Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business for less than 15 minutes.

Mr. President, first I wish to address legislation that passed the Senate earlier this evening. The sustainable growth rate is such an important issue to the people from the

State of Kansas. I come from a State in which senior citizens are a very prevalent portion of our population, and access to health care is so dependent upon whether Medicare reimburses a physician, a hospital, a home health care agency or a nursing home in an adequate amount. I fear that in the absence of that adequate Medicare reimbursement we will see a lot fewer doctors, and hospital doors will close.

I have been an advocate of and in fact I never voted to create the sustainable growth rate, and I suppose I should explain what that is. In the broadest of terms it means there is a formula that ultimately reduces the reimbursement a physician receives under Medicare. It has become a very dramatic issue. This year I believe it is around a 24 percent reduction that will occur April 1, tomorrow, if the sustainable growth rate formula is not altered.

The reality is that Congress has altered that formula to avoid those reductions, because we know when a health care provider is not compensated in a way that covers the cost of providing the service, most likely we are going to have fewer health care providers. Hospitals will not be there, physicians will no longer be in practice, and, particularly in areas of our country that are rural where, again, a significant portion of the population is senior citizens whose medical bills are paid, in part, through Medicare.

My discouragement, my dissatisfaction, is once again the Senate has demonstrated its dysfunction by passing a very short-term fix to this long-term problem. If history is any indication, we will be back 1 year from now in the same predicament. We have made alterations 16 times previously. This is the 17th time in which we have done a short-term fix to a long-term problem. To me, it is one more symptom of our inability as a Senate to function in a way that benefits the American people: in this case, patients who are served by physicians who will be harmed.

In instances across Kansas, our hospitals are now employers of physicians, and so they have entered into a contract with a physician. When the reimbursement rate for the physician is reduced, it means less revenue to the hospital and a tighter squeeze to the many hospitals that barely hang on by a thread.

I express my appreciation to Senator Wyden, the chairman of the Finance Committee, for his efforts to find a long-term solution, a permanent repeal of the SGR and again express my willingness to him and to others to work with Democrats in the Senate, to work with Republicans in the Senate, to find the necessary numbers of us who will come together to support legislation that would permanently end the SGR, and that we would not be then asked a few months from now to come back once again to solve the problem.

We know the problem is there. We know we will have to find a solution. The consequences of failing are so great, but we were unwilling to take the necessary steps today to pass a permanent repeal and an elimination of the SGR formula.

Again, to Senator Wyden, he and I have had conversations since last Thursday about my willingness to have conversations with Republican Members of the Senate to find the necessary votes to pass legislation for a permanent repeal. I expressed that offer again to Senator Wyden, that we are still interested in doing that, and that the country, its health care providers and their patients, deserve better than what we were able to do today.

Remembering the Mull Family

I turn to a story about a very special Kansas family. Unfortunately, it is a sad story.

I often describe to my friends and colleagues in Washington, DC, how special Kansas is and in a special way how we live our lives there.

Families are important. The values of family run deep in our communities. We have neighbors who care for each other and we all know each other one on one, name by name, family by family. We know where they go to church, we know what schools their kids are in, and we know how their families are doing. When tragedy strikes, the entire community is shaken.

I pay tribute today to a family from north central Kansas, the Mulls. Glenn Mull and his wife Elaine, their daughter Amy Harter and their granddaughter Samantha Harter were traveling to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association trade show in Nashville on February 3 when the plane they were in crashed during its second landing attempt. The jet went down about 10 miles from the airport in Bellevue, TN.

I saw on the Internet a Bellevue resident, who I don't know. She wrote this tribute to Glenn Mull, the pilot.

She said:

Glenn had reached the most bustling section of our

community at the busiest time of the day. . . . He would have

seen hundreds of homes with cars in the driveway. A Kroger

packed with shoppers. An assisted living community. And an

enormous YMCA, where hundreds of families were streaming in

and out to swim in the indoor pool, exercise and take

classes. Glenn didn't know this, but school was cancelled for

our kids . . . so a larger number than usual were at the Y

with their parents. Some experts are saying now that the

last-second sharp turn Glenn made in the seconds before the

plane crashed indicates that he made a heroic decision to hit

the one spot in the immediate vicinity where no one on the

ground would be hurt. . . . Glenn managed to spare all of

their lives.

The Bellevue resident went on to describe her own community as one which is ``filled with people who shared Glenn's obvious affinity for family.'' She said that Bellevue residents:

. . . are all talking about Glenn Mull, the hero, who we

believe had the extraordinary courage and presence of mind to

save our families, even as he realized he couldn't save his

own.

Glenn was born in Great Bend and raised on his family farm near there, where his parents instilled in him a strong work ethic and a sense of integrity. He went on to graduate from Kansas State University with a business degree, and K-State is where he met his wife Elaine. They moved back to north central Kansas to grow the three-generation family farm and eventually to raise their three children. He promoted his life's work through representation of Kansas farmers and ranchers in organizations such as the Kansas Livestock Association and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

Glenn and Elaine were well respected not only in the cattle industry but also in their community for their generous commitment to improving the lives of their neighbors. As a founding board member of Pawnee Valley Community Hospital Foundation, one of Glenn's top priorities was improving health care in Larned, KS. Their hospital was faced with potential closure in 2009 until efforts were made by the city of Larned and community members such as Glenn to solve the problem and to keep the hospital doors open. For rural communities such as Larned, access to the types of health care facilities offered by Pawnee Valley Community Hospital is essential to their community's future.

Elaine, his wife, had a tireless heart for service and volunteered in a number of organizations, including the Fort Larned Historical Society, the Larned Hospital Auxiliary, the Santa Fe Trail Center, Larned Music Club, 4-H, Girl Scouts, and was a K-State trustee, just to name a few of her activities.

She played the piano and taught Bible study classes at Grace Community Church in Great Bend where the pastor said that he loved to talk with Glenn about the weather, which is a very common Kansas conversation, and that he always used the farmer's expertise to analyze the day.

The pastor said:

He knew exactly how much moisture we had and what we

needed, whether this was good for the wheat versus the milo

and how it might affect the feed yards.

The pastor continued:

There has been talk that Glenn behaved in a very heroic

way. I have no idea whether that is true, but I will tell you

that he is the kind of guy who would absolutely have done the

right thing.

Glenn and Elaine's legacies of selflessness, philanthropy, and leadership undoubtedly live on. I have met many people in my life, and I don't know that I have ever met a couple with more optimism, with more care and concern for other people, with a sense that things will be better tomorrow, and that the idea that hard work and living your life with integrity and as a companion to your Creator, would mean that good things would happen for you and your family.

Amy Harter, their daughter, and her family lived in a house on the Mulls' land and worked in the family business, while she and her husband Doug raised their children, Chase and Samantha.

Sixteen-year-old Samantha, the granddaughter, was killed in that plane crash. She was described by one of her classmates at Larned High School, which has a student body of about 300, as a silly girl but a serious enough one to be a member of the honor choir. She would have the most energy in the honor choir practice at 7 in the morning. She would either be there--tired--with caramel rolls her mom had made or laughing and having fun.

