food insecure between 2009 and 2011, and more than 27 percent of children in Maryland are living in poverty.

Proper nutrition is not just important to individual health, it is critical to the long-term health and success of nations. Poor nutrition and rampant hunger results in a less healthy and less productive workforce, hampers economic development and growth, and ultimately perpetuates the cycle of hunger and poverty for successive generations. It should not be that way; every child should have the opportunity to grow up healthy and strong.

Thanks to organizations like the World Food Program USA and the United Nations World Food Program, who together work to solve global hunger, the number of hungry people in the world has fallen by 17 percent since 1990. And in 2013, the World Food Program provided 24 million school children in 60 different countries with meals at school. This not only reduces undernourishment and hunger, but also incentivizes school attendance. We need more programs like this, and we need more people to be aware of this issue, both here in the United States and abroad.

With the world population expected to increase to 9 billion by 2050, transforming how people farm and what people eat is the only way, I believe, to ensure food security for future generations.

We are making great strides in global food security, particularly through the U.S. Feed The Future Initiative, which focuses on building sustainability and resilience into communities by transforming how people farm and what people eat.

In 2009, then-Secretary of State Clinton said,

We have the resources to give every person in the world the

tools they need to feed themselves and their children. So the

question is not whether we can end hunger. It's whether we

will.

Ending global hunger and poverty will not happen tomorrow, but if we continue to coordinate with our global partners, harness the power of the private sector and the NGO community, and use our development aid in the most effective and transparent way possible, we will have much better outcomes. The United States must be relentless in striving to assure that no one goes hungry.

Mr. President, I wish to discuss the ongoing crisis in Syria. Last month marked the 3-year anniversary since the brutal conflict began. According to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2139, which was unanimously accepted in February of this year, the conflict has resulted in the death of over 140,000 people in Syria, including at least 10,000 children. UNICEF reports that Syria is among the most dangerous places on Earth to be a child, pointing to high child casualty rates, brutalizing and traumatic violence, deteriorating access to education, and health concerns. The number of children suffering in Syria more than doubled in the third year of the conflict.

The crisis is only getting worse. Hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians are under fire by government and opposition forces in violation of internationally accepted Laws of Armed Conflict. These war crimes are truly devastating, and to escape the violence, millions of refugees have flooded into neighboring Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, while thousands more remain internally displaced inside Syria Last year I visited the Kilis refugee camp in Turkey which is currently sheltering more than 14,000 Syrian refugees. I witnessed first-hand the remarkable bravery of the Syrian refugee population. Many of these families relocated several times within Syria before ultimately making the heart-wrenching decision to leave their country in order to seek food, medical attention, and safety outside of Syria.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has registered more than 2.6 million Syrian refugees with women and children making up more than 80 percent of the refugee population. By the end of this year, the United Nations estimates that the number of refugees could increase to 4 million.

That is why I am a cosponsor of the Syria Humanitarian Resolution of 2014, which urges all parties in Syria to allow for and facilitate immediate, unfettered access to humanitarian aid throughout the Syrian Arab Republic. This legislation calls for the safety, security, independence, and impartiality of humanitarian workers and demands freedom of movement to deliver aid.

I remain deeply concerned by the instability of the entire region, as violence spills over into neighboring countries such as Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has testified that, ``In Syria, the ongoing civil war will probably heighten regional and sectarian tensions.'' The influx of Syrian refugees to Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq is putting a strain on those countries' resources.

The United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic reports that pro-government forces have murdered, tortured, assaulted, and raped civilians in Syria. Anti- government groups have also engaged in murder, execution without due process, torture, hostage-taking, and shelling of civilian neighborhoods.

But nowhere is the brutality of this war more evident than in the events of August 21, 2013, when the Syrian Army, under the direction of President Assad, launched a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs. This attack left over 1,400 innocent Syrian civilians dead-- many of whom were children.

Assad's criminal use of chemical weapons against his own people is morally reprehensible and violates internationally accepted rules of war. The international community cannot stand by and allow the murder of innocent men, women, and children to go unchallenged. We must bring Assad and all other perpetrators of gross human rights violations in the Syrian conflict to justice.

It is clear that we must take action. Last week I introduced, the Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act of 2014, S. 2209 along with Senators Rubio and Kaine.

My bill strongly condemns the ongoing violence, the use of chemical weapons, the targeting of civilian populations, and the systematic gross human rights violations carried out by both the Syrian government and opposition forces.

My legislation requires the Secretary of State to provide Congress with a description of violations of internationally recognized human rights abuses

and crimes against humanity committed during the conflict in Syria. Finally, the bill requires the Secretary to report to Congress on efforts by the Department of State and USAID to ensure accountability for these violations and provide a review of the facts concerning any prosecution in the case of Syrian crimes that could be defined under universal jurisdiction.

This Monday marked the 20th anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda. Unfortunately, we have not learned the lessons of the past. We must do better to not only see that sort of atrocities never again occur under our watch, but to ensure that the perpetrators of such heinous crimes are held accountable for their actions.

Ignoring the crisis in Syria is both morally wrong and counterproductive to our National security and that of our allies. War tactics employed in Syria by government and some opposition forces fly in the face of the rules of war. For the sake of our National security interests and regional stability, we cannot turn a blind eye to these heinous acts.

I strongly believe that there are times when the international community must come together to end atrocities, protect innocent lives from crimes against humanity and hold accountable the groups that perpetrate them.

The Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act of 2014 sends a strong message to the international community that the United States is firmly committed to bringing all perpetrators of international crimes in Syria to justice. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Democracy Restoration Act, known as the DRA. I want to thank Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy and Senators Durbin, Whitehouse, Booker, Harkin, and Sanders as original cosponsors of this legislation.

