Floor Statements

Madam President, I wish to thank my colleagues for what I think was a very vivid way in which they laid out the severe damage that is occurring because of the shutdown and the potential that one of the most important economic powers, if not the most important economic power in the world, is fooling around with the notion that we not pay our bills on time.

I wish to compliment various newspapers around the country that are doing their best to point out to people that this isn't some kind of exercise that is just about all of us here in Washington. This isn't about the politics or the posturing. This is about real people and the pain they are feeling.

This morning in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the headline was ``Shutdown is casting a wide net of grief.'' In that article, it went through a number of different people's lives and how they were hurting because of the shutdown--people such as Nancy Jones.

Nancy retired from the Army 4 months ago, and she was at a food pantry this weekend because her retirement check had not processed through yet, and now it is not clear when she is going to get her retirement check. She moved back to St. Louis to help with her four grandchildren, and now she is putting her head on her pillow tonight not knowing when her pension, which she has earned, will actually come through because of the shutdown. As a result, she is going to a food pantry at a local church to get two bags of groceries.

Then there is Rasheedah Whitfield. She went to the Social Security office in St. Louis to do something very simple, and that was to replace her lost Social Security card. She knocked and no one was home. The Social Security Administration has furloughed people who do things such as getting a replacement for people's lost Social Security card. Why is that so important? Well, because Ms. Whitfield needs her Social Security card in order to fill out her Section 8 application, and time is running short for her to find housing for herself and her small child. She is unsure what she is going to do if she can't get that replacement card.

Then there are the people who have been furloughed who clean one of the Federal office buildings in St. Louis. They work for $11 an hour cleaning the Goodfellow Federal Center in north St. Louis. It is an $11-an-hour job. These people aren't sitting on a big cushion. These people are trying to figure out now, without that $11-an-hour job, if they can either pay the rent or make the car payment, but probably not both.

Then there is Jill Ketchum who works and who is fortunate that her child, her 5-year-old daughter, goes to the Head Start school. She is not sure what she is going to do because she has been told by the Grace Hill Settlement House that the Head Start program cannot last through the month if the shutdown continues. That mother, who is working and uses that important Head Start program to make it work for her family, will have no place to take her daughter. What does she do? Does she have to quit her job? What about all the other single mothers out there with young children who have the rug pulled out from under them because Head Start can no longer operate?

Jill and Rasheedah and Nancy don't deserve this. They are playing by the rules. They are doing everything they should be doing in this great country. They are not asking us to do them a favor. They are just asking us to do our job.

Here is what I am so frustrated about. This pain is being inflicted on millions of Americans, and this pain grows every day. Somebody likened it the other day to when the power goes out at our home. In the first couple of hours, we are getting candles out and getting out the board games, and we think, Oh, this is kind of fun. I got the feeling around here the first couple of hours that we didn't understand the gravity of what this meant to so many people throughout this country and to so many people in my State. But after the electricity has been off a few hours, all of a sudden it is not funny anymore. We start to lose our food in the refrigerator, and we wonder how we are going to replace it. We wonder about what is going to happen with our jobs. We wonder about keeping warm. That is what we are getting to now. We are getting to the point where these families across America cannot believe this is going on day after day.

Here is the weird part. What are we doing? It is not even clear to me what the other side wants. It started out with a goal that was not only irrational, but unreasonable--that somehow the election last November didn't matter; that somehow a faction of one party in one House in one branch of this great government could say: If you don't give us our way, we are going to turn out the lights, and we are going to cut the power. So it was about blowing up ObamaCare.

Now it is not about that anymore. I listened with interest this morning as the Republicans in the House of Representatives spoke about what this is about, and it is not clear to me at this point what it is about. What is it that is the problem? Because it is not ObamaCare anymore. Is it entitlement reform? Is it a grand bargain? Speaker Boehner walked away from one of those not too long ago.

Is it about how much we are spending? We have been asking for a conference on our budget. For years, we were getting political criticism over the fact that the Senate had not passed a budget. So we stayed up all night, took dozens and dozens and dozens of votes, and passed a budget. Then we asked to go to conference. For month after month after month, the junior Senator from Texas and others blocked our ability to go to conference and talk about the budget.

So I don't even understand at this moment what this is about. It is not about ObamaCare anymore. Is it about reforming Medicare and Social Security? That is not clear. Is it about how much money we are spending? That is not even clear.

It feels as though we are boxing shadows.

I am really hopeful about my colleagues across the aisle in the Senate, many of whom I have worked with on many different issues and a lot of whom I have worked with on bringing down spending. My colleague from Alaska said we cut our deficit in half last year. It is a good thing we are spending less money. Most of us here think we should continue in a thoughtful way to spend less money. It is my hope that my colleagues who rejected--the majority of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle rejected the effort of the junior Senator from Texas to say, ``Us too,'' to the goal that was irrational and unreasonable, shutting down ObamaCare. Those Senators who knew this was not a game that should be played, I am hopeful they will help us reach a resolution that will not only allow the government to reopen but allow us to quit playing the very dangerous game of saying to the rest of the world that we are not the United States of America; that we are not the grandest and most glorious democracy ever created; that we are dysfunctional deadbeats. If it gets to be Thursday and we have not gotten this wrapped up, the rest of the country is going to see this democracy as dysfunctional--a democracy that so many other countries have tried to copy and emulate because we have always managed to work it out. To me that is the saddest part of this whole thing, that we are actually playing around with the essence of what makes our country great, and that is our democracy, our ability to compromise, our ability to negotiate, our ability to not throw tantrums and say we either get our way or we shut the place down.

And the phoniest argument of all that is being made, the most disingenuous, misdirected reason we have gotten is this notion that somehow this is

all about if we would just stop the congressional exemption under ObamaCare. Members of Congress and their staffs are the only people in America who are required to shop on the exchange. Let me say it again. Members of Congress and their staffs are the only people who are required to shop on the exchange. The only issue here is whether or not we get an employer contribution. That is the only issue.

Every Republican in my State who works for the State government gets an employer contribution. Every Republican who serves in Congress from my State gets an employer contribution. They do it right now; they get that employer contribution. If it is so immoral, if it is so bad to get an employer contribution, give it up. Step up, set the example. Set the example, Say, ``No more employer contribution. It is evil.'' Until they step up and give up their employer contribution, I think it is beyond offensive that they would threaten the young lady who answers my phone with her employer contribution or the young man just out of school with a heavy debt load who thought he was going to get an employer contribution when he came to work for the Senate, who lives in Columbia, MO, and doesn't make a huge amount of money.

You do not come to work for the government if you want to get rich. You come to work for the government if you want to serve. The notion that for political purposes we are threatening the employer contribution of the people who work in our offices is, frankly, about as low as it gets. So I do not want to hear it anymore unless somebody is giving up their employer contribution. They all can. The minute I hear the Republicans who are advocating this position have given up their employer contribution--right now--then we can have a discussion that has misled the American people into thinking somehow--somehow-- this is some special deal for Congress.