Kansans know what it means to persevere, and certainly the Mull family has persevered through many difficulties. No farmer or rancher escapes that in our State. We embrace our State's motto--``Ad astra per aspera''--``To the stars through difficulties.'' During difficult times we often see the very best in people--as in Glenn's decision to save lives in Tennessee when he couldn't save himself or his family.

Amidst the loss of Glenn and Elaine, their daughter and granddaughter, and the suffering of this Kansas community, what stands out is the outpouring in Larned and Great Bend in central Kansas of care and compassion shown by their friends and neighbors but also by the residents of Belleview, NE, who were united in their care and concern for this family they never knew.

Glenn, Elaine, their daughter Amy, and granddaughter Samantha will be greatly missed, and all we can do now is model our lives after the lives they led and ask that God comfort them, their families and be a source of support for all who knew them as we go through this continued time of grief.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I thank my colleague.

Excellence in Mental Health Act

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

Mr. President, yesterday, while relaying to the Senate some anecdotes he believed proved the success of ObamaCare, the majority leader stated this:

Despite all the good news, there are plenty of horror

stories being told. All of them are untrue, but they are

being told all over America.

Well, that statement, quite frankly, shocked me, and I am sure it would have shocked millions of Americans, if they had heard it, who are feeling the detrimental effects of this very unpopular law, the Affordable Care Act.

I have heard directly from countless Kansans about the devastating effects ObamaCare has had on them and their families. Most of the Kansans I speak with are concerned primarily about what the future will hold for their children and grandchildren. What type of life will we as parents and grandparents be passing on to future generations?

I can assure the majority leader that Kansans are salt-of-the-earth people. They are, most assuredly, not liars. They do not deserve to be called liars by any Member of this body.

Take Philip and his wife from Lenexa who are in their midfifties. Philip has been self-employed for the last 20 years but had maintained coverage through his wife's employer for most of that time. She now works for a much smaller company which can only pay a fraction of the cost of their insurance, so it was much cheaper for him to purchase insurance in the individual market starting in 2013. Finding affordable coverage now, in 2014, has been a much greater challenge. He writes:

With the changes in health insurance due to implementation

of the ACA for the next year, we shopped the Kansas exchange

for 2014 plans. What we found was shocking.

They found that for the same level of coverage, they would now have to pay a premium more than double what they paid in 2013. On top of the higher premium, they would be faced with double the deductible and nearly double the out-of-pocket maximum.

In his letter Philip says:

Frankly, we anticipate a decline in income for the next two

years, but still won't qualify for subsidies; this simply

makes the ``Affordable Health Care'' unaffordable for us.

He continues:

The icing on the cake--my wife's employer has told her they

expect to drop their health care coverage for their employees

altogether in 2015 because of the added expenses of the ACA!

I honestly don't know what we will do; we are not wealthy by

any means and have not been able to fund our retirement plan

for a couple of years now. We do not have sufficient money to

retire at any time soon and ACA will take everything we could

afford to save. We hope Congress can come up with a logical

and truly affordable option to the ACA soon!

This is common criticism I have heard many times, and I can assure the majority leader that Philip's story is true.

I have also heard from members of the Kansas Disabled American Veterans service organization who have shared the difficulty and struggle of veterans having to relinquish their preferred health care plans due to cost increases caused by ObamaCare. They are now pursuing care through the VA, which presents a whole other host of new obstacles to receiving the care they deserve. So we have veterans who are unable to afford health care under the Affordable Care Act now coming to the veterans system and being unable to, anytime soon, enroll. In fact, their biggest concern is they will now have to wait 3 months to 6 months to get their first appointment.

The bottom line is that veterans will either pay more for their health benefits through ObamaCare and lose their preferred doctors or be forced to join the backlog of veterans seeking care. Neither is a good option for our veterans. Veterans in Kansas and across the Nation are feeling the burdens of ObamaCare. They have sacrificed so much for our country, and I can assure the majority leader that they are telling the truth.

Another example of how ObamaCare is hurting Kansans is from Salina, a town in the middle of our State. The nonprofit YMCA in Salina will be capping the schedules of part-time employees at 25 hours per week to avoid having to provide them health insurance benefits as part of ObamaCare. The administrator says:

It is unfortunate. We have a lot of good people who you'd

love to have working more hours that we're going to have to

make the cut. This is hitting nonprofits hard. A for-profit

company, this cuts into their profits, but we don't have

profits to cut into.

This YMCA is not alone in their efforts to trim costs. Numerous companies and organizations across Kansas are having to cut back the hours of part-time employees because of ObamaCare. And I can tell the majority leader once again that those people and those organizations are telling the truth.

Yesterday afternoon the majority leader came to the floor once again and read an opinion column from The Hill newspaper. This article, authored by Mark Mellman, supported the majority leaders' efforts to discredit the stories being told of Americans who are having very real struggles and those who have lost their health care coverage as a result of ObamaCare. The majority leader read this column on the Senate floor literally word for word; however, he stopped just short of the end of the column, and I wanted to finish reading the footnote of the column which he chose not to read. It was about the author.

Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has worked

for Democratic candidates and causes since 1982. Current

clients include the Majority Leader of the Senate and the

Democrat whip in the House.

I just wanted to complete the record, that the majority leader is reading an article by a Democratic consultant, employed by the majority leader, to furnish evidence that what he is saying about the untruths of people who are complaining about ObamaCare is based upon fact. Mark Mellman really is not the person to be quoting as to whether the Affordable Care Act is working.

I would also point out that ObamaCare has been heavily debated for years now. For 5 years we have been talking about the Affordable Care Act. During this time there have been so many broken promises, so many falsehoods, and so many direct lies. We heard them all.

``ObamaCare will lower all of our health care costs.''

``ObamaCare won't cut Medicare.''

``ObamaCare will create jobs.''

And who can forget ``If you like your doctor or health plan, you can keep them.''

These were lies. These were untruths. They were promises made and summarily broken. This is why so many Americans are outraged. It is time for Washington to stop dismissing their concerns and start listening to them.

Another disturbing moment--in fact, I think perhaps the most disturbing part of what the majority leader said--after he read the column from The Hill, he said this:

It is time the American people spoke out against this

terrible dishonesty and about those two brothers who are

about as un-American as anyone I can imagine.

This really bothers me. Accusations about who is un-American are deeply troubling, and to me that is an unfortunate comment when we refer to anyone. From the earliest days of our Republic, it has been a tactic exerted by those in power to humiliate and discredit those who come from different backgrounds or have a different point of view that challenges the people in power, and it is part of a strategy to convince ordinary Americans that sinister forces are working to undermine our country and our institutions. Ironically, by charging some person or group with being un-American or disloyal, the effort to stifle an exchange of ideas erodes the very foundation of our democratic government.

These accusations have been leveled during times of war, but they are just as prevalent during times of peace. We know of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1797, the Know-Nothing Party taking aim at immigrants in the 1800s, and the Red Scare after the First World War.