As the late Senator Kennedy often said, civil rights is the ``unfinished business'' of America. The Democracy Restoration Act would restore voting rights in Federal elections to approximately 5.8 million citizens who have been released from prison and are back living in their communities.

After the Civil War, Congress enacted and the States ratified the Fifteenth Amendment, which provides that ``the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''

Unfortunately, many States passed laws during the Jim Crow period after the Civil War to make it more difficult for newly-freed slaves to vote in elections. Such laws included poll taxes, literacy tests, and disenfranchisement measures. Some disenfranchisement measures applied to misdemeanor convictions and in practice could result in lifetime disenfranchisement, even for individuals that successfully reintegrated into their communities as law-abiding citizens.

It took Congress and the States nearly another century to eliminate the poll tax, upon the ratification of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment in 1964. The Amendment provides that ``the rights of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.''

Shortly thereafter Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which swept away numerous State laws and procedures that had denied African-Americans and other minorities their constitutional right to vote. For example, the act outlawed the use of literacy or history tests that voters had to pass before registering to vote or casting their ballot.

The act specifically prohibits States from imposing any ``voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure . . . to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.'' Congress overwhelmingly reauthorized the Act in 2006, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush. Congress is now working on legislation to revitalize the VRA after recent Supreme Court decisions curtailed its reach.

In 2014, I am concerned that there are still several areas where the legacy of Jim Crow laws and State disenfranchisement statutes lead to unfairness in Federal elections. First, State laws governing the restoration of voting rights vary widely throughout the country, such that persons in some States can easily regain their voting rights, while in other States persons effectively lose their right to vote permanently. Second, these State disenfranchisement laws have a disproportionate impact on racial and ethnic minorities. Third, this patchwork of State laws results in the lack of a uniform standard for eligibility to vote in Federal elections, and leads to an unfair disparity and unequal participation in Federal elections based solely on where an individual lives. Finally, studies indicate that former prisoners who have voting rights restored are less likely to reoffend, and disenfranchisement hinders their rehabilitation and reintegration into their community.

In 35 States, convicted individuals may not vote while they are on parole. In 11 States, a conviction can result in lifetime disenfranchisement. Several States require prisoners to seek discretionary pardons from Governors, or action by the parole or pardon board, in order to regain their right to vote. Several States deny the right to vote to individuals convicted of certain misdemeanors. States are slowly moving or repeal or loosen many of these barriers to voting for ex-prisoners.

An estimated 5,850,000 citizens of the United States, or about 1 in 40 adults in the United States, currently cannot vote as a result of a felony conviction. Of the 5,850,000 citizens barred from voting, only 25 percent are in prison. By contrast, 75 percent of the disenfranchised reside in their communities while on probation or parole after having completed their sentences. Approximately 2,600,000 citizens who have completed their sentences remain disenfranchised due to restrictive State laws. In six States: Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia--more than 7 percent of the total population is disenfranchised.

Studies show that a growing number of African-American men, for example, will be disenfranchised at some point in their life, partly due to mandatory minimum sentencing laws that have a disproportionate impact on minorities.

Eight percent of the African-American population, or 2 million African-Americans, are disenfranchised. Given current rates of incarceration, approximately 1 in 3 of the next generation of African- American men will be disenfranchised at some point during their lifetime. Currently, 1 of every 13 African-Americans are rendered unable to vote because of felony disenfranchisement, which is a rate 4 times greater than non African-Americans. Nearly 8 percent of African- Americans are disenfranchised, compared to less than 2 percent of non- African-Americans. In 3 states more than 1 in 5 African-Americans are unable to vote because of prior convictions: the rates are Florida at 23 percent, Kentucky at 22 percent, and Virginia at 20 percent.

Latino citizens are disproportionately disenfranchised based on their disproportionate representation in the criminal justice system. If current incarceration trends hold, 17 percent of Latino men will be incarcerated during their lifetime, in contrast to less than 6 percent of non-Latino white men. When analyzing the data across 10 States, Latinos generally have disproportionately higher rates of disenfranchisement compared to their presence in the voting age population. In 6 out of 10 States studies in 2003, Latinos constitute more than 10 percent of the total number of persons disenfranchised by State felony laws. In 4 States, California, 37 percent; New York, 34 percent; Texas, 30 percent; and Arizona, 27 percent, Latinos were disenfranchised by a rate of more than 25 percent. Native Americans are also disproportionately disenfranchised.

Congress has addressed part of this problem by enacting the Fair Sentencing Act to partially reduce the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine convictions. Congress is now considering legislation

that would more broadly revise mandatory sentencing procedures and create a fairer system of sentencing. While I welcome these steps, I believe that Congress should take stronger action now to remedy this particular problem.

The legislation would restore voting rights to prisoners after their release from incarceration. It requires that prisons receiving Federal funds notify people about their right to vote in Federal elections when they are leaving prison, sentenced to probation, or convicted of a misdemeanor. The bill authorizes the Department of Justice and individuals harmed by violation of this act to sue to enforce its provisions. The bill generally provides State election officials with a grace period to resolve voter eligibility complaints without a lawsuit before an election.

The legislation is narrowly crafted to apply to Federal elections, and retains the States' authorities to generally establish voting qualifications. This legislation is therefore consistent with Congressional authority under the Constitution and voting rights statutes, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I am pleased that this legislation has been endorsed by a large coalition of public interest organizations, including: civil rights and reform organizations; religious and faith-based organizations; and law enforcement and criminal justice organizations. In particular I want to thank the Brennan Center for Justice, the ACLU, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the NAACP for their work on this legislation.