Real people are getting hurt. We are not even sure what the other side wants. We are threatening the essence of what makes America great, which is our democracy, and we are misleading the American people in ways that are tremendously unfair to the great people who work for all of us across this city and, importantly, across all of our home States.

So I will continue to talk to my friends across the aisle. Even today, on Sunday, all of us are having these conversations. It is my understanding our friends down the hall in the House of Representatives went home. We are having conversations. One week ago I do not think the Speaker could utter a sentence without saying the word ``conversation.'' We are having conversations today. I hope they will continue into the night and that tomorrow will be a better day for this democracy that we all like to brag about but we are threatening to blow up.

Thank you.

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

Mr. President, I find the position we are in right now beyond frustrating, and I can imagine what the American people must be thinking right now. It is very hard from a distance to figure out who has really lost their minds--one party, the other party, all of us, the President. But I really want to boil down what has occurred because it is stunning when you boil it down.

The House sent us a piece of legislation where they wanted to defund the health care reforms--ObamaCare--and that was the price they were demanding in order for the government to stay open. The ticket to admission for an open government was our getting rid of the health care bill. Well, we took that up and we defeated that bill. By a 10-vote margin, 54 to 44, we defeated that bill, and we sent it back to them with just the ticket to keep the government open--without an extra price of admission.

This is where it gets interesting. What happened after we sent that back? Did they take it up and defeat it? No. No. They didn't vote. I want to make sure the American people understand this. All of the Members of Congress who were elected to serve the people of this country didn't get a chance to vote because the Speaker decided there wouldn't be a vote in the House of Representatives on the Senate-passed measure.

Somebody said: Well, it is the Hastert rule.

I have searched the Constitution, and I can't find the Hastert rule. It is not there. So the question we have to ask right now is, Why won't they let the House vote? Maybe they will defeat a clean attempt just to keep the government open.

By the way, nobody here is against negotiating or compromise. We have compromised on the number in this continuing resolution, and we are perfectly willing and, in fact, we have been desperately trying to negotiate and compromise on the budget for months. Senator Cruz has blocked our attempts to go to conference on the budget.

So it is not that none of us are willing to compromise. Maybe some of us aren't, but there is a good healthy bipartisan margin of Senators who want to compromise on issues surrounding Federal spending but not on keeping the government open and not on paying our bills. Let's get those done. Let's get those done. That is basic. Let's get it done.

So my plea today to Speaker Boehner is this: Quit making decisions on behalf of all your Members--a small group of you huddled in a back room--because that is what is happening. There are two or three men in a back room down the hall, and they are deciding whether they are going to allow the elected representatives of this country to vote. I say let the House vote. I think the American people may be surprised that there would be a healthy bipartisan margin to, in fact, keep the government open when the clock strikes midnight tonight.

Elections matter, and elections are what dictate what happens around here. We had an election last November. I remember it very well. I stood for election last November. There were two candidates for President of the United States, and every American citizen had a chance to decide who they wanted to lead this country. The contrast was very clear. One candidate said he was going to repeal ObamaCare on the very first day he was President. He was going to, by Executive order, wipe out ObamaCare on day one. The other candidate said: I am going to implement ObamaCare. That candidate won, and it wasn't even close.

Every single Democratic Senator who ran for reelection and voted for ObamaCare was reelected. Red State, purple State, blue State--all of us were reelected who voted for ObamaCare. In fact, a couple more were elected in States where Republicans had represented those States. We didn't lose seats, we picked up seats. Even in the House of Representatives, the raw votes, there were more Democratic votes cast in the House of Representatives than Republican votes. They have the majority because of the way the districts are drawn. And I understand they control that House, but should they control whether people get to vote? Let the House vote.

They say: ObamaCare is so unpopular; the American people don't want it.

Now, I get that the polling is not good for this reform, and I am perfectly willing, as we implement it, if we need to, to make tweaks and changes to make it better.

I hope my friends across the aisle will quit using this as a political 2 by 4 and help us make it as good as we can possibly make it because this isn't about any plot, this is about accessible and affordable health care for all Americans with a free market solution. These are all private insurance companies. There is not a government program in this. People are going to be able to choose between various private policies and various options, and they are never going to have to pay more than 9\1/2\ percent of their income for their insurance. The insurance companies aren't going to be able to swallow fat profits for golden parachutes for big CEOs anymore. They are going to have to spend 80 cents of every dollar for your health care. But it is all free market.

This was a Republican solution in the beginning. The candidate for President forgot that--former Governor Romney--this was his solution for Massachusetts when he was Governor.

Now, I will give the Republicans this: It is unpopular in the polls right now. But let's take this proposition: Guess what background checks for guns polls right now? I know the Presiding Officer knows painfully well what those numbers are because of the tragedy in his State. It is much higher, frankly, than those who say they think ObamaCare should be repealed--the Americans who support background checks on weapons purchases. So what would everyone on the other side of the aisle think if we decided, well, you know, we are going to shut down the government if you won't pass background checks on guns. It is what the American people want. We will just shut down the government if you won't pass it. That is not the way we legislate. That is not the constitutional framework our Founding Fathers put together. There would be outrage that we would try to shut down the government over background checks on guns. Yet the very same premise would apply to what they are doing.

The President won. The majority of the Senate are in fact individuals who support this valiant attempt to try to do something with a health care system that was headed off the rails, becoming more and more unaffordable every day. By the way, everything that is bad now is ObamaCare. I laughingly made a joke in my State that our university's team didn't do very well in offense during the first half. I said, it must be ObamaCare. Because no matter what is out there that people are upset about, somehow they manage to paint it with the ObamaCare brush.

I think people are going to be pleasantly surprised. It is not going to be as intrusive as some of the talking heads warned. It is going to provide a marketplace where people can pool risk and get a better deal. It is going to provide a lot more nights where parents can rest easy because they are not rolling the dice every day and depending on the emergency room for their day-to-day health needs.

My message today is very simple. All of this is premised on the notion that

one should be able to shut down our government because they don't get their way in an election. I don't think that is the role model we want to serve to the other governments in the world, much less to our kids. I think we can compromise on a lot. We can even work on making this bill better. But let's keep the government open, let's pay our bills, and then let's sit down and have some meaningful negotiation and compromise about Federal spending. I am somebody in my caucus who is always open to other ways we can cut spending. Some in my caucus don't feel as strongly as I do about that, but I am willing to listen to all sides and negotiate around the budget.

Let's not hold our economy hostage in the process. Real people are going to be hurt. This isn't just about who is on the Sunday morning shows, who is your primary opponent, what are they saying on cable news. This is about real folks, and we need to be focused on them.