In the process leading up to women's suffrage, critics of giving women the vote belittled them. One even suggested that women were too emotionally delicate to take on the task of voting. Thankfully, these ridiculous assertions could not derail the passage of the 19th Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote.

Yet perhaps the most famous example is a Senator using his position to charge people as diverse as Hollywood actors and Army generals and Secretary of State George C. Marshall of political views which differed with the Senator's. In fact, the Senator believed their views were traitorous. He referred to such people as ``enemies from within.'' Why would a Senator reach such a conclusion? Because those political views disagreed with his own. Maybe it was also for the headlines and attention he craved or perhaps he was just paranoid, in search of a bogeyman. For more than 5 years this Senator leveled the charges of ``disloyalty'' without any real evidence. Because of his flippant claims, he did untold damage to so many lives, with very little consequence to himself. Not until enough of his colleagues had enough and put an end to his campaign against other citizens did this unfortunate episode in our Nation's history come to an end. This tactic didn't end in 1950 and, indeed, it continues today.

I am disappointed by those who impugn President Obama, questioning his legitimacy and sincerity as he seeks to do what he believes is his best for the country. Yet it is undoubtedly a two-way street. The President dismissed those who opposed his candidacy in 2008 as people who ``cling to guns or religion'' or have ``antipathy toward people who are not like them.''

When I served in the House of Representatives in 2009, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in the town hall meeting in August of that year that those with concerns about ObamaCare were ``un-American.''

No one has the right to determine whose beliefs are American or un- American--certainly no one in the House of Representatives or the Senate.

It is troubling that there is a reflexive reaction in Congress to label political critics as un-American or disloyal. Recognizing disagreement is part of the decisionmaking process of our democracy, and a respectful dialogue between all Americans is critical to a well- functioning Republic. Certainly anything short of that is not worthy of the Senate floor.

I'm weary of repeated attempts to distract the American people from the rollout and poor performance of ObamaCare.

This week a New York Times/CBS poll found that only 6 percent of Americans believe that ObamaCare is ``working well and should be kept in place as is.'' I ask the majority leader: Does that mean that the other 94 percent of Americans surveyed are liars?

In fact, ObamaCare is a disaster to our Nation's health care system, and it is a disaster to our country's economy. The American people have made their opinions known, and rather than remedy the situation and address their concerns, the majority leader and others are trying to change the conversation and attack the very Americans who have real, life-impacting concerns about their access to health care.

My friends on the other side of the aisle act as though the majority of Americans support ObamaCare. They do not. They never have. We didn't listen to them when ObamaCare was passed. We have not listened to them since. In fact, the same New York Times/CBS poll found that Americans ``feel things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track'' by a margin of nearly 2 to 1. This poll was comprised of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, of which 63 percent feel things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track.

I agree that we are headed in the wrong direction, and I fear--like most Americans--that instead of righting the course, we have a Senate majority leader who will want to distract the hard-working Americans busy with their families, struggling, and living their lives.

Speaking of dysfunction, the majority leader is speaking about dysfunction in the Senate that he alone has the ability to control. The pilot of the plane cannot and should not blame the passengers for the turbulence.

I'm glad the majority leader mentioned the Senate feels like ``Groundhog Day'' or groundhog year. He is absolutely right. Over and over, how many times has the majority leader obstructed the Senate debate and votes on amendments? Over and over we see the same strategy from the majority leader to run the Senate according to his rules and his alone. He controls the Senate operations. He controls the ability to move past ``Groundhog Day,'' and he controls whether or not his colleagues can advocate for amendments and have votes.

Republican Senators are not alone in this thinking--although I'm sure the majority leader wishes that it was just the Republicans complaining. Many Senate Democrats also feel the same way. They too have legislation. They too have amendments they would like to see in front of the Senate that would see the light of day.

One such amendment that the majority leader is using in his blame game is a bipartisan amendment offered by Senators Menendez and Kirk, a Republican and Democrat, with 59 Senate cosponsors. There is an overwhelming amount of Senate support for this amendment. So why can't we get the issue of Iran's nuclear capabilities to the Senate floor? Why does the Senate majority leader continue to obstruct the Senate process rather than return to regular order and allow the Senate to operate the way it was intended?

The dysfunction of the Senate ultimately hurts the American people, and the majority leader has the ability to change that. My hope is that we move beyond this time in the Senate's history, that we move beyond the same old, same old, and that we have the opportunity to chart a new path forward to restore the Senate to function as it should.

I have no interest in serving in a Senate that doesn't do its work. Neither the majority leader nor any other Member of this body has the ability to represent individual Americans' interest at any given moment.

We each represent people from our respective States who have different points of view. I understand that people have a different point of view depending upon where they live, their background, their experience, and their philosophy. This diversity of opinion is what makes this country and, by extension, the Senate such a force for good in the world.

These opposing viewpoints are by their very definition American. The diversity and disagreement among ourselves is actually American, not un-American. Whether it is the Kansas small business owner who fears losing health insurance or the brave participants of the Seneca Falls Convention, Americans have the right to be heard and the right to play a part in the American political process. No one has the right to call those people un-American.

The litmus test for what is or is not American behavior cannot be administered or measured in partisan terms. Yet the bulk of the comments made by the majority leader attempted to do just that.

I am disappointed that it is even necessary for me to be on the Senate floor to talk about these disparaging comments, but the American people deserve an accountable legislature.

Whether you agree or disagree with the direction of our country--if you disagree with the direction it is heading in or you think we are doing OK, you are still an American, and you have the right to voice that opinion without having your allegiance to the United States called into question.

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

Mr. President, Senator Grassley, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, is unable to be on the floor at this time, and on his behalf I object.

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

Mr. President, along with my colleagues, I have been in places across the country this past week. Most of my time was spent in Kansas, and certainly Kansans had a good opportunity to express to me some of their worries and concerns about what is going on in Washington, DC.

One of the things that has become very dominant in those conversations is the concern that this administration--Washington, DC-- that the Constitution, as we learned it, as we were taught in high school government classes, does not seem to be being complied with. The concern is the constant efforts by this administration to do things unilaterally, to put in place executive orders and policies and regulations.

This has become a common conversation. It is pleasing to me that Kansans care so much about the structure of our government, the foundation that was created by the Framers of our Constitution, and they have a genuine concern that the Constitution is being violated. Often the conversation is: What are you doing about it?

The topic I want to talk about today is just one more example. This one has a reasonably positive ending, but I want to highlight something that has transpired in Washington, DC, that started last May at the Federal Communications Commission.

I just learned about this recently, and it became much more of a common topic with knowledge across the country as a result of one of the FCC Commissioners, Ajit Pai, and his opinion piece that appeared over the past few days in national publications.

What we learned was the Federal Communications Commission was considering--in fact, considered, put in place--a program in which they were going to survey the broadcasters they regulate. They hired an outside firm, as I understand it, and questions were prepared that were going to be asked of people in newsrooms across the country.

The pilot program was organized to occur in South Carolina. Among the kinds of questions that were going to be asked in newsrooms across the country by the FCC were: What is the news philosophy of this station? Who decides which stories are covered--whether a reporter ever wanted to cover a story and was told they could not do so.

