Floor Statements

Mr. President, first let me salute my colleague from Connecticut for bringing us all together to talk about this important issue, the good words of my colleague from Oregon--always on the money, always understanding what average folks need

and have to go through--and, as well, our sponsors of this legislation. I salute Senators Warren and Franken, who are our two lead sponsors.

The bottom line is very simple. It is amazing to think that there are 40 million Americans and their families--at a time when interest rates are at about a record low--who are paying 7 to 14 percent on their student loans. It is amazing to think that the average student graduates with over $30,000 of loans on his or her back. It is amazing to think that so many of our young people are living at home because they cannot afford not to because of student loans. Thirty-six percent of all individuals between 18 and 31 live with their parents--the highest percentage in 4 decades.

Why should people be paying more? And even more outrageous, guess who is making the profit much of the time? Sometimes it is the private banks. That is bad enough, but sometimes it is the Federal Government. For the Federal Government to charge people nearly double the going rate for their student loans is so unfair.

So we Democrats are hoping to give people a fair shot, a fair shot at being able to repay the cost of college at a reasonable interest rate. That is all we want. We are dedicated to helping the middle class, to helping working people, to helping people who do not have so much money get a fair shot at living decently well, the way they always have in America but in a way that is beginning to decline.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we would beg of them not to stand in the way but to join us. How do they defend charging those who have graduated from college 7, 10, even 14 percent for their student loans?

Now, we just got a CBO score. Our bill, which is paid for by simply the Buffett rule, which says that someone making over $1 million should pay the same rate as their secretary, as an average person.

Well, that is how we pay for it. Again, I cannot believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would disagree with that. Anyway, we have a $21 billion net positive on our bill. So for anyone who is worried that we do not pay for the bill, we actually pay for the bill and return some money to the Treasury. So a fair shot is what is needed here, a fair shot for everyone to afford college.

Last year we lowered the interest rate for people already in college. But what about the 40 million who are out of college and are saddled with high interest rates, people who got out of college before 2010? Let's not forget the effect this has on the rest of the economy and new homes. Young people are not buying homes at the rate they used to-- first time home buyers. Why? Well, one of the reasons--we cannot quantify how much yet, but we will be doing that--is that they are saddled with so much student debt at high interest rates.

So it affects our entire economy because construction jobs are not up to what they should be. A large part of that is because people are not buying homes the way they used to. So the bottom line is, it is very hard to resist the logic of the proposal that Senators Warren and Franken have put together.

Here are some numbers from my State. Fifty-four percent of Long Islanders between the ages of 25 and 29 live at home with their parents or relatives--more than one in two. Amazing. That is the American dream, to be able to get out of college and go live on your own, find a job, maybe find the person you want to spend the rest of your life with. That is the American dream. It is a lot harder to do that when you are living at home, as much as we all love our parents. But because of student debt, because of high interest rates on student debt, people are forced to do that.

So, again, I thank all of my colleagues who have joined in our fair shot effort--our fair shot effort on minimum wage, our fair shot effort on pay equity, and our fair shot effort on college affordability. We will continue to fight as hard as we can to see that the average middle-class family is finally given a fair shot. We hope and we pray our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will not stand in the way.

I know my colleagues from Connecticut and from Minnesota, who has been a great leader on this--and very few in America, let alone in this Senate, have such an understanding of the needs of average families and the middle class than the Senator from Minnesota. So I am happy to yield the floor so she may say a few--what I am sure will be very prescient--words.

First, let me compliment our new chairman of the Finance Committee. He is doing a great job on this bill. He is keeping the tenor bipartisan as he has done throughout his whole career. He has only been there a short while, but he is taking to the chairmanship like a fish to water.

I wish to follow up. There is so much that is bipartisan in this bill. It was a bipartisan bill that passed out of committee unanimously. I worked on an amendment with Senator Roberts that Senator Coons had originated for the R&D credit with Senators Cardin, Isakson, and Blunt to improve the section 181 live production incentive so we keep the film industry here, not London or Canada; Senators Portman and Cardin worked on energy efficiency; Senators Brown and Portman on disadvantaged workers; and Cantwell and Roberts on low-income housing tax credit. The list goes on and on. As a result, this bill has broad support: the Business Roundtable, Grover Norquist, as well as the NEA and Feeding America.

So where are we. And I would like to further elaborate on what the chairman has said. We are willing to vote on amendments.

I always think of my dear friend from Tennessee, Lamar Alexander, who remembers how the place used to work and constantly reminds us--and that is a very good and salutary thing in this body. He would say on most bills there would be bipartisan support in the committee. The ranking member and the chair would get together with a list of amendments, each for his or her side, and they would come up with the list.

We are willing to do that. In fact, Leader Reid has been extremely generous. He said we are not going to decide it should be this one and not that one, as long as the amendments are germane to this extenders bill. Of course we can't open the whole Tax Code for debate or debate the merits of the ACA on this bill. This is not the type of bill to do that.

It is a bipartisan bill, as Chairman Wyden outlined, that is very necessary. So we would plead, almost, with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, for the sake of the country, come up with some amendments, a list. If it is 100, obviously Senators Wyden and Hatch will have to whittle it down. If it is five or six from your side and five or six from our side and they are germane to extenders, we will have to vote them up or down.

But the cry from the other side--which I have sympathy with, even though I don't agree that they tell the whole story--is let us do amendments. We are answering that plea. Leader Reid has made it clear, Chairman Wyden has made it clear we are not going to pick and say we will do this one and not that one.