I implore Speaker Boehner, let the Members vote. Just let them vote. Put it on the floor. He can do it in an hour. Put it on the floor and let them vote. If it is defeated, then let's talk. I will bet it won't be.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on Wednesday, the Senate will take votes in relation to the Manchin amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1911, the Smarter Solutions for Students Act. I was unable to be present for this vote, due to a pre-scheduled commitment in my home State for which my attendance was confirmed before the timing of these votes was set. Because my presence would not have changed the outcome of either vote, I honored my previous commitment. Had I been present I would have voted in support of Senator Manchin's amendment.

We are facing a crisis. On July 1, interest rates on new subsidized Stafford student loans doubled, from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. Already, officials at the Federal Reserve, the Department of the Treasury, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have all warned that student borrowing threatens to dampen consumption, depress the economy, limit credit creation, and pose a threat to our Nation's financial stability. Students and graduates in my State are already heavily in student loan debt. Two out of every three Missouri students will leave college with student loan debt. At a time when a higher education is vital to expanded opportunity for so many young people and with a 21st Century economy that increasingly demands workers with the skills earned as part of a college education, we cannot make it even more difficult for young people to financially achieve a college education. We need to act.

While not perfect, the Manchin amendment is the product of bipartisan compromise, forged and supported by Members from both sides of the aisle. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation because it will provide relief to our Nation's students by lowering interest rates for America's student loan borrowers. This relief will not only apply to subsidized Stafford loans; it will apply to loans to undergraduates, graduate students, and the parents of students seeking to pay for their education. Importantly, this legislation also includes interest rate caps; without this feature, I would not have been able to support this bill.

I would have also supported the second-degree amendment put forth by Senators Reed and Warren because it is consistent with my commitment to keeping rates low. The Reed-Warren amendment would provide certainty to students and families by ensuring that interest rates will go no higher than they would under the fixed rates in current law without adding to our deficit. I believe this is a responsible measure that deserves bipartisan support.

To be clear, addressing the issue of student loan interest rates is only one piece of the puzzle of ensuring that higher education is affordable and attainable to those who seek it. We must also examine the issues of the rising costs of college attendance and the rapid growth of the proprietary college sector, where the share of Federal student aid payments and loan defaults is disproportionately and alarmingly high.

I will continue to work with my colleagues on all of these issues. Congress has an important role in helping American students attain the higher education opportunities they seek, to ensure that our Nation remain a global leader in the 21st century economy.

Mr. President, I wish to offer tribute to a truly passionate team from Columbia, MO--Eliot and Muriel Battle--who together became key to forever changing race relations throughout Columbia.

One local newspaper recently wrote: ``You could not have Eliot without Muriel. What they accomplished, they accomplished together.'' And what they accomplished was astounding--a testament to the power of leadership by example.

Over the last decade, the city of Columbia and the University of Missouri have lauded this couple with various citywide recognitions and, for Eliot, an honorary degree, in honor of their lifelong efforts. Yet the most poignant recognition of all was the decision to name Columbia's newest high school ``Muriel Williams Battle High School.'' Education served as the backbone of the couple's series of first-ever accomplishments as they became pioneers in the desegregation of the city's public schools.

Seeing the new high school open became one of Eliot's last goals. And he met it with pride. Despite his declining health, he walked to the podium on June 2 to a standing ovation, spoke loud and clear, and received a second standing ovation at the end of his speech honoring his wife, who had passed 10 years earlier, in 2003. Nine days after the ceremony, he passed on too.

It is amazing how life works sometimes. Their story is one for all to know and understand. I would like to share a few highlights.

They moved to Columbia in 1956 in the heart of the civil rights movement, just a year after Rosa Parks would not give up her seat on the bus. In this era, many civil rights leaders had more radical approaches to change, but the Battles did not fit into these molds. Even though they also wanted quick change, they were a couple who lived ``quietly yet determined and unwavering,'' as one newspaper columnist noted, working behind the scenes of social justice and modeling the racial acceptance they wanted their community to adopt.

Both of the couple's first education jobs in Columbia were at Douglass School--Eliot as an assistant principal and, later, Muriel as a social studies teacher. Both had come from families that emphasized ``education was the answer'' for African Americans, Muriel once said. ``We grew up,'' she said, ``knowing we were going to college.'' It became clear quickly that both Eliot and Muriel wanted all Columbia children to have the same chance they did.

In 1960, Eliot became the first African-American faculty member at a newly integrated Hickman High School, serving as a guidance counselor. His approachable manner helped ease the tension of desegregation by mediating between some African-American families and White educators.

After Muriel's stint at Douglass School, she spent 30 years at West Junior High School, where she worked as a teacher, department chairperson, assistant principal, and principal. She retired as the school district's first female associate superintendent of secondary education.

Muriel was known for making all people of all ages and race feel valued and welcome even down to her school motto: ``We're glad you're here.''

Long into their retirement from education, the couple continued their efforts to promote diversity. Eliot became a founding member of the Minority Men's Network, served on the Columbia College board of Trustees, and wrote the 1997 book: ``A Letter to Young Black Men.''

Muriel formed the Battle Group, an education consulting firm that provided strategies to school districts, parent-teacher associations, and juvenile justice facilities, and dedicated time and money to building a Martin Luther King, Jr., memorial.

Their efforts toward overall community acceptance reached far beyond their professional lives. Two of their four children became the first African-American students to attend Grant Elementary--the first of Columbia's schools to be integrated.

They also integrated neighborhoods, being one of the first African- American families to move beyond the redlining real estate limits in Columbia and into a White neighborhood. Despite the hateful letters they received--and even after having a White neighbor shoot their family dog, Bingo--the couple led by example and continued to tell their children that these neighbors feared change and they had to push on.

As one local newspaper recounted, Battle's daughter said her father would routinely say ``They don't understand, and they are afraid. We have to live our lives and do the best we can, and if they knew better, they would do better.''

The community of Columbia was so lucky to have had this team move into its community and change it forever.

I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the lives and accomplishments of Eliot and Muriel Battle.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the nearly 70 volunteers who have faithfully dedicated their time to operating the Kirkwood Amtrak Train Station for the past 10 years. In recognition of their outstanding service, a celebration has been planned for them this weekend, on June 29, 2013, in Kirkwood, MO.

In 2002, the City of Kirkwood was on the verge of losing its historic train station due to budget constraints. However, the residents of this community rejected that possibility. Instead, they banded together and the City of Kirkwood arranged to purchase the station from Amtrak. In doing so, the citizens saved the 120-year-old branch from destruction and preserved an iconic landmark in downtown Kirkwood.