It seems to me whether you have a conservative or liberal bent or you are down the middle of the road, you ought to have great concern when the agency that regulates the broadcasters decides they want to get into the newsroom to discover how news is developed at that station. That is not part of what the mandate of the FCC is, and it ought to raise genuine concerns from those who care about free speech. It certainly raised those concerns from me.

I came back to Washington, DC, today with the intention of highlighting this issue for my colleagues, making the American people more aware of this tremendous affront to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The good news is that Chairman Wheeler at the FCC announced just a couple days ago that this proposal, as it included questions about how news was developed, was being withdrawn.

So in part I am here to express my genuine concern about how did we get so far as for anyone at the FCC or their contractor to think this is appropriate behavior for a regulator; and, secondly, I am here to say that I am relieved and pleased that Chairman Wheeler has stepped in to withdraw those kinds of questions.

The argument was made that this is a voluntary survey, but as Commissioner Pai indicated in his opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, it is hard to see how something the FCC is asking of a regulated broadcaster would be really considered voluntary.

The Commissioner says: Unlike the opinion surveys that many of us receive on the phone or in the mail, in

which we can hang up the phone or never answer the phone or we can toss the survey into the trash, when the FCC sends someone to your station to ask you questions about how news is developed, it is hard for you to say: I am not going to answer the question, when the FCC has control over your license.

So I am here to make certain that this kind of approach is something that is in the past. I serve on the Appropriations subcommittee that is responsible for the FCC's budget. When they come to tell us about their appropriations request, again I will thank Chairman Wheeler for withdrawing these questions, but I want to make certain there is a genuine concern on behalf of all of us in the Senate--Republicans and Democrats, whatever brand of philosophy you claim to espouse or believe, you ought to be worried when the FCC is making inroads into how news and opinion is formulated at broadcasting stations--television and radio--across the country.

So the speech I had intended to give raising this topic is only given now in part. It is my view that every American citizen has certain civic responsibilities. Not just us Members of the Senate, every American citizen's primary responsibility as a citizen is to make certain we pass on to the next generation of Americans a country in which the freedoms and liberties guaranteed by our Constitution are protected throughout the history of our Nation into the future.

So I ask my colleagues to be ever vigilant as we see an ever encroaching Washington, DC, administration, even Congress, intruding in the lives of the American citizens, particularly as it relates to their opportunities for free speech.

I will be back later in the week to talk about other intrusions by the Federal Government into free speech and political advocacy. But again, Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity to be on the Senate floor today to highlight what I think would have been an egregious violation of the Constitution by one of our Federal agencies.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, the Gillibrand and McCaskill bills that the majority leader talked about were filed as amendments to the Defense authorization bill that the Senate passed in December of last year. They each have significant bipartisan support.

The majority leader filled the tree on that bill and blocked amendments on both sides of the aisle, and therefore the Senate did not vote on these bills last year. There are hundreds of other amendments that were also blocked.

Would the Senator modify this request to include a vote, at a 60-vote threshold, on another proposal that was blocked from consideration? The Kirk amendment No. 2295 was filed to the Defense bill. It would impose additional sanctions against the government of Iran if it violates the interim agreement with the United States. Will the Senator include a vote on the Kirk amendment as part of this agreement?

I object.

As we just heard, the Senate continues to discuss and consider an extension of unemployment benefits. Many Americans certainly do continue to struggle to find work in today's economy. While assistance to those without work serves an important purpose in helping Americans in transition, I am fearful we are failing--in fact, I know we are failing--to address the underlying and important root cause of that unemployment; that is, how do we as Americans grow our economy and create jobs for the citizens of our country?

A growing economy creates new opportunities for Americans to find meaningful work. With meaningful work comes the opportunity for Americans to improve their economic security and advance up the economic ladder.

In 2012 Senator Wyden and I started the Economic Mobility Caucus that met today for the fifth time, exploring ways we could work together to create the opportunity for every American to work their way up, have a better life, a greater future, more success, and better financial stability.

Unfortunately--again, at the moment, in my view--a lack of leadership and partisan politics have prevented action on measures that could provide an immediate boost to the economy at little or no cost to the American taxpayer.

Data from the Kauffman Foundation in Kansas City makes clear that most new jobs come from the young companies created by entrepreneurs. In fact, since 1980, nearly all of the net new jobs that have been created by companies are less than 5 years old. These new businesses create an average of 3 million jobs each year.

As of December, approximately 20.6 million Americans were unemployed, wanted to work but have stopped searching for a job or are working part time because they can't find full-time unemployment. When we talk about the unemployment rate, it masks the true story of people who have given up looking for a job as well as those who have a part-time job and need and desire a full-time job.

The labor force participation rate has reached its lowest level in 35 years. At a time when only 62 percent of working-age Americans are employed, it is clear we need an economic boost powered by entrepreneurship. To jump-start the economy and create jobs for Americans, we have put together and I authored bipartisan legislation called Startup Act 3.0.

The Senate majority leader is often talking about the need for allowing votes on legislation that has bipartisan support, and this is a perfect example of such a bill that ought to be considered by the Senate.

Working with Senator Warner--my primary cosponsor of this bill--and Senators Coons, Kaine, Klobuchar, as well as Republican Senators Blunt and Rubio, we introduced commonsense legislation that addresses four key factors that influence an entrepreneur's chance for success: taxes, regulations, innovation, and access to talent.

It has become all too common in the Senate that we are denied the opportunity to have a vote on things that many of us find common agreement on, and Startup Act 3.0 is one of those. In fact, I offered, along with Senator Warner, Startup Act 3.0 as an amendment to the unemployment insurance extension bill. Startup Act 3.0 makes commonsense changes to the Tax Code to encourage investment in startups and reward patient capital. To address the burdensome government regulations, the legislation requires Federal agencies to determine whether the cost of new regulations outweigh the benefits--and encourages Federal agencies to give special consideration to the impact proposed regulations would have upon those startup businesses.

As any entrepreneur knows, a good idea is essential to starting a successful business. To get more ideas out of the laboratory and into the market, this legislation improves the process for commercializing federally funded research so taxpayer-funded innovations can be turned into companies and spur economic growth and job creation.

Finally, Startup Act 3.0 provides new opportunities for highly educated and entrepreneurial immigrants to stay in the United States. They are here legally now but are often told they need to go home to pursue their careers, when we know their talent and their new ideas could fuel economic growth and create American jobs.

While there is meaningful disagreement--we have plenty of disagreement about the immigration issue--there are aspects of immigration in which there is broad agreement. One of the areas of agreement is highly skilled immigration. Highly skilled immigrants not only provide the talent for growing companies needed to fuel further growth and job creation, but those individuals tend to be very entrepreneurial.

Immigrants are now more than twice as likely as native-born Americans to start a business. In 2011 immigrants were responsible for more than one in every four U.S. business founded.

In addition, immigrants are responsible for significant contributions to innovation. According to a recent study by the Partnership for a New American Economy, 76 percent of patents at the top 10 patent-producing U.S. universities had at least one foreign-born inventor.