The only two limits that I can tell are time--we can't do 100 or 200 of these, but as the Senator from Tennessee constantly reminds us, that is not going to happen--nor can we go far afield way beyond the bounds of this bill. Germaneness makes sense in such a bipartisan and important bill, but other than that, let's let it rip.

I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are discussing this. I know they are very serious about it. I have talked to colleagues on the floor, in the gym, and in the corridors of these bodies about getting this done.

It is so important for the country. Even beyond that, if we can't work in a bipartisan way on this bill, which was put together by Senators Wyden and Hatch in such a bipartisan way, which has so much input from both sides of the aisle and where the offer is let's do amendments, not picking and choosing--we will pick this one, not that one--simply limited to what the bill is all about, germaneness, then we will not get anything done.

I want my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--on my side of the aisle, so many Members--and I sympathize with them--who desire to legislate and do

amendments, we have made that offer. Harry, the leader, the chairman, and I am fully part of this, have made the offer to let's do amendments.

We hope the folks on the other side--it is sort of a little bit of a test. I am not throwing down any kind of gauntlet, but if we can't come up with a way to legislate on this bill, a bipartisan bill that has the support of the left, right, and center, that everyone agrees with, as Senator Wyden outlined how much America needs them, what are we going to be able to be legislate?

We have a little time. We have 1 week where we can discuss this while we are in our districts working away. Let's get this done. I plead with my colleagues--``plead'' is the right word, the right verb--come up with a list. We will come up with our list, and then let's roll up our sleeves, get to work on the floor, and pass this bill.

I believe if we do, the other body will. The other body--one other point--has different ideas. They want to make a few of these permanent. That is a legitimate amendment in the bounds that Leader Reid has talked about. Let's vote on it. Let's debate it and vote on it. That is what we are supposed to do. If the other body's wisdom prevails, it will make it easier to pass the bill. Even if the other body's wisdom doesn't prevail, they will see that our body has a chance to debate it and decide on it.

Again, we are willing not to pick amendments--I know there is a complaint on the other side of the aisle that our leadership picks which amendments. We are not doing that. All we are saying is they ought to be germane to tax extenders, focused on the issue at hand, which is the extenders. This is not a bill that came out of a figment of the imagination of four Democratic Senators with no Republican input.

If we can't legislate on this bill, then what bill can we? I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, ask them to get us the list they come up with of amendments they wish to vote on.

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

Mr. President, after I speak, I ask unanimous consent my friend and colleague from Utah be given the floor.

I thank him for letting me say a few words.

Tax Extenders

I was listening to the debate between the majority leader and the minority leader, and I just wanted to be clear. The tax extender bill was negotiated very well by Senators Wyden and Hatch, with many of us in the committee participating, and it was truly a bipartisan product. The ideas in there, I would probably say, were half Republican and half Democratic.

Senator Hatch made a very good point. He said that is only about 25 percent of the Senate. What about everybody else? If we have no amendments, no one else can legislate.

I want to clarify our offer. Senator McConnell said amendments on the whole Tax Code should be allowed. That is no way to legislate. That goes the opposite way. The Finance Committee knows the Tax Code, and as a result they should get first crack at it; otherwise, we may as well not have a committee system. But we should allow amendments that are relevant or germane to the extenders. There were many extenders. Many Members who are not on the committee probably have many ideas about how to change those amendments--make them longer, make them shorter.

The House actually took three of our extenders and made them permanent. Maybe that is a debate our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to have, which would be a very legitimate debate, even though some people might say that costs too much or it leaves out some extenders, et cetera. Maybe some of them don't want to have certain extenders in the legislation. Knock them out or enrich them. All of these things are possible.

Instead of Senator McConnell's offer--any amendment on the whole Tax Code--Senator Wyden offered to Senator Hatch that the Republicans give us a list of amendments they propose, and then the two of them would sit down and negotiate that list. There will be Democratic amendments-- I think there are 30 or 40 on Senator Wyden's list--and Republican amendments on Senator Hatch's list. The two of them are outstanding legislators. They get along well, and we could come up with a list and actually move this bill with amendments. That is what I hope will happen over the weekend and on Tuesday we can move forward.

To me, the offer of Leader Reid and Senator Wyden makes eminent sense. It is how we used to legislate. We didn't lay it open for every amendment. When the committee chair and ranking member agreed on a bill--Lamar Alexander, my good friend from Tennessee, has reiterated this to me over and over--we would then go to the floor and the two of them would work it out, providing fairness to both sides of the aisle since each of them has the respect of their leadership.

Again, our offer is plain and simple: Show us your amendments, and we will show you our amendments. Let them be relevant and germane to the bill before us, which is tax extenders, and we will be very reasonable and accommodating so we can move the bill forward, pass it, and have a debate on improving it with amendments that come up on both sides.

With that, I thank my good friend from Utah for yielding the floor and letting me speak ahead of him.

I yield the floor to the Presiding Officer.

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

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

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

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

Immigration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and fairly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I had the power, the authority to kill everything

immigration-wise that comes through the House, if they

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

had the gavel that controls the immigration issue, that would

be nice.

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

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

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

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

run a candidate in 2016.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope immigration reform passes this year.

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

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize New York City's 47th Street Business Improvement District, 47th Street BID. The 47th Street BID is a not-for-profit organization formed in 1997 by the merchants and landlords of the Diamond District, one of New York City's best known and most vibrant economic areas. The 47th Street BID has been instrumental in establishing the Diamond District as a central hub for the world's diamond and jewelry industries and has worked to cement its place as a powerhouse component of New York's economy.