This legislation is ultimately designed to reduce recidivism rates and help reintegrate ex-prisoners back into society. When prisoners are released, they are expected to obey the law, get a job, and pay taxes as they are rehabilitated and reintegrated into their community. With these responsibilities and obligations of citizenship should also come the rights of citizenship, including the right to vote.

In 2008, President George W. Bush signed the Second Chance Act into law, after overwhelming approval and strong bipartisan support in Congress. The legislation expanded the Prison Re-Entry Initiative, by providing job training, placement services, transitional housing, drug treatment, medical care, and faith-based mentoring. At the signing ceremony, President Bush said: ``We believe that even those who have struggled with a dark past can find brighter days ahead. One way we act on that belief is by helping former prisoners who have paid for their crimes. We help them build new lives as productive members of our society.''

The Democracy Restoration Act is fully consistent with the goals of the Second Chance Act, as Congress and the States seek to reduce recidivism rates, strengthen the quality of life in our communities and make them safer, and reduce the burden on taxpayers.

More recently, in a February 2014 speech, Attorney General Eric Holder called on elected officials to reexamine disenfranchisement statutes and enact reforms to restore voting rights.

I therefore urge Congress to address the issue of disenfranchisement and support this legislation.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Democracy Restoration Act, known as the DRA. I want to thank Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy and Senators Durbin, Whitehouse, Booker, Harkin, and Sanders as original cosponsors of this legislation.

As the late Senator Kennedy often said, civil rights is the ``unfinished business'' of America. The Democracy Restoration Act would restore voting rights in Federal elections to approximately 5.8 million citizens who have been released from prison and are back living in their communities.

After the Civil War, Congress enacted and the States ratified the Fifteenth Amendment, which provides that ``the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''

Unfortunately, many States passed laws during the Jim Crow period after the Civil War to make it more difficult for newly-freed slaves to vote in elections. Such laws included poll taxes, literacy tests, and disenfranchisement measures. Some disenfranchisement measures applied to misdemeanor convictions and in practice could result in lifetime disenfranchisement, even for individuals that successfully reintegrated into their communities as law-abiding citizens.

It took Congress and the States nearly another century to eliminate the poll tax, upon the ratification of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment in 1964. The Amendment provides that ``the rights of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.''

Shortly thereafter Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which swept away numerous State laws and procedures that had denied African-Americans and other minorities their constitutional right to vote. For example, the act outlawed the use of literacy or history tests that voters had to pass before registering to vote or casting their ballot.

The act specifically prohibits States from imposing any ``voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure . . . to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.'' Congress overwhelmingly reauthorized the Act in 2006, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush. Congress is now working on legislation to revitalize the VRA after recent Supreme Court decisions curtailed its reach.

In 2014, I am concerned that there are still several areas where the legacy of Jim Crow laws and State disenfranchisement statutes lead to unfairness in Federal elections. First, State laws governing the restoration of voting rights vary widely throughout the country, such that persons in some States can easily regain their voting rights, while in other States persons effectively lose their right to vote permanently. Second, these State disenfranchisement laws have a disproportionate impact on racial and ethnic minorities. Third, this patchwork of State laws results in the lack of a uniform standard for eligibility to vote in Federal elections, and leads to an unfair disparity and unequal participation in Federal elections based solely on where an individual lives. Finally, studies indicate that former prisoners who have voting rights restored are less likely to reoffend, and disenfranchisement hinders their rehabilitation and reintegration into their community.

In 35 States, convicted individuals may not vote while they are on parole. In 11 States, a conviction can result in lifetime disenfranchisement. Several States require prisoners to seek discretionary pardons from Governors, or action by the parole or pardon board, in order to regain their right to vote. Several States deny the right to vote to individuals convicted of certain misdemeanors. States are slowly moving or repeal or loosen many of these barriers to voting for ex-prisoners.

An estimated 5,850,000 citizens of the United States, or about 1 in 40 adults in the United States, currently cannot vote as a result of a felony conviction. Of the 5,850,000 citizens barred from voting, only 25 percent are in prison. By contrast, 75 percent of the disenfranchised reside in their communities while on probation or parole after having completed their sentences. Approximately 2,600,000 citizens who have completed their sentences remain disenfranchised due to restrictive State laws. In six States: Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia--more than 7 percent of the total population is disenfranchised.

Studies show that a growing number of African-American men, for example, will be disenfranchised at some point in their life, partly due to mandatory minimum sentencing laws that have a disproportionate impact on minorities.

Eight percent of the African-American population, or 2 million African-Americans, are disenfranchised. Given current rates of incarceration, approximately 1 in 3 of the next generation of African- American men will be disenfranchised at some point during their lifetime. Currently, 1 of every 13 African-Americans are rendered unable to vote because of felony disenfranchisement, which is a rate 4 times greater than non African-Americans. Nearly 8 percent of African- Americans are disenfranchised, compared to less than 2 percent of non- African-Americans. In 3 states more than 1 in 5 African-Americans are unable to vote because of prior convictions: the rates are Florida at 23 percent, Kentucky at 22 percent, and Virginia at 20 percent.

Latino citizens are disproportionately disenfranchised based on their disproportionate representation in the criminal justice system. If current incarceration trends hold, 17 percent of Latino men will be incarcerated during their lifetime, in contrast to less than 6 percent of non-Latino white men. When analyzing the data across 10 States, Latinos generally have disproportionately higher rates of disenfranchisement compared to their presence in the voting age population. In 6 out of 10 States studies in 2003, Latinos constitute more than 10 percent of the total number of persons disenfranchised by State felony laws. In 4 States, California, 37 percent; New York, 34 percent; Texas, 30 percent; and Arizona, 27 percent, Latinos were disenfranchised by a rate of more than 25 percent. Native Americans are also disproportionately disenfranchised.