Following the purchase, the City of Kirkwood called on volunteers to staff and operate the facility. Nearly 200 people responded. Today, almost 70 regular volunteers answer questions about

schedules, recommend Kirkwood sites and attractions, help passengers board trains, issue parking passes, and keep the station open and running in accordance with the Amtrak train schedule.

Some may question whether an all-volunteer run train station can compete with other staff-operated stations across the country. Let me tell you--Kirkwood Amtrak Train Station's honors and awards speak for themselves. In 2004, the Kirkwood station volunteers were recognized with Amtrak's prestigious ``Champion of the Rails'' award, marking this station as the only non-employee station to ever receive the award.

Perhaps more impressively, the Kirkwood Amtrak Train Station's recent customer satisfaction scores placed it No. 1 in the country. With friendly smiles and warm service, the Kirkwood station volunteers have set themselves apart from all other Amtrak stations, logging over 50,000 hours of service to the City of Kirkwood, and welcoming more than 500,000 visitors and passengers through the station doors.

I am proud these deserving citizens hail from my home State of Missouri. Their generous commitment to the City of Kirkwood and to travelers from all over the country serves as an inspiration to the people of Missouri.

I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the volunteers of the Kirkwood Amtrak Train Station for their distinguished service to the residents and visitors of Kirkwood.

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

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

Madam President, this afternoon the Senate Armed Services Committee--in fact, in less than an hour--will convene and we will begin working on historic changes, unprecedented changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice in response to the serious and significant problem of sexual assault in our military.

I come to the floor before we convene to explain why I am supporting significant changes as to how we handle sexual assaults in the military but also why I am not supporting completely removing the role senior military commanders play in ordering these kinds of trials to go forward.

The discussion of this issue takes me back many years when I began prosecuting rape and sodomy cases as a young assistant DA in the prosecutor's office in Kansas City. For years, I handled dozens and dozens of these cases in the courtroom, both as an assistant prosecutor and as the elected prosecutor. I have had the opportunity, the blessing, the challenge, and the scarring that comes from holding victims' hands, crying with victims, feeling their pain, the permanency of the injuries they have suffered as a result of these unspeakable crimes. I would

challenge anyone in the Senate to come to this issue with more experience or more understanding of the unique challenges this crime represents in the never-ending quest for true justice.

In my years of experience and the time I have spent with military prosecutors, victims, and civilian prosecutors, I have become convinced that the approach the Armed Services Committee will take today is the right approach to get these predators put in prison.

I believe the provision that I expect will receive a bipartisan majority of the votes in the Armed Services Committee will better empower victims and lead to more reporting. The reason it will empower victims and lead to more reporting is because these changes will lead to more and effective prosecutions.

Ultimately, no woman wants to come forward and talk about this crime, and certainly no man who has been victimized in the military wants to come forward and talk about this crime. It is personal. It is private. It is painful. So it does not matter whether the perpetrator is a member of the military or a civilian; these are difficult cases to bring forward because of the intensely personal nature of the pain involved.

But I believe these reforms will hold the chain of command more accountable and force them to be part of the solution, and it will prevent the unintended consequences of dismantling a system of military justice that has long been a centerpiece of discipline in our military.

Make no mistake about it, the changes we are making are aggressive, historic, victim-oriented, and unforgiving to the predators.

Commanders under these reforms will not have the ability to dismiss a conviction of a jury. That is the first and most important reform that is occurring. Never again will a commander who has not heard the testimony be able to say ``never mind'' to that victim. Most importantly--and this is very important because the reporting on this issue has not been accurate--most importantly, under these reforms, if the lawyers, the prosecutors, say the case should go forward, and the commander disagrees and says no, that will go straight up, not to a man in uniform, but to the Secretary of the branch of the military where the crime occurred. So no longer will you have the uniforms making the ultimate decision.

I would argue we are taking in many ways the convening authority out of the equation because we are allowing that lawyer, if the commander disagrees with them, that prosecutor, if the commander disagrees with them, to go straight up to the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force for the ultimate decision by a civilian, not by a member of the military.

If the commander decides not to order the court-martial, not to order the trial, the final decision will go to the civilian Secretary. The ultimate authority is with the civilian.

This is even a greater level of scrutiny than in the reforms proposed by Senator Gillibrand because you have another level. We heard of cases where the prosecutors did not want to go forward and the command did. There are instances where prosecutors in the civilian world will not file these cases and the military prosecutors will. I am sure there will be cases where military prosecutors will not want to go forward.

So the good news is there is someone above the prosecutors who is a civilian who can, in fact, pass judgment also. We know that many cases are not filed in the civilian courts when they are ``he said, she said'' consent defenses in rape cases. I have painfully explained that decision to victims when the evidence simply was not going to meet the burden.

But in the military, we have to make sure that it is not just a line prosecutor who has the ultimate authority. We need that civilian Secretary at the top of this decisionmaking power. We need that ultimate authority, especially in the culture of our military.

The other thing our reform does that Senator Gillibrand's proposal does not do--and I think this is key--it creates a crime of retaliation. So if this victim comes back to the unit and retaliation occurs, the people who are committing the retaliation are now subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and they can be prosecuted for the crime of retaliation.

I think this is a very important, direct approach. Because, ultimately, that is what most victims who do not come forward say they are afraid of: their loss of privacy and retaliation and the impact on their career.

The bill also makes many other reforms, giving victims better access to legal counsel, improving the skill of personnel working with victims in the sexual assault response system, making sure victims have a voice in the clemency proceedings, and many others.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, if a victim is sexually assaulted, and they come back to their unit, is it more likely the unit will retaliate against them and make their life miserable if outside lawyers have said the case should go forward or if the commander has said the case should go forward? We do not have evidence that this is a problem right now, that commanders are refusing to file these cases. Just the opposite. We heard testimony in committee that they are demanding prosecutions in some instances where the lawyers have said no.

I believe these reforms will do a better job of getting predators behind bars and ultimately creating a more supportive environment for victims to come forward.

We are not done with this, even after we pass these reforms in committee today, and even after we pass this Defense authorization bill and it goes to the President. But I think we have the best chance of making real progress with a strong bipartisan reform that will get at the heart of the matter, which these reforms do.

I believe we will continue to monitor this, and as we go forward, if more changes are necessary, I will be the first in line to work for them. But do not let anyone say the reforms we are doing today are not what is right for the victims of sexual assault or for the proposition that anybody, any coward who besmirches our fine military by committing these crimes--that they should not belong in prison. They belong in prison, and that is what these reforms are intended to help happen.

I thank the Chair and I assume I should yield the floor for my colleague from Colorado.