The Diamond District, which consists of one block in midtown Manhattan--located on West 47th Street between Fifth Avenue and Sixth Avenue--is home to a significant portion of New York's diamond manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers and serves as the home base for two industries that hold a great deal of importance for New York: the diamond industry, including both rough and wholesale diamonds, and the finished-jewelry industry. These two industries are extremely important to New York's tourism sector and are responsible for employing thousands of New Yorkers in highly-skilled jobs. New York City's diamond industry is also home to high-quality jewelry manufacturing, and aspiring artists come from all over the world to be trained in New York in the art of creating this much sought-after jewelry. The diamond and jewelry sector also supports a large number of high-profile, critical New York industries as well, including fashion, entertainment, and hospitality.

It is estimated that over half of the diamonds that come to the United States enter through New York, and the Diamond District is known all over the world as the international center for the diamond and jewelry trade. The Diamond District is also home to two foreign-trade zones--the International Gem Tower at 50 W. 47th Street and the World Diamond Tower at 580 Fifth Avenue, which also houses the 47th Street BID headquarters. People flock from all over the world to buy and sell diamonds and other gems in these free trade zones. The 47th Street BID has also been instrumental in enhancing the economic development activities of the Diamond District and making the area safer and more beautiful for merchants and consumers who work and shop there. The 47th Street BID also

installed flowers, holiday decorations, and banners in the Diamond District. It also recently undertook an initiative to keep the district clean--an initiative which is now one of the highest-rated sanitation programs in all of New York City. Additionally, the 47th Street BID developed and operates the Diamond District's website, which has become a key resource for shoppers and merchants alike, who rely on the site for referrals.

New York's Diamond District is an incredible example of how an industry can continuously grow and thrive in a competitive economic climate, and the 47th Street BID has played a large role in helping to make the Diamond District--and the people who work there--a tremendous success. By promoting the Diamond District, facilitating trade, and keeping the district clean and safe for customers, merchants, and traders alike, the 47th Street BID has ensured that this critical New York industry remains a power house within New York, a major economic engine for the city and State, and an international hub for this global industry.

Mr. President, I am going to be very brief, and I will come back tomorrow to speak at greater length.

One of the things Americans know is that college is becoming more of a necessity and is getting to be priced like more of a luxury. We can't have that. When college is a ticket to success--not just income success but even recent surveys show longevity and happiness--it is a crying shame when any American deserves to go to college but doesn't go or doesn't go to the right college because he or she can't afford it. We aim to change that in a variety of ways, but the one Senator Warren has talked about and taken the lead on is in terms of refinancing.

It is absolutely outrageous that students who got out of college in the last 5 to 20 years are paying 8 percent, 9 percent, and up to 13 percent in interest. If they took out a loan today, they would pay 3 percent or 4 percent. This puts huge burdens on their shoulders in their prime earning years and their family-forming years. It crimps the housing market because if you have $30,000 in student loans, you are not likely to take out a $100,000 mortgage.

So all we are asking for is a fair shot. If you deserve to go to college, you should have a fair shot at affording college. And if you have gone to college, you should have a fair shot at being able to pay your debts and live a decent life. It is very simple.

We Democrats are focusing our attention on what the average American needs, giving the average American a fair shot. And there is probably no place where that fair shot is less attainable than in college affordability and in acquired student loan debt.

I hope people will listen to us in the next several weeks. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--unlike on minimum wage or equal pay--will join us in coming up with a bipartisan proposal. I hope we can do something for these students--those who have already gone to college and are paying disproportionate interest and those who are going to college and need to afford it. Everyone deserves a fair shot in America, and they certainly deserve a fair shot, if they have earned a place in college, to afford that place in college.

I look forward to continuing this discussion and debate in the next several weeks to come.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to point out to my colleagues that more than 300 days have passed since we in the Senate passed bipartisan legislation that would secure our borders, hold employers accountable for hiring illegal workers, grow our economy, and provide a chance for people currently here illegally to get right with the law and earn legal status. But the House has failed to do anything to fix our broken immigration system--more than 300 days after we in the Senate passed bipartisan legislation.

To be clear, the problem is not that there is a difference of opinion between a House bill and a Senate bill on immigration that cannot be reconciled. The problem is that House Republicans have completely abdicated their responsibility to address important issues, such as fixing our broken immigration system.

Again, the problem is not that the House has passed laws that the Senate disagrees with. The problem is that the House will not put any immigration bills up for a vote, no matter what is in those bills. Now, why is that?

It is not because our immigration system is not broken. There is no Member of Congress who will stand and say: Our immigration system is great. Leave it alone. What is all the fuss about?

No one is happy with the present system. Finding a Member of Congress anywhere who will say we do not need to reform our broken immigration system is impossible.

The reason the House has done nothing on immigration is because House Republicans have handed the gavel of leadership on immigration to far- right extremists such as Congressman Steve King.

Congressman King is not a mainstream Republican on this issue. You cannot even call him a conservative on this issue. He is an extreme outlier on the issue of immigration reform.

Every time any Republican has raised the possibility of action on immigration reform in the House, Steve King is there, in his own words, ``manning the watchtowers 24/7'' to make sure nothing can be passed to fix our broken immigration system.