Congress has addressed part of this problem by enacting the Fair Sentencing Act to partially reduce the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine convictions. Congress is now considering legislation

that would more broadly revise mandatory sentencing procedures and create a fairer system of sentencing. While I welcome these steps, I believe that Congress should take stronger action now to remedy this particular problem.

The legislation would restore voting rights to prisoners after their release from incarceration. It requires that prisons receiving Federal funds notify people about their right to vote in Federal elections when they are leaving prison, sentenced to probation, or convicted of a misdemeanor. The bill authorizes the Department of Justice and individuals harmed by violation of this act to sue to enforce its provisions. The bill generally provides State election officials with a grace period to resolve voter eligibility complaints without a lawsuit before an election.

The legislation is narrowly crafted to apply to Federal elections, and retains the States' authorities to generally establish voting qualifications. This legislation is therefore consistent with Congressional authority under the Constitution and voting rights statutes, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I am pleased that this legislation has been endorsed by a large coalition of public interest organizations, including: civil rights and reform organizations; religious and faith-based organizations; and law enforcement and criminal justice organizations. In particular I want to thank the Brennan Center for Justice, the ACLU, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the NAACP for their work on this legislation.

This legislation is ultimately designed to reduce recidivism rates and help reintegrate ex-prisoners back into society. When prisoners are released, they are expected to obey the law, get a job, and pay taxes as they are rehabilitated and reintegrated into their community. With these responsibilities and obligations of citizenship should also come the rights of citizenship, including the right to vote.

In 2008, President George W. Bush signed the Second Chance Act into law, after overwhelming approval and strong bipartisan support in Congress. The legislation expanded the Prison Re-Entry Initiative, by providing job training, placement services, transitional housing, drug treatment, medical care, and faith-based mentoring. At the signing ceremony, President Bush said: ``We believe that even those who have struggled with a dark past can find brighter days ahead. One way we act on that belief is by helping former prisoners who have paid for their crimes. We help them build new lives as productive members of our society.''

The Democracy Restoration Act is fully consistent with the goals of the Second Chance Act, as Congress and the States seek to reduce recidivism rates, strengthen the quality of life in our communities and make them safer, and reduce the burden on taxpayers.

More recently, in a February 2014 speech, Attorney General Eric Holder called on elected officials to reexamine disenfranchisement statutes and enact reforms to restore voting rights.

I therefore urge Congress to address the issue of disenfranchisement and support this legislation.

I thank Senator Shaheen for her leadership on these issues and so many other issues in the Senate. I listened to the Senator's comments and I fully concur in the information the Senator has brought forward, that paycheck fairness is not just a matter of fairness for women, it is a matter of fairness for our country. Not only will women benefit, our economy will benefit and our country will benefit by making sure that equal pay for equal work is what happens in our country.

I thank the Senator, and I yield.

It is not just my wife, I also have two beautiful grandchildren, granddaughters, and they are going to do just fine, but I want to make sure they are treated fairly in the workplace--and I want all people treated fairly in the workplace.

I thank Senator Shaheen. As I said, equal pay for equal work. Paycheck fairness is truly an American value. I thank all our leaders here. I particularly want to acknowledge Senator Mikulski, my colleague from Maryland, for her extraordinary leadership on pay equity issues, on this particular issue of paycheck fairness, and for the work she has done throughout her whole career as a real leader on gender issues.

As Senator Shaheen pointed out, today is Equal Pay Day, and the reason for that is women, on average, earn about 77 percent of what a man earns for doing the same work. We are not talking about different work, but we are talking about doing the exact same work that women are discriminated against in the amount of compensation they receive. So on average women have to work 3 additional months every year to earn the same amount of money a man earns for doing the same work. That is not right and it needs to change.

Today I was at the White House with the President and some of our colleagues. Lilly Ledbetter was there. I know the Presiding Officer recalls that Lilly Ledbetter has been one of the real leaders on pay equity. She worked at Goodyear for over 20 years, and after being there for two decades she found out from one of her coworkers--who anonymously passed along information to her about what people were making--that for 20 years she was receiving less compensation for doing the exact same work her male counterparts were doing. She had no idea about this. There was no justification for the difference. So she decided she would do something about it, not just for herself but for those who are in the workplace and should be treated fairly.

So she filed an action and she took this case all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, but guess what the Supreme Court did. They said: Lilly Ledbetter, you are right. You were discriminated against. You were paid less because of your gender, but guess what. Because it has been going on for so long, you don't have any remedy. Now that is absolutely ridiculous, that 5-to-4 decision of the Supreme Court.

That cost Lilly Ledbetter hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost compensation as a result of that discriminatory action. So Congress took action and changed that, and I was proud to be part of the Congress that cast that vote. It was the first bill signed by President Obama shortly after he took office, and I remember the pride we all had that we were able to take a major step forward on behalf of an enforceable right for women to be paid equal pay for equal work.

But the job wasn't done. Tomorrow we can take another giant step forward by advancing, and I hope enacting, the Paycheck Fairness Act. I hope colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this legislation so we can continue to make progress down this road of equal pay for equal work.

In the White House today President Obama took action on his own. As he has said he would, he used his Executive power to do what he can to advance the cause of equality in this

country. So he signed two Executive orders. The first is what we call the sunshine executive order that will require Federal contractors to allow their employees to share information about their salaries. They can no longer take retaliatory action because coworkers share their salary information. The second Executive order will require contractors to provide information to the Department of Labor as to what their salary and compensation amounts are based on gender so there can be a record to make sure employers that are doing work for the Federal Government and that are benefiting from the U.S. taxpayers are doing the right thing as far as equal pay for equal work.