One of the best things we can do for the American economy is to welcome highly skilled and entrepreneurial immigrants. No matter what Congress does, these individuals will continue to innovate and create jobs. The question is where will they innovate and where will the jobs be created. If Congress makes the right choice, those jobs and that innovation will occur in the United States of America and build the U.S. economy and employ U.S. citizens.

Unfortunately, there are too many people in the Senate and in the Congress in Washington, DC, who say we can't do anything unless we do everything. That has prevented the passage of targeted immigration legislation that would boost the economic growth and create American jobs. That same attitude prevents us from doing many things on the Senate floor, and it is well past time we found ways to do the things we can agree upon and not wait for the opportunity to do everything. Let's do the things we can while we wait and work on the chance to do bigger and broader things.

The STEM visas we talk about seem so important to our economy. American businesses are projected to need

an estimated 800,000 workers with advanced STEM degrees by 2018 but will only find 550,000 American graduates with an advanced STEM education.

We must do more as a nation. We absolutely must do more to prepare Americans for careers in STEM fields so that our country no longer has to rely upon talented foreign labor. But in the short term, as we work to equip Americans with skills for the 21st-century economy, we need to create a pathway for highly educated foreign-born students who are here in the United States legally, going to school, to stay in America where their ideas and talents can fuel great American economic growth.

Startup 3.0 creates visas for foreign students who graduate from an American university with a master's or Ph.D. in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics. These skilled workers would be granted conditional status contingent upon them filling a needed gap in the U.S. workforce.

It may seem counterintuitive that by allowing highly skilled workers to work in the United States, more Americans will find work, but that is exactly what will happen. A study by the Partnership for a New American Economy and the American Enterprise Institute found that every immigrant with a graduate degree in the United States from a U.S. university working in a STEM field creates 2.62 subsequent American jobs.

If American companies are unable to find and hire the qualified, talented workers they need, those businesses will open locations overseas. I have seen examples of that too many times. When this happens, not only are those specific jobs gone--they are lost--but also the many supporting jobs and economic activities associated with them are no longer here.

Even more frustrating to me is that when these highly skilled workers who are now employed in some other country and who are entrepreneurs too have an idea and they found and start a business that may grow and create more jobs because they couldn't find employment here due to lacking the necessary visa and have moved to another country, they use their entrepreneurial skills and talent, and they create the jobs--the company--elsewhere. So the jobs we need in this country are then outside the United States.

This legislation also allows for an entrepreneur's visa. Immigrants to the United States have a long history of creating businesses in America. Today, 1 in every 10 Americans employed at a privately owned U.S. company works at an immigrant-owned firm. Of the current Fortune 500 companies, more than 40 percent were founded by a first- or second- generation American.

So my question to my colleagues is, Why would we want to leave an immigration system in place that discourages entrepreneurs from coming to our country, investing their own money, and creating jobs here and strengthening our economy? I think we should do exactly the opposite and welcome those people who want to create jobs for Americans in America.

Startup 3.0 creates an entrepreneur's visa for foreign-born entrepreneurs currently in the United States legally. Those individuals with a good idea, with capital, and a willingness to hire American workers would be able to stay in the United States and grow their businesses here. Each immigrant entrepreneur would be required to create jobs for Americans. If the business is not successful and jobs are not created, the immigrant would have to go back to his or her home country.

Using conservative estimates, the Kauffman Foundation predicts that the entrepreneur's visa would generate 500,000 to 1.6 million jobs over the next 10 years. These are real jobs with real economic impact that could boost GDP, it is estimated, by more than 1.5 percent. These are jobs for Americans desperately seeking to work here to support their families and follow their dreams.

As the Senate considers extending unemployment insurance in the short term, we must not lose sight of the long-term goal--that ought to be the short-term, intermediate, and long-term goal--of creating an environment for jobs in America. There is no better way to create jobs than to support entrepreneurs and to foster the development of new businesses, which are responsible for all those net new jobs in the economy.

Numerous studies demonstrate that a smarter more strategic immigration policy that supports entrepreneurs and skilled immigrants can grow the economy and help put Americans back to work. Jobless Americans and U.S. businesses searching for the talent they need to expand and create jobs can no longer afford to let the all-or-nothing approach to immigration legislation hold economic growth and opportunity hostage. It has prevented progress on important challenges facing our country for far too long. A far better approach would be to pass the things we can agree upon now and keep working to find agreement on the issues that divide us. First on this list should be the measures outlined in Startup Act 3.0.

Other countries are realizing the value of highly educated and entrepreneurial individuals in starting businesses, and they are changing their laws to welcome then. The United States cannot afford to turn a blind eye to global competition. If we fail to act, we risk losing the next generation of great entrepreneurs, and the jobs they will create will be in foreign countries, not in the United States, and we risk continuing another month in which 20.6 million Americans remain without meaningful work.

Work is an ennobling feature of life. Jobs matter, and this Congress and this President have failed miserably, in my view, to carry out one of our primary responsibilities--to create an environment in which Americans can find work and can pursue that American dream of putting food on their family's table, saving for their kids' education, making sure they have a secure retirement in the future, and knowing every day when they get up and go to work they are doing something good for themselves and for their families and their country.

Mr. President, we desperately need to work together to create an environment in which American jobs are created. No one I know really wants to be the recipient of an unemployment check. It may be necessary, but it is not their goal. The goal is to find an ennobling, meaningful job that supports them and their family.

I thank the Chair for his indulgence.

Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to be here on the Senate floor this morning since I am intruding on the discussion about unemployment insurance extension. However, I wish to take a few minutes to highlight the life of a Kansan who passed in late 2013.

At the end of last year, I learned of the death of a resident of Parsons, KS, in the southeast corner of our State. E.J. ``Sonny'' Zetmeir was a person of such optimism and so engaged in improving the lives of other people, I wanted to highlight and pay my respects to him and his family.

The community of Parsons lost one of its greatest champions when Sonny Zetmeir passed away. His humor and selflessness truly made an incredible impact upon that community.

Sonny had moved to Parsons, KS, from Grandview, MO, with his parents in 1965, along with a company his family owned that made cabinets. The company was called Grandview Products. He originally agreed with his family to stay in Parsons for a year to help get the business off the ground in its new location, but his commitment to his family and to his family's business continued to grow and he never left. He went on to purchase the company from his parents when they retired in 1982, and he helped build it into the outstanding cabinetmaking business it is today.

Under his leadership, Grandview Products grew from a local small business with 24 employees to a $50 million company with 430 employees, shipping cabinets from coast to coast. Today, the company is the largest employer in Parsons, and it also owns a facility in the neighboring community of Cherryvale.

Sonny's legacy as a businessman is rivaled only by his commitment to his community and improving the lives of others around him. As president and CEO of Grandview Products, he cared deeply about the health and well-being of his employees and their families. Through the recession of 2008, he fought hard to keep the company's doors open and keep as many employees as possible at work. When Grandview Products regained its footing, he worked to bring many of the former employees back to work.