When Republicans such as Eric Cantor, hardly a flaming liberal, talked early in 2013 about introducing a bill called the KIDS Act which would allow minors brought here through no fault of their own to earn legal status if they served in the military or obtained a college degree, King said, ``For every child who's a valedictorian, there's another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds and they've got calves the size of cantaloupes because they're hauling

75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.''

The rhetoric of Steve King is beyond the pale. I am certain that the majority of Republicans in the House have their stomachs churn when they see Steven King spew that kind of rhetoric. But rather than stand up to him, they give him the keys to the kingdom of immigration reform. Just look at what happened after King protested. There was no KIDS Act introduced. Go look for the text of the KIDS Act on line. It does not exist. There is no bill. Not only was the KIDS Act never introduced, but House Republicans actually voted, nearly unanimously, to resume deporting minor children who had committed no crimes.

Another Republican, Jeff Denham, a Republican from California, who is also an Air Force reservist, recently proposed to let young people who came here illegally earn status by enlisting in the military. They love America so they would enlist in the military and risk their lives for this country. Here is what Denham said--paraphrasing him. He said: I know many of us do not want to vote on immigration. But we can at least tweak the Defense authorization bill to allow young people who were brought here illegally as minors through no fault of their own to serve in the military when they love this country and this is the only country they know.

To be clear, this measure is far short of comprehensive legislation that is needed to fix our broken system. This slight tweak is not even a drop of water in the Grand Canyon. Even for the small microscopic measure known as the ENLIST Act, Steve King responded, saying, ``Don't do it.'' And the Republicans did not.

Here is what King said:

As soon as they raise their hand and say I'm unlawfully

present in the U.S., we are not going to take your oath into

the military, but we're going to take your deposition and we

have a bus for you to Tijuana.

What happened when King said this? He won. The ENLIST Act was stricken from the Defense authorization bill. So not only are Republicans catering to the views of King and others on the far, far, extreme right on immigration by refusing to vote on any immigration reform, they actively promote anti-immigrant viewpoints by having passed a bill called the ENFORCE Act. You see, Steve King and his little group of far-right Members of Congress on immigration want to sue the Federal Government to require them to deport minor children, parents of U.S. citizens, and agricultural workers, rather than use all of its resources to focus on immigrants who are criminals, terrorists, and recent border crossers.

But Members of Congress, as most everyone knows, do not have standing to sue the Federal Government, because under our Constitution, Congressmen are not allowed to sue every time they disagree with a decision of the executive branch. Instead of thinking it was probably a good idea to focus our immigration enforcement resources on criminals, terrorists, and border crossers, once again Steve King said: Jump. And the Republican mainstream in the House said: How high? Republicans overwhelmingly voted to give King and others the ability to sue the Federal Government every single time a decision on immigration enforcement is made with which they disagree.

There are Republican colleagues in the House who do not have the views of Steve King. We know that. They can offer other excuses they want for failing to do anything on immigration. For instance, they tried to blame the President. They say the President is to blame because he will not enforce the law. The record shows that he does enforce the law. In fact, many of the more liberal people, many of the immigration groups, are angry with him because they think he is enforcing the law too much.

But let's say you believe he is not enforcing the law. So we have said to them: Good. Pass a bill now and say it does not take effect, all of the enforcement and any of the rest of it, until 2017. We will have a new President. If Republicans cannot agree to pass a bill that goes into effect after the President's term, then we know that mistrust of the President is nothing but a straw man.

They say they really want to pass immigration legislation in their heart, but they are only one Member and it is not up to them. They can even have their leadership blame other Republicans for not holding a vote. But Bill Parcells, who used to coach for both the New York Giants and New York Jets, was famous for saying, ``You are what your record shows you are.''

What does the record show? The record on Republican immigration reform is clear. Steve King, a far-right, way-out-of-the-mainstream outlier, does not just spew hatred, he calls the shots. They listen to him. The Republican Party, the party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan and George Bush, all of whom had much different views on immigration than Steve King, is following Steve King on immigration.

Let me say, they are following Steve King over the cliff. Because not only are they hurting America, but because they are so afraid to buck this extremist--and he is extreme on immigration--they are going to make it certain that they will lose the 2016 Presidential election, that they will make sure that the Senate remains Democratic in 2016 and that the House turns Democratic.

It is amazing. The Republican record on immigration reform is clear. Steve King has three wins. The rest of the Republican Party and the rest of America is winless. Good for him. Terrible for us. Since House Republicans will not stand up to Steve King, King is in the driver's seat on immigration reform. As long as he sits there, things will continue to be stuck in a rut.

America is growing weary of Republicans talking a good game on immigration while high-tech businesses cannot get the labor they need to grow and create American jobs. We are growing weary of all the talk while crops go unpicked because farmers cannot find labor. We are growing weary while Republicans talk and immigrants continue to come into our country illegally.

Steve King is calling the shots of the entire House Republicans on immigration. That is a shame. That is a disgrace. That is a singular lack of courage that we see in our dear colleagues across the way on the Republican side of the aisle. King is not satisfied. He is warning that his colleagues have to man the watchtowers 24/7 to make sure nothing happens to fix our broken immigration system.

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

If Republicans continue to kowtow to Steve King and the hard right on immigration, they will consign themselves to being the minority party for more than a decade or they can show some courage and say the Steve Kings in the world can say whatever they want, but they have no place in the modern Republican Party. They can move their party into the light by passing a bill that secures borders, holds employers accountable, grows our economy, reduces our debt, and heals broken families. The choice is theirs.