Madam President, on Thursday morning, the Senate took cloture votes in relation to motions to proceed to S. 953 and S. 1003, which represent a Democratic and Republican proposal, respectively, to address the interest rate offered on subsidized Federal Stafford loans, a form of Federal student loan available to many who are pursuing a postsecondary education. I was unable to be present for these votes, due to a prescheduled commitment; before the timing of these votes was envisioned, my attendance was confirmed at a women's conference. Because my presence would not have changed the outcome of either vote, I honored my previous commitment. Had I been present I would have voted in support of S. 953 and opposed S. 1003.

In my State, over 150,000 students will borrow subsidized Stafford loans next school year. These are need-based loans given to kids who have studied hard and families who have made financial sacrifices and plan to borrow what they need to cover the rising costs of higher education. Rather than reward their efforts, the government plans to add to their burden unless action is taken. On July 1, the interest rate on new subsidized Stafford student loans is scheduled to double from 3.4 to 6.8 percent.

We are facing a crisis. Already, officials at the Federal Reserve, the Department of the Treasury, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have all warned that student borrowing threatens to dampen consumption, depress the economy, limit credit creation, and pose a threat to our Nation's financial stability. Students and graduates in my State are already heavily in student loan debt. Two out of every three Missouri students will leave college with student loan debt. If we fail to take action, students with subsidized Stafford loans will have to pay over $1,000 more than they would under current interest rates on their loans. At a time when a higher education is vital to expanded opportunity for so many young people and with a 21st century economy that increasingly demands workers with the skills learned as part of a college education, we cannot be making it even more difficult for young people to financially achieve a college education. We need to act.

There are several proposals to address this impending crisis. I am a

proud cosponsor of two bills that would provide needed relief and give Congress the opportunity to address a long-term solution to exploding student loan debt when it reauthorizes the Higher Education Act.

The first, S. 953, the Student Loan Affordability Act, introduced by Senator Reed of Rhode Island, would lock in the current 3.4% rate for subsidized Stafford loans for 2 years while Congress works on a long- term solution to slow the rapid accumulation of student loan debt. This bill would be fully paid for by closing tax loopholes enjoyed by companies that move American jobs offshore, big oil companies, and the wealthiest Americans.

I am also a cosponsor of Senator Warren's Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act which would give students the same deal we give to the big banks by allowing those who are eligible for subsidized Stafford loans to borrow at the same rate offered to banks through the Federal Reserve discount window. This is commonsense, and it is fair.

Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe the solution to this current uncertainty is even more uncertainty. Their solution, S. 1003, would produce variable, uncapped interest rates that would hit low-income students the hardest.

Today's votes leave us in the same situation we were in: we need to act to prevent student loan interest rate increases that would additionally burden our students. I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to achieve meaningful legislation that preserves the availability of student loans and the economic opportunities they afford as an option for future generations of Americans.

Madam President, I rise to express my intent to sustain my objection to the nomination of Lt. Gen. Susan Helms to be deputy commander of U.S. Space Command, Calendar No. 70. I have met with Lieutenant General Helms and discussed my objection with leaders in the Air Force and my colleagues here in the Senate.

Lieutenant General Helms has a record of more than 30 years of distinguished military service, in which she became the first American military woman in space, among other significant achievements. Her career is to be celebrated. However, I continue to have deep concerns with Lieutenant General Helms' decision, while a commander and courts- martial convening authority, to overturn the jury verdict of a military court-martial in which the jury found an Air Force officer guilty of sexual assault. She made this decision against the advice of her staff judge advocate.

With her action, Lieutenant General Helms sent a damaging message to survivors of sexual assault who are seeking justice in the military justice system: They can take the difficult and painful step of reporting the crime, they can endure the agony involved in being subjected to intense questioning often aimed at putting the blame on them, and they can experience a momentary sense of justice in knowing that they were believed when their attacker is convicted and sentenced, only to have that justice ripped away with the stroke of a pen by an individual who was never in the courtroom for the trial and who never heard the testimony. In overturning the conviction in this case, Lieutenant General Helms supplanted her opinion for that of a jury, the appropriate adjudicators of fact who observe an entire court-martial proceeding. And she did not take the advice of her staff judge advocate, who recommended she affirm the conviction in this case. At a time when the military is facing a crisis of sexual assault, making a decision that sends a message which dissuades reporting of sexual assaults, supplants the finding of a jury, contradicts the advice of counsel, and further victimizes a survivor of sexual assault is unacceptable.

Given these circumstances, I will continue to object to any unanimous consent request to approve Lieutenant General Helms' nomination. I will continue to give great scrutiny to any future nomination of any member of the armed services who has, while serving in his or her capacity as a convening authority of a military court-martial, overturned a jury conviction against the advice of legal counsel.

Mr. President, I rise to make a unanimous consent request, but I want to make a few remarks first.

At the risk of being patronizing to my colleagues about the Constitution, I wish to give a basic lesson on the Constitution this morning.

My understanding is our Founding Fathers in the Constitution devised a system where we had a House of Representatives and a Senate, and they have to agree before something becomes a law. I think this is an amazing decision our Founding Fathers made because what it does is require the Senate, where all of us represent a whole State, to reach agreement with our colleagues in the House, who have much smaller constituencies and, therefore, may be targeted more to one specific area than some of us are.

I have listened to lecture after lecture from my colleagues across the aisle about the Constitution. It is almost as if some of them think they are the only ones who have read it or that they are the only ones who understand it. Well, they are not. Here is how the Constitution works: When we pass a bill and the House passes a bill, we go to conference. Why did the Founding Fathers want that? Because they understood that compromise was the mother's milk of a democracy.

But here is the bizarre thing about this. As a candidate for office last year, I bet I heard 10,000 times: Why don't you pass a budget? I listened to the leader of the Republican Party stand on this floor--and I would love to put together a montage, because we do a lot of hyperbole around here. We exaggerate, we go too far and say too much-- but it is not exaggerating that the rallying cry of the Republican Party was: Pass a budget. Regular order. Pass a budget. Regular order. Pass a budget. Regular order. So what did we do? We passed a budget in regular order.

Here is the bizarre part. Following the Constitution, which my friends like to wave around and pretend they are the only ones who love it, some people on that side now think regular order doesn't matter and, by the way, they do not want to go to conference and they do not want to compromise, blowing up the constitutional premise of compromise between the two Houses--blowing it up.

I don't know what the American people think of this, but we have to shake our head at the politics of this. We have got to shake our heads, because here is what is bizarre. They keep moving the goalpost about what it would take to get us to conference.

By the way, the people who are going to be conferring on the other side are in the Republican Party. Are my colleagues worried their counterparts in the House haven't read the Constitution and they are not answerable to their constituents who voted them into office as Republicans so that we have to have another budget bill and redo the debate or we have to make sure they can't compromise on anything and we have to put it in the law?