These are two very important changes the President has instituted through the use of the power of the White House. We can do something permanent about it by the passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act. That is our responsibility, and I hope we will get that done. It will make a better America. As we pointed out, yes, it is about women being treated fairly in the workplace, it is about my two granddaughters being treated fairly in the workplace, but it is also about our economy and it is about our values. It is all of the above.

I might also mention that it affects retirement security. Because women aren't paid as much, they do not have as much money when they retire. They are more strapped when it comes to how they spend their money. They have less money available for their retirement security. Women over the age of 50 receive only about 56 percent of what men of similar age receive in pension benefits because they haven't earned as much. A good part of that is because they are not being paid fairly in the workplace. Paycheck fairness will certainly help.

We want to give a fair shot to every woman in this country. Many are the sole support for their families. Eliminating the wage gap will provide $450 billion of additional income into our economy. You know what that goes for. It goes to buy a new car or help pay for their children's education. It provides the wherewithal so women can go out and pay their rent, their mortgage payments, the wherewithal to take care of their families. They can even put money away for retirement so they have the security they need after they retire. It helps to grow a middle class in this country, and that is what we all should be about.

So paycheck fairness helps give women a fair shot of equal pay for equal work. It requires employers to demonstrate that wage disparities between men and women holding the same position and doing the same work are not related to their gender. That seems simple enough. Doing different work, obviously the pay is different. Same work, why is there a difference?

The bill ensures the remedies available to victims of gender discrimination are similar to the remedies available to those who are discriminated against based upon their race or national origin. We have in place a way we can correct this. We know how to use those tools. Let us also use them for those who have been discriminated against in their pay because of their gender.

The legislation updates the Equal Pay Act to make it more in line with class action procedures available under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This gives us an effective remedy to take care of a class of workers who have been discriminated against in the workplace, and it also prohibits employers--this is very important--from punishing or retaliating against workers who share salary information.

That is what the President did today with the stroke of his pen for those companies that do business with the Federal Government. We can make it universal in the workplace. We can shine a light on what is happening. As former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis observed: ``Sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant.'' We strive for greater transparency in our government because we know that will help provide a better government. So we allow our workers to share information without fear that they will be discriminated against or that actions will be taken against them by their employer.

Our mission as Senators is clearly written in the first few words contained in the preamble of the Constitution. Our mission is to ``form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.''

Paycheck fairness is essential for our carrying out that mission. I urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Madam President, the numbers are in--over 7 million Americans have enrolled through the health exchanges around the Nation.

When we passed the Affordable Care Act 4 years ago, projections were that we would hit the 7 million mark of enrollees at the close of the first year of enrollment. We have exceeded those numbers. We have exceeded those numbers even though we had a very rough rollout of the exchanges and people were frustrated when they couldn't get information as quickly as they wanted. But Americans wanted insurance, and they knew they could get affordable coverage, so they stuck with it and now we know that, in fact, over 7 million have enrolled.

When we see the final numbers, those numbers are going to go up because there were a lot of people in the process of signing up online on March 31 and the processing has not been completed. So we will see more. Plus, we have the Medicaid expansion, which is going to bring millions more with health insurance coverage than we had before.

Over the last 4 years we have seen incredible progress and help going out to all Americans with their health coverage and their health costs. No longer do we have preexisting conditions. A family who has a child with asthma doesn't have to worry whether that asthma will be considered a preexisting condition to full coverage. A woman does not have to worry about having a child being a preexisting condition to full coverage. Parents can keep their adult children on their insurance policies until the age of 26. There are no longer any caps on insurance. Many Americans thought they had insurance coverage only to go through a serious illness and find their insurance had a cap that did not cover all the expenses. No longer do families have to worry about being forced into bankruptcy because of an illness or an injury.

Our seniors now have much stronger coverage under Medicare, with preventive care covered without any deductibles. Prescription drug coverage is now more complete with that so-called doughnut hole--that coverage gap--being filled. And the solvency of the Medicare trust fund has been extended by a decade.

Small business owners have a choice of the types of plans they want. They do not have to worry about one person in their employment getting sick during the year and causing an astronomical increase in their premiums. They also have help and affordability in paying for their health insurance for their employees.

Community health centers have been expanded and offer such coverage as prenatal care. In my own State of Maryland we are seeing the low birth weight baby numbers declining and infant mortality rates going down. We are now providing more pediatric dental services within the community. That is all as a result of the Affordable Care Act.

So we now have passed the March 31 date and the first year of enrollment. Many Americans now have affordable quality health care and a choice. They have a good product at a reasonable cost.

Everybody hears the numbers, but I want to go through a few--and I have literally hundreds--of the letters I have received from real people whose real lives have been affected. They are one of those 7.1 million people, and we could read millions of accounts just like this. This is from Dr. Michael L. of Cecil County in a letter to the Baltimore Sun. He said:

My wife and I would like to thank President Barack Obama

for helping us save almost $4,000 a year on health care. I am

61 years old with a preexisting condition of asthma, which is

under control with medication. Yet before the Affordable Care

Act, my insurance company felt it necessary to charge me 25

percent more for my insurance coverage. I'm sure there are

many others like myself with preexisting conditions who will

see a savings on their coverage. The public should know that

since Fox News and the GOP would have us believe ObamaCare

helps no one and will cost everyone more.

This is from Colleen F. of Anne Arundel County, and she posted on our Facebook.