Speaker Boehner has occasionally said he wants to pass reform. Where are the rank-and-file Republicans who know Steve King is wrong to encourage Speaker Boehner? Where are they? I hope that for our sakes, the majority of Republicans in the House Republican caucus make the right choice.

But I will tell them this: For the country, no matter what choice they make, the ultimate outcome is undeniable. Immigration reform will pass this year with bipartisan support and a bipartisan imprint or it will pass in future years with only Democratic support and Democratic imprints, because Democrats will control the Congress and the White House. The right thing will ultimately be done. But hopefully Winston Churchill will not be right in saying that it will only be done after everything else is tried.

Republicans in the House, stand up to Steve King. You know he is wrong. You know you cringe when he says

what he says. Do not let him dictate policy.

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

Madam President, we believe that every American who works 40 hours a week deserves a fair shot at getting out of poverty. Under the present minimum-wage law, that doesn't happen. A person can work hard, with pride, as Americans do, and work that 40 hours and still be below the poverty line. That is basically not part of what America is all about, because America says to everybody, If you work hard, you can provide a decent life for yourself and your family. Since the minimum wage has stagnated, that doesn't happen.

Since 1968, the minimum wage has failed to keep up with inflation and has lost a third of its value. That is not a fair shot for Americans. A full-time minimum-wage worker makes only about $15,000 a year--not a fair shot for Americans. It is wrong. It flies in the face of the American dream.

Each Senator is allowed one guest at the State of the Union Address. I brought a young woman named Shareeka Elliott. Let me tell my colleagues about her. Shareeka is a cleaner at Kennedy Airport. She scrubs toilets and floors from 10 at night until 6 in the morning. After the overnight shift, she hops on multiple buses each day to take her two daughters to school. They are in different parts of the borough of Brooklyn. Only then is she able to get home and take care of her household. For her hard work, Shareeka is paid $8 an hour--not enough.

When we talk to Shareeka, we find she is a beautiful woman. She is not angry. But do my colleagues know what raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would do for her? Eighty dollars a week. It would allow her to provide her children with the barest of necessities--when kids can't get clothes and can't get a decent meal when they are not in school; when they can't get any toys for Christmas. That is not America.

This woman isn't a freeloader. She is getting on the bus, traveling 2 hours to Kennedy Airport, working many 8 hours from 10 at night until 6 in the morning, getting back on the bus, and then finding two more buses to take care of her children, and she can't make enough money to get out of poverty. What kind of country is this? It is hard to believe, on both the economics issue and the moral issue, that we have opposition from the other side of the aisle to even let this come to a debate.

We know what raising the minimum wage will do for the millions of Shareekas: It gives them a life with some degree of dignity. It gives their children a little more--not a lot--for

basic necessities. It pumps money into the economy. I bet most Americans would say that even if it costs me a little more--a nickel more on my hamburger to give people such as Shareeka a decent living-- most Americans are generous people and they would say that is fair.

Here are our colleagues. They are back in the 19th century, saying we shouldn't do this. It is hard to believe, when we think of the 1890s and the 1930s, how people struggled to get a decent life, and they didn't think of the beauty of the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s and 1970s and 1980s when people knew if they worked hard, they could at least achieve a decent life. That American dream, symbolized by the lady who holds the statue in the harbor of the city I represent, is flickering out. We have a chance now to have it at least lit up a little more. We say no? What is going on in America?

Our colleagues are saying the economy isn't growing as fast as it should. Yet they don't want to pump money into the economy. Our bill is a win/win. Seventy-three percent of all Americans, including a majority of Republicans, support a $10.10 minimum wage. Tim Pawlenty, former Governor of Minnesota, told his colleagues to support the wage increase. When we have a few small interest groups holding this back, it is a shame.

I urge my Republican colleagues to look at our economy and then look into their hearts, and I am confident that if they did, they would have a change of heart and let us pass this bill.

I will say one final thing. If we don't succeed this time--we believe strongly in a fair shot for everybody, including those who are paid minimum wage and work hard and long--we will bring this bill to the floor again and again and again, and just as with unemployment insurance, sooner or later we will get it done. We will get it done. The American dream, a fair shot for everyone, demands no less.

Mr. President, I know my colleagues and good friends are waiting. I will be very brief. I agree with the Senator from Texas that it was totally inappropriate that Mr. Aboutalebi was nominated in the first place. He was a member of the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line, the group that seized the embassy on November 4, 1979, and held American staff hostage until 1981. There were New Yorkers I knew among that group.

While I believe that Mr. Aboutalebi's actions certainly would have made him ineligible for a visa under the Immigration and Nationality Act, I believe it is worth it to clear up all doubt about our ability to deny him a visa under U.S. law by passing this bill.

I am fully aware that now is a sensitive time in our negotiations with Iran regarding the future of the nuclear program. Nevertheless, it is exactly for this reason that Iran's leadership should not have unnecessarily escalated tensions with the United States by seeking to appoint an ambassador to the United Nations who materially aided terrorists who abducted American citizens. We should not further aggravate the pain of the individuals and families who suffered through the hostage crisis by allowing this individual to have a visa and diplomatic immunity within the United States.

So I support this legislation. I am glad it has moved forward in a bipartisan way. I thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for supporting this legislation.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about one of the most recent American transportation success stories--Amtrak's Northeast corridor--and how Congress can help it grow.