They had an opportunity to get their way. It is called amendments. My colleagues could have gotten their way through the amendment process. We had over 100 of them. We were here until 5:30 in the morning voting on them. We passed 70 of them. How many amendments did the Senator from Texas offer on the debt ceiling that he is now saying he has to have before we can go to conference? How many amendments did he offer on that? Zero. He offered 17 amendments, but he didn't offer 1 on the debt ceiling. In fact, there was not one Republican amendment on the debt ceiling--not one. So I have to say it is pretty obvious they didn't want a budget, they wanted a political talking point. They wanted to make it look as though we didn't care about doing our job.

They didn't care about a budget. Because if they cared about a budget they would hightail it to conference right now. They would hightail it to conference. It has been 2 months.

I hope the American people are paying attention. No wonder they think we are all losers. This is not a game. You can't love the Constitution one day and blow it up the next. You can't be a situational constitutionalist when you don't get your way. That is not the way our democracy works. I got elected fair and square, and so did my Republican colleagues, and that is why we all have to be willing to compromise with one another. We are not serving the American people by playing these games, and they are sick and tired of it. Frankly, I think it makes the body look a little silly.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that the amendment which is at the desk, the text of S. Con. Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed to; the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate; that following the authorization, two motions to instruct conferees be in order from each side--motion to instruct relative to the debt limit, and motion to instruct relative to taxes and revenue; that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to votes in relation to the motions; further, that no amendments be in order to either of the motions prior to the votes; all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate.

Could I inquire of the Senator? I am asking: Is the Senator saying the constitutional provision for a conference between the two Houses--what the Founding Fathers put in the Constitution for conferences--is, in fact, a backroom deal of the Constitution; you don't accept that part of the Constitution?

I reserve the right to object to the request made by the Senator from Utah to amend my request. I would say within my request there is, in fact, the opportunity to vote; and he had the opportunity to offer an amendment on the debt ceiling on the budget and he did not.

I thank my colleague from Arizona and I renew my unanimous consent request.

There is an objection to the modified request.

Would the Senator yield?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I say to the Senator, through the Chair, I have conferred with our budget chair while Senator McCain was debating this with the Senator from Utah, and maybe they are not aware that conference committees are open to anyone who wants to observe them. I would like Senator McCain to invite the Senator from Utah to sit in on the conference committee and listen to every word.

This notion that our democracy is a backroom deal because of bills in conference--the Founding Fathers are shaking their heads in disgust at this notion. It is not a closed-door process. It is an open process. Anybody can come and listen.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

The Senate is a wondrous creation by our Founding Fathers in that a great deal of power was given to the minority in the Senate.

And I know the Senator from Arizona has enjoyed having that power from time to time, and I am sure when my party has been in the minority it has been important, and we have respected that in this body, although there have been some really dicey times, and I am sure the Senator from Arizona has been involved when we have been on the brink of blowing up the rights of the minority.

I want to make sure I understand. The way I really see what is going on is we now have a superminority. If this were allowed to pass, what we would be doing is changing what the Founding Fathers had in mind in terms of the power of the minority and actually saying: Let's go back in history and say there were one or two or three Senators or four Senators who decided, by gosh, they weren't going to do voting rights legislation or they weren't going to do the vote for women or they weren't going to do some of the changes that have occurred in our country.

Does the Senator from Arizona see a problem that if we allow a superminority--a minority of the minority--to hijack a process laid out in our Constitution, that what would happen is the majority would have no choice at that point other than to begin to circumscribe the rules for the minority?

Mr. President, I rise today to honor six outstanding members of the U.S. Marshals Service--Supervisory Deputy U.S. Marshal Patrick James and Deputy U.S. Marshals Theodore Abegg, Travis Franke, Nicholas Garrett, Jeremy Wyatt, and John Perry--who played an instrumental role in the March 8, 2011, apprehension of a fugitive in St. Louis, MO, an incident that claimed the life of Deputy U.S. Marshal John Perry and resulted in the wounding of Deputy U.S. Marshal Theodore Abegg, as well as St. Louis Police Officer Jeff Helbling.

I commend the heroic service and incredible sacrifice of all these marshals, four of whom are from my home State of Missouri: Supervisory Deputy U.S. Marshal Patrick James and Deputy U.S. Marshals Theodore Abegg, Travis Franke, and Nicholas Garrett. Deputy U.S. Marshal Jeremy Wyatt and fallen Deputy U.S. Marshal John Perry hail from Illinois. Last week, my colleague Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois joined me at an awards ceremony in St. Louis to honor these distinguished U.S. marshals.

Before I talk about the bravery these law enforcement officials demonstrated in the line of duty, I need to mention the tremendous service the U.S. Marshals Service provides to the people of this country every day. As the Nation's oldest Federal law enforcement agency, the U.S. Marshals Service plays several crucial roles, including protecting Federal judges, operating the Witness Security Program, seizing illegally obtained assets from criminals, and apprehending Federal fugitives--a function which led to its cooperation with the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department and the formation of the U.S. Marshals Service Fugitive Task Force in St. Louis. Since the Marshals Service's inception in 1789, over 200 federal marshals, deputy marshals, special deputy marshals, and marshals guards have lost their lives in the line of duty. When the U.S. Marshals Service's steadfast devotion to crime prevention and mitigation is considered alongside its traditional witness protection and judicial security duties, the law enforcement officials of this agency truly exemplify the values of ``Justice, Integrity, Service.''

From my days as a prosecutor, I know how critically important the

Mr. President, I also wish honor three St. Louis Metropolitan Police Detectives who played an instrumental role in the March 8, 2011, apprehension of a fugitive in St. Louis, MO, an incident that claimed the life of Deputy U.S. Marshal John Perry and resulted in the wounding of Deputy U.S. Marshal Theodore, Ted, Abegg, as well as St. Louis Police Officer Jeff Helbling. Before I talk about the heroic service and incredible sacrifice of these three officers, I have to mention the tremendous service the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department provides to the people of St. Louis every day. As the principal law enforcement agency serving the City of St. Louis, the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, in addition to its routine functions, provides a variety of specialized services, including acting as a liaison with the U.S. Marshals Service Fugitive Task Force. Since its inception in 1836, over 160 St. Louis police officers have lost their lives in the line of duty. When the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department's steadfast dedication to community involvement is considered alongside its traditional crime prevention and mitigation duties, the officers of this department truly exemplify the mission ``To Protect and Serve.''

I know how valuable police officers and other first responders are to communities across Missouri. While I was Jackson County prosecutor, I witnessed firsthand the essential skills and hands-on training needed to keep our neighborhoods safe from crime. I know that our first responders form the backbone of our communities, and I salute the countless acts of bravery performed by law enforcement officers across Missouri.