Senator--I am 26 years old and have been on COBRA paying

$570 a month for coverage because of a pre-existing

condition--asthma. I want to thank you for fighting for the

ACA!! I applied recently . . . and was accepted into the

program. I now pay $243 a month with a $500 deductible! Thank

you thank you thank you! Affordable health care is a human

right--thank you for fighting on my behalf!

Kelly ``M'' wrote:

I have a new plan. I haven't had insurance for years. When

I applied for insurance before, I was denied for pre-existing

conditions, even for plans with huge deductibles. I signed up

on the Maryland Healthcare Exchange back in October, and by

January 1st, I was holding an insurance card from Carefirst

Blueshield and have already had my first doctor's

appointment. It works. I am proof. And I'm so grateful that I

can take care of myself with dignity without having to go to

the ER whenever I'm sick or have to spend half my paycheck at

an urgent care center. I can do all of the preventative

measures that I have been putting off, and get back on the

road to health. It's a good feeling.

Pam S. of Frederick County, MD, wrote:

My daughter and I met with a Navigator from the ``Door to

HealthCare'' . . . to discuss applying for health care. We

had been having problems with the enrollment process. I had

been paying for a separate plan for her and now she is paying

$55 less per month. Now my daughter gets to have a

comprehensive plan, cheaper than before and without any

interruption on her coverage. Thank you!

Ryan, from Prince George's County, has aged out of her parents' insurance. Ryan was suffering from asthma and a sinus infection, but she was unable to afford a doctor's visit on her own. After attending a local Affordable Care Act information session, she logged onto the Maryland Health Benefit Exchange and was able to go through the entire process and pick an affordable health plan. She is now insured and able to get the treatment she needs.

Ryan is 26 years old. Those under 26 can be on their parents' policy. We talk about young people who think they will never need insurance. I was in downtown Baltimore over the weekend at a fair where we were enrolling people in the Affordable Care Act. I saw many people of Ryan's age--young people over 26 years of age, who were there to find out whether this was right for them. When they left, they held an insurance card. They had enrolled because they found out how reasonable the price was for a young person to get comprehensive coverage.

I have quite a few more, and maybe on a later date I will come back and read some of the other letters I have received. But the point I want to bring up is we have fundamentally changed the health care system from a system that was basically a sick system--only if you got sick, figured out how to pay your bills, maybe you went through bankruptcy--to a health care system where we keep people healthy, where we provide for comprehensive preventive health care so people can stay out of emergency rooms and hospitals.

Yes, we have benefited those who had no health insurance. Millions of people now have coverage who didn't have coverage before the Affordable Care Act. We have brought them into the system. They don't have to fear bankruptcy. They can take care of themselves, and they can do it in a more cost-effective way for all of us.

We have helped our seniors. No question about it. They now have more comprehensive benefits, and they have a system that is on a more stable financial footing.

But we also have helped those who already had insurance. We have helped them by giving them a better product, by making sure the premiums insurance companies charge are used for patients' benefits and not excessive profits. They must spend 80 to 85 percent; otherwise, they have to give a rebate.

We have gotten people out of the emergency room. I was asked on C- SPAN today: Well, aren't we helping the providers? After all, people who go to hospitals now are more likely to pay their bills. Absolutely right. But guess who paid for that uncompensated care. Those of us who had insurance. Our premiums were higher as a result of people not paying their bills. Well, now they are going to be paying their bills. First of all, they are going to stay out of the hospital which will save us all money. But if they need to be in the hospital, they will have the insurance coverage to pay for it.

The Affordable Care Act has worked for all of us by bringing down the growth rate of health care costs, by making the system more efficient. Today I think we can acknowledge the fundamentals are sound. People are taking advantage of it. We hope, as we go forward, more and more will.

One final point. When Medicare Part D was passed and we projected the number of seniors who would take advantage of it, we hit about 70 percent of our projection in the first year. On the Affordable Care Act and the health exchanges, we are over 100 percent. This program is working. People know it. The more they know about it, the more they like what they see.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise with my colleagues Senator Feinstein and Senator Schatz to introduce the Energy Efficiency Tax Incentives Act.

Encouraging energy efficiency improvements is a smart and cost- effective way to reduce pollution, increase the competitiveness of our employers, and to create jobs in both our construction and manufacturing sectors.

As I have discussed previously on the floor of the Senate, our energy problem in this country can be primarily attributed to a waste problem. Recently, the Department of Energy calculated that we waste 57 percent of all energy produced.

Our goal in introducing this bill is to prevent that waste by providing focused incentives that encourage significant improvements in energy efficiency and truly innovative energy efficiency technologies.

While my colleagues will explain how the bill does this for our homes and the industrial sector, I would like to focus on how our bill improves energy efficiency outcomes for commercial and multifamily buildings.

About 40 percent of energy consumption in the United States comes from our buildings, and up to 80 percent of the buildings standing today will still be here in 2050. Encouraging efficiency in new construction, and making these existing buildings more efficient, would generate billions of dollars in energy savings, spur job creation, and reduce carbon emissions.

Until January 1, 2014, Section 179D of the Internal Revenue Code provided a tax deduction that allowed for cost recovery regarding energy efficient energy efficiency improvements to a building's lighting, HVAC, and envelope.

Typically, the cost of energy consumption is part of a business's expenses and thus immediately deductible. Section 179D was an important provision because it aligned the Internal Revenue Code to similarly incentivize energy savings through efficiency improvements. In terms of meeting our energy demands, some of the cheapest and cleanest energy we have is the energy we don't use because of these improvements.

Unfortunately, the 179D deduction expired at the end of 2013. As we move forward with tax extenders, it is critical that this provision be restored.