First, however, I would like to thank two great leaders on the Senate Appropriations Committee. First, our chair, Barbara Mikulski--she is from the Northeast corridor. I often stop by in Baltimore as I take the train from New York to Washington. She has been a staunch defender of Amtrak from the day she got here. And Patty Murray who is chairman of the transportation subcommittee. She is not from the Northeast corridor but, of course, cares very much about Amtrak across the Nation and has been a defender of those of us who care about Amtrak and depend on Amtrak in the Northeast, as well as throughout the whole country. In tough budget times, these two folks have stood up for Amtrak from one end of the Nation to the other, and we very much appreciate that.

Now, as the committees begin their work on the fiscal year 2015 appropriations, my colleagues and I are here to urge something that will benefit millions of riders on the Northeast corridor, which runs from Boston to Washington, DC.

We are mindful of the fact we depend on national support for Amtrak. Even though the Northeast corridor is far and away the most used and the most profitable of the Amtrak lines, we are one Amtrak. We understand how important Amtrak is, even if it doesn't serve as many passengers in sparsely populated States, and of course in more populated areas on the west coast and the Midwest and the South.

Having said that, I want to point out that I strongly believe in the long-distance service provided by Amtrak. It connects rural communities and other economic hubs by rail. People want it and like this service. In upstate New York, in the Buffalo to Albany corridor, it is clearly not as used as in the Northeast corridor, but we know how much we depend on Amtrak there. In the other 49 States people depend on it as well.

Since 1971, Amtrak, in the Northeast and throughout the country, has been a Federal responsibility, and it should continue to be. So the proposal we are

advocating today is one of fairness to both ends of the national passenger rail system. What we are saying is simple. Accept Amtrak's new budget framework, which would allow the NEC to reinvest profits while continuing to provide long-distance service.

First, let me explain the backdrop. Amtrak's Northeast corridor has become a profit-generating operation that carries passengers in an economically critical region home to over 50 million people. Some of the facts on our region: It generates $1 out of $5 of GDP. One out of every three Fortune 100 companies has its headquarters located there. One out of every five jobs in the United States is located in the Northeast corridor. So you wouldn't be surprised that over the past decade ridership along the Northeast corridor has been growing.

Between the years of 2001 and 2011, Amtrak's share of the air-rail travel market has increased from 37 percent to 75 percent for trips between New York and Washington and 20 percent to 54 percent from New York to Boston. Look at those increases. You wouldn't believe it. It is counterintuitive almost, but three-quarters of the people who make the decision to travel between Washington, DC, and New York, and don't use a car or a bus but would rather use a plane or train, use the train. Even a majority now on the slightly longer route to Boston use the train.

It is a testament to the region and to Amtrak that every day 750,000 people travel over portions of the Northeast corridor main line. That is nearly half of all railroad commuters nationally. It is a total of 260,000 trips a year. Look at all the different commuter railroads that run over Amtrak's Northeast corridor structure. Here they are: Mass Bay, Shoreline East, Metro North in my city of New York, and in my metropolitan area of New York, Long Island Railroad, New Jersey Transit, SEPTA--Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation--Maryland Area Regional Commuter, and Virginia.

Two of the biggest commuter railroads in the country operate on Amtrak's structure, and those are in the metropolitan area that the Presiding Officer and I share. They are Metro North and the Long Island Railroad. Hundreds of thousands of people use these railroads every day.

So the Northeast corridor is one of the most important arteries in the beating heart of our economy, and I am happy to report that business is booming. NEC revenues currently exceed operating costs by more than $300 million a year. So one would think, finally, we have the means to update the aging infrastructure that Amtrak and our commuter rail system depend upon. Unfortunately, the growth of the Northeast corridor and the profits it has produced are not going back into the system. Instead, over the last 10 years, NEC revenues have been used to cover the costs of the State-supported and long-distance services across the rest of the national railroad.

We understand in the Northeast why that has happened, again because we depend on support throughout the country and we need to bring the whole country together. But it is happening at the same time the Federal contributions to Amtrak in the form of operating grants have declined. In fact, operating grants to Amtrak are lower now by almost half than they were under a Republican Congress and President George Bush. Here are the numbers. You can see them: $1 billion in 2003, and they stay about the same. But operating as a percentage of the total went from 50 percent to 24 percent.

That is not necessarily a bad thing. For the past few years, some of my Republican colleagues have urged Amtrak to become more efficient and rely on Federal operating grants. Amtrak has done just that. In 2013, Amtrak set an annual ridership record of 31.6 million and a ticket revenue record of $2.1 billion.

The reason my colleagues and I are speaking today is to make it very clear that weaning Amtrak off of Federal operating grants shouldn't come at the expense of the capital costs in the Northeast corridor. The Amtrak operating grant request for 2015 is $700 million--a fraction of the overall budget, and lower than the 2005 funding level under George Bush. The total request is for $1.62 billion, a modest request over last year's $1.4 billion. This would allow all long-distance service mandated by Congress to continue and, importantly, it would allow $300 million a year to come back into the Northeast corridor's infrastructure. That is real money--money that, if continued over time, can service loans to build new tunnels and bridges and fix up the tracks and stations which we desperately need. It is an old, old system.

Think of some of the immediate projects Amtrak may have to forego if they do not receive the full request: the replacement of structural columns underneath Philadelphia's beautiful 30th Street Station; overhauling the Acela, which is very profitable, and usually, we know, very full, to improve Amtrak's on-time performance; and extremely important--because if they collapse the whole Northeast corridor collapses and their transportation mechanism collapses causing real harm to the economy--reconstruction of the decaying infrastructure in the East River tunnels.