On March 8, 2011, members of the U.S. Marshals Service Fugitive Task

Force, which included St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department officers, engaged in an effort to apprehend a dangerous fugitive in St. Louis. In approaching the fugitive's residence, the officers and deputies, discovering there were two children at the home, safely removed them and entered the home behind a ballistic shield. Upon entering the home and ascending a stairwell, the officers and deputies were fired upon by the fugitive. Both Deputy U.S. Marshal John Perry and St. Louis Police Officer Jeff Helbling were wounded in the initial exchange of gunfire. Tragically, Deputy Perry's wounds later proved fatal. While other task force members engaged the fugitive, Officer Anna Kimble alerted supporting officers of the shooting over the radio system and Officer Joe Kuster provided perimeter security. A rescue attempt was mounted by the U.S. Marshals, during which another deputy U.S. Marshal was wounded. In the course of the rescue attempt, the fugitive was subdued by task force team members.

I am proud these three officers hail from my home State of Missouri. Their sincere dedication to duty and endless compassion for the residents of the city they serve are an inspiration to the people of St. Louis. First responders like these place themselves in harm's way every day, forsaking the safety many of us take for granted. They and their families make precious sacrifices so that we, the American public, may enjoy the freedom to live our lives to an extent made possible by the knowledge that someone stands watchful and ready on our behalf.

Therefore, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department Detectives Jeff Helbling, Anna Kimble, and Joe Kuster for their distinguished service to the people of St. Louis. I thank them, and I thank all of you for joining me in recognizing these outstanding Missourians.

Finally, Mr. President, I wish to honor two deputy U.S. marshals who played an instrumental role in the March 8, 2011, apprehension of a fugitive in St. Louis, MO, an incident that claimed the life of Deputy U.S. Marshal John Perry and resulted in the wounding of Deputy U.S. Marshal Theodore ``Ted'' Abegg, as well as St. Louis Police Officer Jeff Helbling. Before I talk about the heroic service and incredible sacrifice of these two deputies, I have to mention the tremendous service the U.S. Marshals Service provides to the people of this country every day. As the Nation's oldest Federal law enforcement agency, the U.S. Marshals Service provides a variety of crucial services, including protecting Federal judges, operating the Witness Security Program, seizing illegally obtained assets from criminals, and apprehending Federal fugitives--a function which led to its cooperation with the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department and the formation of the U.S. Marshals Service Fugitive Task Force in St. Louis. Since its inception in 1789, over 200 Federal marshals, deputy marshals, special deputy marshals, and marshals guards have lost their lives in the line of duty. When the U.S. Marshals Service's steadfast devotion to crime prevention and mitigation is considered alongside its traditional witness protection and judicial security duties, the law enforcement officials of this agency truly exemplify the values of ``Justice, Integrity, Service.''

I know how critically important the Marshals Service is to the Federal justice system and the impact these officials have in communities across Missouri. These highly trained men and women help form the backbone of our legal system, and I salute the countless acts of bravery performed by Federal law enforcement officers across Missouri and this Nation.

On March 8, 2011, members of the U.S. Marshals Service Fugitive Task Force, which included St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department officers, engaged in an effort to apprehend a dangerous fugitive in St. Louis. In approaching the fugitive's residence, the officers and deputies, discovering there were two children at the home, safely removed them and entered the home behind a ballistic shield. Upon entering the home and ascending a stairwell, the officers and deputies were fired upon by the fugitive. Both Deputy U.S. Marshal John Perry and St. Louis Police Officer Jeff Helbling were wounded in the initial exchange of gunfire. Tragically, Deputy Perry's wounds later proved fatal. While other task force members engaged the fugitive, Officer Anna Kimble alerted supporting officers of the shooting over the radio system, Deputy U.S. Marshal Melissa Duffy administered first aid to Officer Helbling, and Deputy U.S. Marshal Shawn Jackson provided protective cover allowing wounded Deputy U.S. Marshal Abegg to withdraw. A rescue attempt was mounted by the U.S. marshals, during which another deputy U.S. marshal was wounded. In the course of the rescue attempt, the fugitive was subdued by task force team members.

I am proud these two deputies are based in my home State of Missouri. Their sincere dedication to duty and strong sense of justice are an inspiration to the American people. Marshals like these place themselves in harm's way every day, forsaking the safety many of us take for granted. They and their families make precious sacrifices so that we, the American public, may enjoy the freedom to live our lives to an extent made possible by the knowledge that someone stands watchful and ready on our behalf.

Therefore, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Deputy U.S. Marshals Melissa Duffy and Shawn Jackson for their distinguished service to the people of this country. I thank them, and I thank all of you for joining me in recognizing these outstanding individuals.

Mr. President, at this time, I am objecting to the Senate proceeding to the consideration of the nomination of Lt Gen. Susan Helms, USAF, Calendar No. 70 in order to provide additional time for myself and other Senators to gather additional information regarding Lieutenant General Helms' record of service, particularly her actions serving as a convening authority for military courts martial.

Madam President, the budget already includes a deficit-neutral reserve fund to assist servicemembers and veterans. It contains a provision supporting the transition of our military to the workforce by recognizing the process is too cumbersome for them in terms of credentialing requirements and licensing requirements.

What my amendment does is it clarifies this section to ensure that a servicemember's military training, education, and experience shall be taken into account for both Federal and State licensing requirements.

These men and women have performed technical jobs in the most difficult circumstances imaginable. We should recognize that and accept their service and their experience and their training and allow them to be easily credentialed when they return home. It helps them so much in the search for jobs.

I would ask for a voice vote.

Madam President, I ask the Senate to join me today in honoring the work of Jim Symington, a friend and dedicated public servant who is retiring this year. In the summer of 1974 I came to Washington as an intern for Congressman Jim Symington. That experience, and the lessons I learned from this great leader were instrumental in my success as a political candidate and public official.

As a member of a family steeped in public service, and as the son of the great United States Senator Stuart Symington, Jim did not hesitate to take up the mantle of serving his country. Jim started his career serving others when he enlisted in the Marine Corps as a high school graduate. Following his military service, Jim earned his Bachelor's degree from Yale University and his law degree from Columbia Law School.

Jim served for 2 years following law school as the assistant city counselor for St. Louis before going into private practice. In 1958, Jim entered the Foreign Service where he served as assistant to the United States ambassador for the United Kingdom. Upon his return to Washington, DC Jim served our Government in various positions including administrative assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy and the Chief of Protocol for the Department of State.

In 1968 Jim was elected to represent St. Louis, Missouri's 2nd Congressional District, where he served four terms. During his time in Congress, Jim served on the House Commerce Committee and the Committee on Science and Technology. He also served as the chair of the Subcommittees on Space Science and Applications; Science, Research & Technology; and International Cooperation. He was an active voice on space exploration during a time when space exploration was a central topic. Upon leaving Congress in 1977, Jim returned to private law practice, and has had a distinguished legal career at Nossaman LLP/ O'Connor & Hannan here in Washington, DC.