Our bill restores the 179D deduction by extending it through 2016. In addition, our bill makes commonsense reforms to that section.

We update the energy efficiency standards that must be met to qualify for the 179D deduction, including by providing automatic standard updates for the years the deduction is available. We want to be sure that this incentive is going to technologies that meet truly efficient standards.

We also make the deduction more accessible to all real estate owners and those involved in implementing energy efficiency improvements, including through updated partial deduction standards and allocation provisions.

Finally, the bill recognizes that, in the same way we encourage new construction to meet these standards, we should encourage energy efficiency retrofits.

Our current tax policies do not yet provide an effective incentive for retrofitting our existing building stock. For example, the Empire State Building retrofit project, which will reduce that building's energy consumption by 40 percent, did not qualify for a section 179D deduction under its current structure.

Our bill would provide a deduction for retrofits of existing commercial and multifamily buildings to further encourage retrofit projects. Like section 179D, the deduction would be performance-based to encourage ambitious improvements and make the credit more accessible to building owners.

Before turning to my colleagues, I would like to reiterate that America's energy and economic future requires a focus on these energy incentives. Initiatives like our bill are needed not only to generate jobs, and savings for businesses and taxpayers, but also to improve our environment and make our nation more energy secure.

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

Mr. President, today I rise with my colleagues Senator Feinstein and Senator Schatz to introduce the Energy Efficiency Tax Incentives Act.

Encouraging energy efficiency improvements is a smart and cost- effective way to reduce pollution, increase the competitiveness of our employers, and to create jobs in both our construction and manufacturing sectors.

As I have discussed previously on the floor of the Senate, our energy problem in this country can be primarily attributed to a waste problem. Recently, the Department of Energy calculated that we waste 57 percent of all energy produced.

Our goal in introducing this bill is to prevent that waste by providing focused incentives that encourage significant improvements in energy efficiency and truly innovative energy efficiency technologies.

While my colleagues will explain how the bill does this for our homes and the industrial sector, I would like to focus on how our bill improves energy efficiency outcomes for commercial and multifamily buildings.

About 40 percent of energy consumption in the United States comes from our buildings, and up to 80 percent of the buildings standing today will still be here in 2050. Encouraging efficiency in new construction, and making these existing buildings more efficient, would generate billions of dollars in energy savings, spur job creation, and reduce carbon emissions.

Until January 1, 2014, Section 179D of the Internal Revenue Code provided a tax deduction that allowed for cost recovery regarding energy efficient energy efficiency improvements to a building's lighting, HVAC, and envelope.

Typically, the cost of energy consumption is part of a business's expenses and thus immediately deductible. Section 179D was an important provision because it aligned the Internal Revenue Code to similarly incentivize energy savings through efficiency improvements. In terms of meeting our energy demands, some of the cheapest and cleanest energy we have is the energy we don't use because of these improvements.

Unfortunately, the 179D deduction expired at the end of 2013. As we move forward with tax extenders, it is critical that this provision be restored.

Our bill restores the 179D deduction by extending it through 2016. In addition, our bill makes commonsense reforms to that section.

We update the energy efficiency standards that must be met to qualify for the 179D deduction, including by providing automatic standard updates for the years the deduction is available. We want to be sure that this incentive is going to technologies that meet truly efficient standards.

We also make the deduction more accessible to all real estate owners and those involved in implementing energy efficiency improvements, including through updated partial deduction standards and allocation provisions.

Finally, the bill recognizes that, in the same way we encourage new construction to meet these standards, we should encourage energy efficiency retrofits.

Our current tax policies do not yet provide an effective incentive for retrofitting our existing building stock. For example, the Empire State Building retrofit project, which will reduce that building's energy consumption by 40 percent, did not qualify for a section 179D deduction under its current structure.

Our bill would provide a deduction for retrofits of existing commercial and multifamily buildings to further encourage retrofit projects. Like section 179D, the deduction would be performance-based to encourage ambitious improvements and make the credit more accessible to building owners.

Before turning to my colleagues, I would like to reiterate that America's energy and economic future requires a focus on these energy incentives. Initiatives like our bill are needed not only to generate jobs, and savings for businesses and taxpayers, but also to improve our environment and make our nation more energy secure.

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

Mr. President, I thank Senator Wyden for his leadership in fixing this reimbursement structure under Medicare. I thank Senator Blunt and Senator Stabenow for their leadership on the mental health demonstration program that is in this--whatever bill we pass it will be in--because it is absolutely essential we address the growing problems in our community health networks. So I thank both of them for their bipartisan leadership.

The current way we reimburse physicians under Medicare is broken. The SGR system has been broken since it was passed in 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act. We have had 16 temporary patches to the SGR system, and it has created uncertainty not just among the medical community as to what the reimbursement rate will be for Medicare patients, but it has caused uncertainty among Medicare patients as to whether they know their doctor will be there to treat them for their illnesses. If we don't fix the problem and let it go off the cliff, we will see a 24-percent cut in reimbursements to physicians under Medicare. That is not sustainable. As we know, it would affect access for our seniors and the disabled to their doctors. We have to fix this problem. It expires today, March 31. So we have to take action.

We have two choices. One is we could take advantage of the opportunity to not just make sure we don't go off the cliff but to actually fix the problem. That is what Senator Wyden has been able to put together, with Senator Hatch and with our colleagues in the House-- a replacement that will actually work, that will actually reward physicians for taking good care of their patients by managing their care, by bringing down the costs of health care, by managing our delivery system, taking high-cost patients, treating them so their illnesses are treated, but also done in a more cost-effective way. That is what the replacement would do if we could pass a permanent fix to the SGR physician reimbursement structure in Medicare. We have a bipartisan proposal. That bipartisan proposal will reward proper delivery of care.