Even when he received the devastating cancer diagnosis that would ultimately take his life, just a few weeks later, Sonny's thoughts immediately went to the well-being of his employees and their families. His wife Sophia relayed this story about his final weeks. She says:

His number one concern was the company and his employees.

It wasn't just his employees, it was the families that he was

responsible for . . . Sonny was able to have a meeting with

216 employees. First, they all got a raise . . . so they

wouldn't be afraid for their futures. No raises had been

given in 5 years because of the recession. We're making money

now, so everyone got a raise. Then, he told them who was

going to be running what departments. Then, he told them how

sick he was.

But his concerns for others and selflessness extended well beyond his business. He was passionate about Grandview Products being a locally owned company, and he felt a calling to serve the community through his service.

Over the years, Sonny donated cabinets to community projects, churches, and schools. He also encouraged his employees to be charitable in whatever capacity they were able. In fact, Sonny was so dedicated to giving back to the local community that he would only buy Girl Scout cookies from Girl Scouts in his home counties of Labette and Montgomery.

His service, honors, and achievements are numerous, and they include two terms as a trustee of Labette Community College and chairman of its capital fund campaign; 6 years as Labette County Republican chairman; board member of Meadowlark Girl Scout Council; and many years as president of the Parsons Area Community Foundation.

Sonny was named Parsons Chamber Business Person of the Year and the Kansas State Chamber Employer of the Year in 2003. He received the Kansas Manufacturers Association management appreciation award in 2007, and in 2008 he was chosen to receive the Cardinal Citation Award by Labette Community College. Since 1985 the Zetmeirs have cosponsored the Fourth of July fireworks at Marvel Park in Parsons.

I have always believed what we do here in the Nation's Capital is important, but the reality is we change the world one person at a time. So while what we do in the Senate matters, so much more is accomplished by a person like Sonny. Sonny Zetmeir lived that life. By investing his time and talent and financial support into the community where he lived, he made a difference every day. His involvement in the community and his selflessness serves as an inspiration and should be a role model for every American.

He was married to his wife Sophia for 51 years and was a devoted father to their 3 daughters: Ellen, Joan, and Amy. I ask the Senate to join me today in extending our heartfelt sympathies to Sonny's wife and to his family as they begin this new year in the absence of their loved one.

He was loved by them, and he will be greatly missed. If one's value in life is determined by whether or not you made a difference while you were here on this Earth, Sonny's life was priceless. God bless him and let him be a role model for all of us.

Madam President, CWO2 Joshua B. Silverman, age 35, Scottsdale, AZ; SGT Peter C. Bohler, age 29, Willow Spring, NC; SPC Terry K.D. Gordon, age 22, Shubuta, MS; SFC Omar W. Forde, age 28, Marietta, GA; CWO2 Randy L. Billings, age 34, Heavener, OK; SSG Jesse L. Williams, age 30, Elkhart, IN are names of soldiers who lost their lives this past week. They lost their lives in a helicopter incident in Afghanistan, and five of those soldiers were from my home State based at Fort Riley, KS--the Big Red One.

Our Nation is forever indebted to these young men for their service and their sacrifice. This evening I ask the Senate to pay tribute to these six soldiers who, in serving their country, lost their lives. If we here in Washington, DC, need a reminder about our responsibilities, we need only look to our service men and women who, for no partisan reason--nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats--volunteer to serve their country, and recognize there are things much more important than even life itself.

These soldiers were committed to preserving the freedoms and liberties guaranteed Americans by our Constitution, and they sacrificed their lives every day to make certain Americans have the opportunity to pursue the American dream.

I once heard a hymn that has stayed with me ever since the first time I heard it. It was sung at the funeral service of President Reagan. It is called ``Mansions of the Lord.'' It was performed by the U.S. Armed Forces Chorus at the National Cathedral here in Washington. The words of that hymn are these:

To fallen soldiers let us sing

Where no rockets fly nor bullets wing

Our broken brothers let us bring

To the mansions of the Lord

No more bleeding, no more fight

No prayers pleading through the night

Just divine embrace, eternal light

In the mansions of the Lord

Where no mothers cry and no children weep

We will stand and guard though the angels sleep

Through the ages safely keep

The mansions of the Lord

We honor these six soldiers who this week were welcomed into the mansions of the Lord.

I am grateful for the blessings these brave men afforded us with their service to our country, and we thank God for giving us these heroes. We remain committed to preserving this Nation for the sake of the next generation by honoring that sacrifice.

We Americans are indebted to every member of our military. We are indebted to do nothing less than to preserving America's freedom and to make certain it remains the bright shining star for the world.

I would ask God to bless these service men and women, to bless our veterans, to bless our country.

This coming week, in a few short days, families will gather around dining room tables across our Nation to celebrate the holidays. In the instance of these six families, there will be an empty chair at the Christmas table. For those of us who are Christians, we celebrate Christmas as the arrival of the Prince of Peace, and I would ask that we have peace in our land, peace in our world, and no more wars. And I would ask that these families find peace knowing that their son, their husband, their father, sacrificed for something more important than life itself--they sacrificed for others. May they find peace in knowing what worthy lives their loved ones lived.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, part of our job as Members of the U.S. Senate is to help people who have problems. This has been a very difficult time for many Americans and difficult for me as somebody who wants to be able to help people with a problem.

As my colleagues have indicated, the letters, the phone calls, the conversations, the emails continue to come. The one I wish to highlight to my colleagues is from a person who describes herself as a 62-year- old female retired teacher from Wichita. She says she considers herself a middle-class American.

She indicates in her letter that her current health policy expires at the end of this year, less than a month away. Here is what she says in her letter:

When I inquired why, I was told the policy no longer meets

the guidelines under ObamaCare.

Yet, in the previous 2 years, my premiums have increased

25% and 28% respectively to which the answer from [my

insurer] was that it was to help pay for ObamaCare.

Now I can't even have that plan any longer.

It had a $500 deductible and $1,500 Max out of pocket

expense per year, with a $300 premium per month.

After over 20 hours online, and multiple calls and online

chats, I finally was able to see some numbers for healthcare

costs from the Obamacare Marketplace, only to learn that the

premium is 1.5 times what I currently pay, and the deductible

is 4.5 times higher (and it's a different insurer).

A plan [from my current insurer] was double the premium.

I will not qualify for tax credits, as my projected income

for 2014, which includes some tax free interest income and

social security, places this middle class retired American,

over the threshold of any kind of subsidy.

I'm sad that my well laid plan for retirement, now will

redirect my earnings to pay for healthcare, much of which I

will never use.

At 62 and having had a hysterectomy, prenatal care is NOT

an issue I will face, nor will I ever need female

reproductive disorder treatment, as those parts are gone, but

I will have no discount for not needing those coverages.

So I'm paying a higher premium for other women to have

them?

I'm very frustrated at these changes.

It's the middle class that will be hit the worst by this

mandate, and I fear that many will opt for the government

fine because now they truly won't be able to afford the cost

of healthcare.

One more question, how will folks who can't even make the

premium payment, ever be able to pay the outrageous

deductible?

Honestly, $6,500 out of pocket expenses per person per

year?