However Jim Symington has never been an ordinary practicing lawyer. He and his wife Sylvia have been friends, mentors, and highly respected members of a small group of true leaders in our America's Capitol for many years. They are always in high demand as dinner partners or leaders of a civic endeavor. Together, their wit, intelligence, and musical prowess has constantly reminded the most powerful in our Nation that there is always more to learn and it is very dangerous to take yourself too seriously.

It is my honor to call Jim a mentor and friend. Like no other man I know, I also realize that the number of people who count on his friendship would be a record for a town where Harry Truman famously noted that if you wanted a friend you should turn to a canine. I am thankful for his friendship, advice and service to Missouri and this great

country. While these comments mark his retirement from the practice of law, I'm confident that he will continue to be a bright light of intellect, humor, and friendship for many years to come in our Nation's Capital.

I ask that the Senate join me in honoring Jim Symington on this occasion of his retirement from the practice of law.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the period of morning business be extended until 2 p.m. today, and that all provisions of the previous order remain in effect.

Madam President, I want to thank my colleague. He and I disagree on many things, but we agree on many things also, and one of

those things usually begins and ends with the State we love, Missouri, and certainly some of our most famous and beloved people who come from Missouri. Obviously, there is no one who deserves more love and respect than Stan Musial.

There are so many memories about Stan Musial that I want to try to encapsulate today, but the interesting thing about the memories I have about Stan Musial is that I don't have these memories because I am a Senator. They do not belong uniquely to me because I am an elected official. I have these memories that I share with hundreds of thousands of people who were lucky enough to encounter Stan Musial during his time on Earth.

You know, when you meet somebody, and you can tell they are kind of looking over you to try to find the person who is more important behind you or maybe they are impatient because they do not think you are a big enough deal to be taking their time? If you look at our sports icons today who travel with posses and have entourages and certain rules about who can come near them and who can't and when, that was not Stan Musial. Not one day of his career or one day after his career did he consider himself untouchable. He saw it as his duty and obligation to be there for all fans. Whether it was somebody who worked at the ballpark sweeping after the game was over or whether it was a very talented ballplayer from another team, everyone was equal in Stan Musial's eyes. What a wonderful American value.

I could stand here today, Madam President, and talk about his amazing record as a baseball player, his unique swing, and the beauty of his accomplishments in America's favorite pastime, but what we need to focus on as we mourn the loss of this living legend is his character because it was his character that brought universal love, respect, and devotion to the man, our man, Stan ``The Man.''

I know Senator Blunt talked about this story, but I want to elaborate a little bit.

It is 1952. Joe Black has just been called up to the majors after spending 1 year in the minors with the Brooklyn organization. He is facing Stan Musial. Now, keep in mind that this is an accomplished baseball player who had won two championships in the Negro Baseball Leagues, and it had only been a few years since Jackie Robinson had, in fact, broken the color barrier for Major League Baseball. He is facing Stan Musial, who already was the most feared hitter in baseball. He is standing there as a Black man on the mound in this baseball game, and out of the Cardinal dugout come jeers and taunts. In fact, one of the things said was, hey, Stan, you are not going to have any trouble hitting that ball against that dark background.

When the game was over, Stan Musial decided not to stay in the Cardinal dugout. Joe Black told the story that as he sat in the dugout, he felt a hand on his shoulder. He looked up, and there was Stan Musial from the opposing dugout saying to Joe Black: You are going to be a great pitcher.

Now, that encapsulates the character of Stan Musial.

Chuck Connors, ``The Rifleman,'' used to tell this story. He was a struggling hitter for the Chicago Cubs.

I may need to explain to you, Madam President, but I certainly don't need to explain to anybody in Cardinal Nation that the Chicago Cubs are an opponent. Now, we don't like the Chicago Cubs in Cardinal Nation.

Chuck Connors asked a teammate what he should do about his swing. He was struggling with being able to hit in the majors, and they all told him the same thing: The only guy who can help you is Stan Musial. So even though he was reluctant to approach a hitter on the opposing team, he went to Musial and asked for help, and, of course, Stan responded as all of us would expect he would; he spent 30 minutes in the cage with an opposing player trying to help him with his swing. Connors recounted that he really wasn't ever that good of a hitter, but he said he never forgot Stan Musial's kindness.

And when he finished watching me cut away at the ball, Stan

slapped me on the back and told me to keep swinging.

After the 1946 season, the promoters from the Mexican League decided it was time for them to up the ante on baseball. At the time, Stan Musial was making the enormous sum of $13,500 playing for the St. Louis Cardinals. The Mexican League came to Stan Musial and said: We are going to offer you--a king's ransom at the time--$125,000 for 5 years. That was a lot of money for Stan Musial and his family, but he turned down the Mexican League. When asked about it later, he said:

Back in my day, we didn't think about money as much. We

just enjoyed playing the game. We loved baseball. I didn't

think about anybody else but the Cardinals.

Harry Caray knew Stan Musial for over 50 years. He would often tell the story of Stan Musial wandering out of the ballpark after a steaming doubleheader--and trust me, we can have steaming doubleheaders in Missouri--looking as if he had been through 15 rounds in a prize fight and every single thing in his body language signifying that he was exhausted and just wanted to go home and lie down. Instead, when he got to his car, he found fans waiting for him. ``Watch this,'' Harry Caray told a friend. And sure enough, Musial's whole body straightened--like Popeye had just eaten a can of spinach--and he started shouting, ``Whaddya Say! Whaddya Say!'' And he signed every single autograph of all the fans surrounding his car. Harry Caray loved telling that story not because it was unusual--that is who Stan Musial was--but for the opposite reason: because it was ordinary. Even in his time, when baseball players weren't paid as much and so were more part of the community, Stan Musial stood apart by standing with the people in the community.

It wasn't just Cardinal Nation that worshipped Stan Musial. His opponents, the opposing teams--can you imagine this happening today? Believe it or not, the New York Mets had a Stan Musial Day at their park. And in Chicago, the home of the Cubs, he once finished first in a favorite player survey, edging out the legendary Ernie Banks, who was also a very nice guy who was beloved by the fans of baseball in the Midwest.

I could go on and on with stories that reflect this man's character. Yes, he has amazing statistics. Yes, him hitting a baseball was a thing of beauty to all baseball fans in America. But, really, what this man was about was that phrase we love to throw around in politics way too often; that is, American values. This was a man who didn't have to talk about his values because he lived them--his love for his family and how close they are.

I am very fortunate to be friends with the Musial family and have visited with them in the days since his death. They received messages from every star in the constellation of American baseball, but one stood out. Joe Torre, upon hearing of Stan's death just a few days ago, sent a message to the Musial family, and it simply said this:

Stan Musial was a Hall of Famer in the game of life. We

will miss you, Stan Musial.

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