It also takes care of the therapy caps and others of the health care extenders. I mention that because Senator Collins and I have been working for a long time to try to get a permanent replacement to the arbitrary cap on therapy services. That was also put in the 1997 BBA-- Balanced Budget Act. That put an arbitrary cap on therapy services, so the more severely a person is injured, the more severe a person's illness, the less services they will be able to get that they need in order to be able to take care of the illness or injury. That makes absolutely no sense at all. So we fixed it.

Why are we debating this, with strong bipartisan support? Because there are two proposals out there. One is the proposal Senator Wyden brought forward that fixes the problem, that substitutes a rational system, and it is paid for. I could argue it has been paid for many times over. It has been paid for because we have already passed patches that have been paid for--$153 billion. That is more than this permanent fix costs. Who has paid that $153 billion? It has been clinical labs; it has been skilled nursing facilities; it has been community health. All have paid for a problem they didn't create within the Medicare system. This has been paid for already. It has been paid for already many times. It is current policy.

No one expects us to go off the cliff. Senator Wyden, in an effort to try to deal with this in an upfront way--CBO is now scoring this proposal to be a little over $118 billion. That is a bargain considering just a couple of years ago it was $300 billion over a 10- year period. I remember in 2005, I filed a fix of this bill with then- Congressman Clay Shaw--bipartisan bill. It scored at $50 billion. This has been paid for many times over.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 additional minutes.

I thank the Chair.

Senator Wyden, in an effort to try to accommodate everyone here, said, OK, we will take the cost savings that are already in the House bill--I could argue that really has nothing to do with the physician problem, but it is one I think we could agree on so we have real cost savings of over $20 billion that Senator Wyden has put in this bill. He said, we have these scored savings under the contingency operations; let's use that if people feel we have to have an offset, even though we have already paid for it over and over again.

So we have two options: Another temporary fix with continuing uncertainty, continuing this problem down the road, asking those who didn't cause it to pay for it, even though it has already been paid for before or we could really take care of it and tell our medical community: Let's work on other

issues to improve our health care system rather than coming here every year and asking for a temporary extension of the Medicare physician reimbursement structure and not allowing the SGR system to take effect. Those are the two options we have.

So I come here to thank Senator Wyden for putting forward a proposal that would fix it, that would really do it, so we wouldn't have to come back again next year, so Congress could really get something done. It is bipartisan, bicameral. The fix has already been signed off by the House and the Senate. Senator Wyden has come up with a plan that allows us to be fiscally responsible.

I urge my colleagues to go down the path of fixing the physician reimbursement structure so we can take that uncertainty out of the Medicare law, do what is right for our Medicare beneficiaries so they have the certainty of their care under Medicare, and do it in a fiscally responsible way.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

I rise to speak about the tragic death of a fellow Marylander, PO2 Mark Mayo. His heroic sacrifice is the truest display of the U.S. Navy's core values of honor, courage, and commitment. The U.S. Navy confirmed yesterday that PO2 Mark Mayo put himself in harm's way to save his shipmate. On behalf of a grateful nation and on behalf of my fellow Senators, I offer condolences to the families, friends, and shipmates of Petty Officer Mayo.

The tragic events this past Monday evening are still under investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, but what we know so far is that at approximately 11:20 p.m. there was a shooting on board the destroyer Mahan.

A civilian who was behaving erratically approached the Mahan's quarterdeck and was confronted by the ship's petty officer of the watch. The two engaged in a struggle and the civilian was able to disarm the sailor.

Petty Officer Mayo, serving as the chief of the guard, witnessed the fight and ran to the quarterdeck and placed himself between the civilian and his shipmate, the petty officer of the watch. The civilian opened fire and fatally wounded Petty Officer Mayo.

U.S. Navy CAPT Robert Clark, Norfolk Naval Station's commanding officer, said:

Petty Officer Mayo's actions were nothing less than heroic;

he selflessly gave his own life to ensure the safety of the

sailors on board.

Petty Officer Mayo's parents, Sharon Blair and Decondi Mayo, said their son's actions reflected his strong, caring nature. As his mother put it: ``He protected people. He was a protector.''

Petty Officer Mayo was born in Washington, DC, and moved with his family to Hagerstown, MD, in 1998. He enlisted in the Navy in 2007, 4 months after graduating from Williamsport High School, where he was a Washington County wrestling champion, because he wanted to serve his country and because the Navy offers educational opportunities. He enlisted in the Navy, and he reported to Naval Station Norfolk in May of 2011. Petty Officer Mayo's mother, who is a geriatric nursing assistant, said he always wanted to work in law enforcement.

Randy Longnecker, Petty Officer Mayo's former guidance counselor at Williamsport High School, recalled him as a kind and easygoing student who earned good grades, saying:

He always wanted to make sure he was doing the right thing.

He liked athletics and being part of a team. He must have

fallen in love with the Navy.

Petty Officer Mayo served tours of duty in Rota, Spain, and in Bahrain. He earned the Good Conduct Award, the National Defense Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the Navy and Marine Corps Overseas Service Ribbon. He was a distinguished member of the Navy.

Americans are privileged and fortunate to have such brave and outstanding young men and women serving in our Armed Forces. We must never forget the sacrifices they and their families make on our behalf in defense of freedom.

Petty Officer Mayo has made the ultimate sacrifice. While his death is tragic, we should remember and honor the way he lived and how he voluntarily chose to save a fellow sailor from harm. He is an American hero.

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