That's crazy, who will be able to pay that? And then who

will end up paying it? This is NOT a solution for the Middle

Class Americans!

Surely we can develop a policy, a program of caring for Americans without doing damage to people who already had insurance.

I yield the floor.

I am a new Member of the Senate, serving in my first term. I was a Member of the House of Representatives before coming to the Senate, and I had great anticipation and expectation of the opportunity that service in this body presented to me.

The Presiding Officer of the Senate today has had similar experiences. We served in the House of Representatives together. The ability for an individual Senator, particularly a new Senator, and perhaps even more so, someone from a smaller, rural State, our ability to influence the outcome to receive attention and to have the administration's nominees come to pay a call on us to become acquainted is diminished.

In my view, today is the day that reduces the ability for all Senators to have influence in the outcome of the decisions of this body and therefore the outcome of the future of our country.

I don't understand why this happened today. The empirical evidence doesn't suggest that Republicans have been abusive, that the minority party has failed in its obligation to be responsible.

We heard the words the Senator from Arizona Mr. McCain spoke about others--President Obama, the majority leader of the Senate, the former Senator from West Virginia Mr. Byrd--about their views on this issue. Yet the outcome today was something different, different from what they said only a short time ago.

It is hard to know why we did what we did today, but I know our ability as Senators of the United States to represent the people who hired us to represent them has been diminished.

I am reluctant to attribute motives as to why this occurred. In the absence of evidence that would suggest there is a justifiable reason, a justified reason for doing so, I am fearful that what is reported in the press and elsewhere is the reason the rules were changed, which makes today even more sad to me because the explanation for why the rules were changed was a political effort to change the topic of conversation in Washington, DC, and across the country.

The story is that the White House pressured the Senate to change its rules, not because the rules needed to be changed, there was abuse or because people actually believed this was a good rules change for the benefit of the Senate and the country but because the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, is front and center in the national media and on the minds of the American people. As ObamaCare is being implemented, people are discovering the serious problems it presents them and their families. Therefore, politically, we need to change the dialog, change the topic. For us to use a political reason to do so much damage to the institution of the United States is such a travesty.

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

Mr. President, last month I was at the World War II Memorial greeting a number of Kansans who had arrived on an Honor Flight, and I certainly want to pay tribute to each of our service men and women and veterans. What a great experience it was on a beautiful day at the memorial. One of those veterans is someone I wish to talk about this evening to my colleagues here in the Senate.

Getting off the bus that day was my friend and a former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives for the Fifth Congressional District of Kansas, Dick Nichols. There are many things I admire about Kansans. Folks from my home State always look out for others. They commit their lives to helping and improving the lives of their communities, our State, and our Nation in order to make certain there is an even better opportunity for the next generation. Congressman Nichols is certainly one of those individuals. I wish to pay my regards to him today.

Dick was born in Kansas, raised in Fort Scott, and served during World War II as an ensign in the U.S. Navy. After serving our Nation with great integrity and humility, he pursued and achieved a bachelor's degree in science from Kansas State University in 1951. Congressman Nichols is a supporter of education but particularly a supporter of education that comes from Kansas State University. He is a Wildcat through and through.

Dick worked in a number of roles related to agriculture and banking in both the Topeka and Hutchinson communities in our State before he moved to McPherson--his home now. In McPherson, he began his career as a longtime community banker at the Home State Bank. He became president of that bank in 1969, and in 1986 he was elected to serve as president of the Kansas Bankers Association.

That same year Dick got some national notoriety: He was stabbed on the Staten Island Ferry by a homeless refugee from Cuba while touring the Statue of Liberty. While recuperating in the hospital, he was visited by then-New York Mayor Ed Koch, who apologized on behalf of the city of New York for the event. He was also invited to the Johnny Carson show to tell of his experiences in New York City. But even during that particular event, what he said on the talk show and what he told Mayor Koch was that he always looked for the best in every person and in every situation.

Dick continued as an active banker and served as the president and chairman of the board of his bank until he was elected to the U.S. Congress in 1990. Due to reapportionment in our State following the 1990 census, his district, the Fifth District, was eliminated and we went from five congressional districts to four, and Dick returned to the Home State Bank as chairman of its board. But whether he was a Congressman representing the Fifth District, a community banker in his hometown, or an ensign in the U.S. Navy, Dick always put service to others above self-interest.

Prior to his election to office in Congress, he was active in Kansas politics and particularly Republican politics. In my first campaign in 1996 for the U.S. House of Representatives, it was an honor for me to have him agree to serve as my campaign's honorary chairman.

In addition to his political involvement, Dick was also engaged in so many other things, many of them related to the community he cares so much about, McPherson, KS, including the chamber of commerce and the Rotary Club. He became the commanding general of the Kansas Cavalry, which is a group of business men and women from across our State who band together to recruit and encourage new businesses to come to our State, and he continued to serve other service men and women and veterans through his membership and participation in the American Legion and VFW.

Dick has often been quoted as saying:

Much of life is in our mental attitude. If you think great

things might happen, they do. If you question them ever

happening, they won't.

I agree with that sentiment, and I have seen Dick Nichols live that in his life. Because of his attitude and character, many--including me--were inspired not only to get to know him but then to try to model their public service after his.

In McPherson, there are few people more loved and respected than Dick Nichols. It is a privilege for me to be able to call him a friend and mentor. When I initially ran for Congress and needed advice about his community and his county, he was the first person I reached out to. I always remember, as I was campaigning for the very first time for office in Congress, I had people tell me: If you are a friend of Dick Nichols', you are a friend of mine. And it is an opportunity we all ought to take to remember that how we conduct ourselves influence and affect so many others.

While I know that what happens here in the Senate and what happens in Washington, DC, has huge consequences and effect upon Kansans and Americans--and, in fact, people around the globe--I continue to believe that we change the world one person at a time, and it happens in communities across my State and across the country. Dick Nichols represents the kind of person who changes lives--in fact, changes the life of every person he meets.

So today, having seen Dick Nichols just a few weeks ago at the World War II Memorial, built in his and other World War II veterans' honor, I express my gratitude to Congressman Nichols for his service to his community, to our State of Kansas, and to our Nation. And I use this opportunity to remind myself about the true nature of public service, about caring for other people. I wish Dick and his wife Linda and their families all the very best.

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

Mr. President, it is hard to narrow down the best story to tell. In fact, they are all bad stories. They are all terrible stories. Kansans are also struggling under the consequences of the passage of the Affordable Care Act. It bothers me so many times it is suggested that this is only a problem with implementation. The problem that Americans and Kansans are facing today really is the crux, the underlying basis for the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. This is not only an implementation problem; it is not only a computer problem; it is the theory on which the Affordable Care Act was based.

An example I would like to describe to my colleagues in the Senate is from a constituent from Newton, KS, which is a city in the center of the State. He writes:

We were notified by our health insurance carrier that our

premiums on our small business plan were to increase 24% on

our renewal date because of the coverage mandated by the ACA

starting in 2014.