This last project is particularly important--the East River tunnels, that is--for several reasons. It shows the massive benefits of this plan for people who use railroads that they rely on. The trains carry hundreds of thousands of passengers back and forth every day and are in a major state of disrepair. The proposal will allow Amtrak to invest more--way more--in these vital East River tunnels, making them more reliable and improving travel for Long Island Railroad riders and NEC passengers every day. A collateral benefit for all commuting New Yorkers is that there are Penn Station improvements--the most heavily used transportation hub in the country. The plan would fund many of these key improvements and make them happen quicker.

The status quo is unacceptable. The current Federal funding requirements leave the NEC's infrastructure vulnerable to a bigger, costlier, and far more damaging failure than we have ever seen.

The long-term need to increase capacity and make needed repairs to our bridges and tunnels could not be clearer. Several important segments, such as Hudson River tunnels, are growing at a record level. By 2030--look at that--the need will be even greater. These are segments which will exceed capacity by 2030--lots of them.

In my State of New York we see the economic cost of devastating events such as Hurricane Sandy, which flooded Hudson River tunnels and shut down the Northeast corridor for days. According to new estimates, a 1-day disruption along the Northeast corridor could cost the economy $100 million.

So I would ask my colleagues--both Democrats and Republicans--from States along the Northeast corridor and from around the rest of the country to support an increase in Federal investment in our rail infrastructure. I know we can get bipartisan support because there has been bipartisan support in the past. Senators in this body on both sides of the aisle supported operating grant levels requested by Amtrak in the past. In the longer term, we know we need to authorize a dedicated intercity passenger rail fund that provides robust investment in this infrastructure.

In the meantime, our Nation can no longer afford to let a railroad that carries half of Amtrak's trains and 80 percent of the Nation's rail commuters fall apart at the seams. Allowing the NEC to keep the cash it generates will help benefit and support those same profit- making activities, helping to create a virtual cycle of reinvestment. I hope that sounds like something my colleagues across the aisle could support.

If we want an interstate commuter network in the next century, we must begin by fixing and improving the infrastructure from the beginning of the last century. That was the mission of our good friend, my dear friend, the late Frank Lautenberg. He was a tireless and passionate advocate for improving our Nation's infrastructure-- especially our railways--because he knew it would better the State's economy and indeed our country's economy. We can honor his legacy by carrying on that mission.

I ask my colleagues to recognize this great leader as they have in the past. Give the Northeast corridor the funds and flexibility to reap the benefits of its recent growth while still providing service around the rest of the country.

With that, I would like to turn to my friend the junior Senator from Connecticut to ask him to talk about the importance of the Northeast corridor for his State and especially the relationship Amtrak has with commuter railroads.

I yield the floor.

First, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for letting me butt in a little bit.

I also praise the three people who are on the floor, one can say without each of whom this would not have happened. I don't think we can say that about anyone else here, myself included, but you can say that about these three. Senator Menendez, our lead sponsor on the bill, who is indomitable and smart about crafting legislation; Johnny Isakson, who was able to make this a bipartisan bill and in his gentle, friendly, and persuasive way brought many people on board, prevented people from blocking it; and the dynamo--we would all agree--the dynamo of this operation, Senator Mary Landrieu, who did not quit. I would say Mary Landrieu and I have had probably 200 phone calls in the last month about flood insurance--three or four a day. Whenever there was a blockage, she was like a jackhammer getting through it. So I thank her.

I am going to be very brief as well--not quite as brief as my colleague from Georgia, but brief for me and brief for the Senate.

This is a very important day for the people of New York. We have thousands of homeowners who either have had their flood insurance rise or are fearful of their flood insurance rising. Most of them are middle-class people in places such as Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens, the Rockaways, out to the southern shore of Long Island and up the Hudson River. To be a homeowner is to have your little piece of the rock if you are a middle-class person. Basically, it is all you own. To have that taken away from you by an irrational Washington force called Biggert-Waters made no sense. Yet, when people's flood insurance bills would go up from $500 to $4,000, when they were told if they sold their house it might go up to $10,000, their piece of the rock--their home-- was in true jeopardy.

We all know there is an increase in flooding. We all know the huge damage Katrina and Sandy caused. But to put it on the backs of homeowners, as FEMA was doing by both increasing rates and expanding flood maps beyond what flood zones should be made no sense.

We had so many people in New York who were damaged--I know this is true of my colleague from New Jersey as well--who were damaged by Sandy, who painstakingly rebuilt their home, getting some money from insurance and some money from FEMA and some money from Sandy and going to relatives and friends. After their home was finally rebuilt to be told, now here is your $5,000 flood insurance bill, when these people are in debt, it was awful, a double whammy.

This bill isn't perfect, but it will stop all of that. It grandfathers homes in so people who sell their homes will not see the price go way up, and because of the efforts we made in the Senate, the bill the House is sending us has an individual limit on how much flood insurance can go up. Eighteen percent is still not as low an amount as we would like--and we may be able to revisit that down the road--but it certainly is not a 700-, 2,000- or 5,000-percent increase, which is what people were getting.

So this is a good day. It is a good day for the shorefront areas of New York which contain close to 1 million people. It is a good day for the coastal areas throughout America, the areas by rivers throughout America. Do you know what it means? It means that the American dream of working hard, buying a home, and having your little piece of the rock will not be destroyed by some unknown, misunderstood, and irrational force from Washington on flood insurance. Flood insurance will now be a friend once again rather than a foe.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. They did an amazing job on the Climate Action Task Force, particularly Senators Boxer and Whitehouse, who led the task force, and the indefatigable new Member Senator Schatz for organizing and coordinating this effort.