As small business owners in our late 50s we have struggled

to find affordable health insurance for years. About 2 years

ago we were able to sign up for a plan offered to small

businesses through a well known carrier. It was not a

``Cadillac'' plan since we each had a $5,000 deductible and

no coverage for maternity (didn't need), contraception

(didn't need), but it covered the things we wanted and

needed. Unfortunately, the premium increase is going to put

this plan in the unaffordable range again.

I have not yet been able to get on healthcare.gov. The few

times I've tried it has either been down or locked up during

access. As a business owner with employees and a lot of

responsibilities, the time I have to spend messing around

with a slow or non-responsive web site is limited and

personally expensive.

Our constituents need help, and the Affordable Care Act is why they need help.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am pleased to be here on the Senate floor this afternoon. I am saddened by the circumstances we find ourselves in and look for a solid, responsible, and quick resolution to our differences in regard to continuing resolution.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from California Mrs. Boxer follow me upon the conclusion of my remarks.

Madam President, again, under the circumstances we find ourselves in, I look forward to a quick and responsible resolution to the differences we have and that we move forward with the funding of our Federal Government.

I would point out that a reason we are at this point is we need a continuing resolution because the Senate failed to do its work in the first place. While, for the first time in 4 years, the Senate passed a budget, it was never reconciled in conference with the House. I am certainly a Republican who would be supportive of that reconciliation of the conference committee to work out the differences between a House-passed budget and the Senate-passed budget.

The reality is that there are 12 appropriations bills--and I am a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. I take that responsibility very seriously. I was excited to become a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee when I arrived here at the Senate. I saw it as an opportunity for us to establish our priorities and determine what we should be spending money on. Yet not 1 of the 12 bills that are required for us to pass across the Senate floor has been passed this year; therefore, on September 30 we ended up with no funding in place, and it creates this opportunity for us to have this debate and discussion about a continuing resolution at a time in which there is great leverage on that issue.

What I lament and what I wish would have happened is we would have passed 12 appropriations bills and then worked out the differences with the appropriations process in the House.

Today I want to speak about a particular issue related to the shutdown of the Federal Government--the lack of funding. Prior to that occurring--prior to September 30--both the House and Senate and the President signed legislation called Pay Our Military Act. It was designed to make certain that our military men and women had compensation should there be a shutdown. I appreciate that legislation passing and am pleased it is in place now we are in the circumstance we are in. There were rumors and concerns about how that bill would be implemented by the Department of Defense. The Senator from West Virginia Mr. Manchin and I led an effort in which we had 50 Senators in a highly bipartisan way ask the Secretary of Defense to interpret that legislation in a broad way that would make certain our furloughed civilian employees who support our military men and women, as well as our Reserve component--those who serve in the National Guard and Reserve--would be put back to work for the benefit of the Nation's security.

I thank Secretary of Defense Hagel for his decision to implement that legislation in a broad way that did exactly that--returned furloughed civilian workers at DOD, the Department of Defense, back to work, and gave the ability for our National Guard and Reserve members to continue in their responsibilities for defending our country. Again, I thank Secretary Hagel.

I am here today to point out that we have an additional problem, in fact, one that is equally, if not more, serious than that, and that is that we have read and heard that those who die in the active service of our country are not now able to receive the death benefits that come to their families upon their death. I can't imagine that there is a Senator of any political party or persuasion who thinks that is a desirable outcome.

With Senator Manchin and others, we worked at bringing this issue to the attention of the Department of Defense, asking Secretary Hagel, in a letter that was led by Senator Coons and Senator Blunt, to use every opportunity, full authority, wide flexibility--whatever circumstances the Department of Defense could find--to provide the benefits to those who died in service to our country.

There is a special tax-free payment of $100,000 to eligible survivors of members of the armed forces who are killed in action. Those benefits usually arrive within the first 3 days following the death of a service man or woman. This helps the family--certainly not overcome their loss--to have the necessary funds for funeral services, to travel in this case to Dover Air Force Base to meet their loved one as he or she returns home, and to overcome the lack of a regular paycheck. This death gratuity is such a small price to pay to honor and recognize someone's family who has lost a member of their family in service to our country.

At least the stories are, the reports are that this situation is due to the inability of us to resolve--to work with the President, Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate--the continuing resolution, and so work is being done so that the death benefit will be available. My understanding is that the House of Representatives is poised to pass legislation to make certain that the Department of Defense has the authority to immediately pay those benefits. I hope that is a piece of legislation that is met with unanimity of support here in the Senate.

We have asked Secretary of Defense Hagel if he has the ability to do that within his current legal jurisdiction, within the law--if he has the ability to do that within the law that he does have--and we anxiously await and hope the Secretary can do that. But, if not, I hope this Senate will unanimously confirm that legislation that would allow the Secretary to pay those benefits immediately.

Again, I just can't imagine any of my colleagues ever thinking that under any circumstance, we ought not step forward to resolve this issue. Just because we can't resolve everything--it seems to me there is a method of operation too often here in the Senate that if we can't solve every problem, we are unwilling to solve any problem. On those things on which there is such significant agreement, we ought not let anything stand in the way of coming to the aid and rescue of a family who now so desperately grieves the loss of their loved one.

Honoring Our Armed Forces

Sergeant Patrick Hawkins

We know over the weekend there were five soldiers killed in Afghanistan. There are five families as of today who would be in this circumstance. I would like to pay tribute to one of those five: SGT Patrick Hawkins. He was born October 1, 1988. He graduated from high school and enlisted in the Army in his hometown of Carlisle, PA.

SGT Patrick Hawkins, according to his Italian commander, was described as a brave and incredibly talented Ranger. The description of his death revolved around the fact that he was moving to aid another wounded Ranger when he was killed. His actions, according to, again, his commander, were in keeping with the epitome of the Ranger creed, which is, ``I will never leave a fallen comrade.''

Sergeant Hawkins dedicated himself to serving us--to serving our families, to serving all Americans--and he ultimately paid for that service with the loss of his life. I pay tribute to this soldier as an example of many who have sacrificed in similar ways over a long period of time, but especially for those five who this weekend lost their lives in Afghanistan.

Sergeant Hawkins was awarded the Bronze Star and the Meritorious Service Medal. He was awarded a Purple Heart. None of that replaces the loss of life. He is survived by his wife, who is

a resident of Lansing, KS, and her parents, who are residents of my hometown of Plainville, KS.

So today, on behalf of my colleagues in the Senate, I pay tribute to a soldier who in serving his country lost his life, who leaves behind grieving family members and friends, and who epitomizes what we all should know in service here in the Senate, which is what I spoke about earlier on the Senate floor this week. That is, if we need a reminder about how this place should work, we should look to our service men and women who, for no partisan reason--no Republican or Democratic reason-- volunteered to serve their country. They concluded there were things much more important than life itself, and that being the ability to have a country that we know and enjoy as the United States of America, that has the freedom and liberties guaranteed to us by our Constitution, and creates the opportunity for every American to pursue what we all call the American dream.

Today, I pay tribute to one more hero, one more soldier, one more American who, through service to others, was willing to sacrifice his life for the betterment of his family back home and for the future of a country that we all love and call home, the United States of America.

I yield to the Senator from California.