The overwhelming majority of the world's scientists believe humans are changing the Earth's climate. Climate deniers like to claim there are competing stories about whether this is true, usually pushing polluter talking points that there is not a scientific consensus on climate change. We know this is utterly false, and I would pose the following question to my colleagues who think ``the jury is still out'' on climate change: If you went to 100 doctors and 98 of them said you were sick and should take medicine, but two told you that you were fine and should do nothing, what would you do?

Climate change deniers need to wake up and realize the scientific diagnosis about warming the planet is real. We need to take action, much of which will be outlined tonight. I hope my colleagues and the American people are listening.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, over the next several months the Affordable Care Act is going to become less important as a Republican campaign issue because more and more Americans--from young adults all the way through seniors--are going to realize the benefits it has to offer. It is happening already.

Every day there are more positive stories about people getting cheaper coverage, better coverage or coverage for the first time. Let me say, in my State of New York the initial rollout of ACA has been a big success. We didn't have the problems of a Web site because we did our own, and because we have a lot of competition, as was intended on the exchanges, people are getting very good offers and a large number of people are getting their costs reduced.

I will tell one story. A friend of mine goes to a hairdresser in a conservative neighborhood in New York. The person who owns the beauty shop is very conservative, and when the ACA first rolled out she was very upset. She said: Look. I have looked at that Web site. I am a nice person. I pay for health care for my eight employees. It is going to cost me hundreds of dollars more for each employee. I don't even know if I can afford to stay in business. That person talked to all of her friends, I think she blogged on her Web site, and talked all about it.

I spoke to my friend a few weeks ago. Guess what. This same person actually got health care on the New York Web site which reduced the cost of health care for employees by a couple of hundred dollars each. She was very happy. Of course, I asked my friend to make sure she puts that on her Web site and tells all of her conservative friends about that.

But this story is going to be repeated over and over. There are going to be millions of seniors who realize they can get a free checkup and keep their health good. There are going to be millions of young people who realize they can continue their health care and stay on their parents' health insurance from age 21 to 26. Millions of people are going to find out that either, God forbid, someone in their family or someone in a family they know has a preexisting condition, and now they can get health care. Millions of businesses are going to see the cost of health care is actually going up at a much smaller rate than they are used to. So all these good things will start mounting and the positives about ACA will grow in the public's mind and eventually I believe it will catch up in the Senate and the House. Then something else too will happen and that is this: Lots of people who are not affected directly by ACA have had fear put into their souls. They listen to the rightwing talk radio and they hear: Oh, they may lose all their health care or their costs will go way up. But what they are finding is it is not happening.

I met a firefighter who works for New York City--not a volunteer firefighter--a few months ago. He said: I know ObamaCare is going to kill me. It is going to greatly reduce the health care I am getting as a New York City firefighter.

They get very good health care and they should. They are risking their lives for us. He said: It is going to happen, I hear, in the new year, January 1, 2014.

I saw the firefighter a few weeks ago, and he said to me: Hey, I still have my health care and nothing changed. Well, of course nothing changed. All the horror stories which have been launched by so many on the rightwing talk radio and those who just hate ObamaCare, whether it works or not, are starting to fade.

So we are seeing two things happen at once: We are seeing the positives increase and the negatives decrease and we are seeing it particularly with senior citizens. Because the doughnut hole is filled, millions of our senior citizens are spending much less on prescription drugs than they had to. It is a huge benefit to them. Since ACA was enacted, more than 7 million seniors and people with disabilities have saved $9 billion. That is a huge amount of money. To seniors, many of whom are on fixed incomes, that is dramatic savings for them.

Something else is happening to our seniors. They are getting free checkups. That does two things. First, it saves money out of their own pockets but, second, it reduces our health care costs because we all know an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Free checkups are that prevention we need. It will not only save the seniors but save our system billions and billions of dollars in the years and decades to come. Somebody who finds a growth on their skin and gets it removed before it becomes cancerous, somebody who might get a colonoscopy, a mammogram or a prostate exam and is saved from prostate cancer--all that is going to happen.

So the bottom line is very simple: People are learning the positives of ACA. The Web site is being improved. More people are signing up. In my State of New York alone, more than 250,000 people with Medicare saved $246 million on prescription drugs. The numbers are higher when we count up to today because that was only the first 10 months, through November 1 of 2013. The benefits are all over the place.

One other thing. This is not our subject of the week, but I think we have to keep mentioning it. We are reducing the budget deficit through the ACA. I know our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are very careful about the budget deficit. Good. They should be. Health care costs are declining and declining significantly. Some is due to the recession, but almost every expert says much is due to the ACA.

National health care expenditures, for instance, in 2012 grew by 3.7 percent, meaning that the growth from 2009 to 2012 was the slowest since government collected this information in the 1960s. The percentage of health care spending for the first time actually shrunk from 17.3 to 17.2. At the same time, the solvency of Medicare's hospital insurance fund increased and costs declined. So this is great news.

The bottom line: I know our colleagues on the other side of the aisle think they hit political goals when they attack the ACA and call for its repeal, but the American people don't want repeal. Secondly, as we move on in time the positives of ACA will become more apparent, the negatives people perceive of ACA will decline, and I believe by November this issue will not be the political gold mine our colleagues think it is.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.