Floor Statements

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the life and service of a brave and patriotic Nebraskan. First Lieutenant Donald K. Schwab was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for going above and beyond the call of duty during his service in World War II. First Lieutenant Schwab was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts for his valor, and I applaud the upgrading of his Distinguished Service Cross to the Medal of Honor, our Nation's highest military honor.

Schwab was born in Hooper, NE, in 1918 and enlisted in the U.S. Army upon graduating from high school. In World War II, his tour of duty included posts in North Africa, Italy, and France. On September 17, 1944, near Lure, France, First Lieutenant Schwab showed tremendous bravery and valor though his actions in combat. Ordered to overwhelm the enemy line, Schwab led his men twice toward the Germans amidst heavy gunfire. He rallied his decimated force for a third charge on the hostile

strong-point, working their way to within 50 yards of the Germans. He then stormed a line of German foxholes alone, reaching a key machine pistol nest which had caused heavy casualties among his men. After ripping off the cover of the firing pit, Schwab forced the German soldier inside to accompany him back behind friendly lines, surviving a barrage of gunfire. His actions so disorganized the hostile infantry resistance that the enemy withdrew. This episode of selfless heroism dismantled a strong German position, aiding the Allied front.

First Lieutenant Schwab was wounded three times in Active Duty but continued to serve in the U.S. Army until October 26, 1945. Schwab returned to the family farm in Hooper and later worked as a rural mail carrier. His service continued in civilian life through his involvement in his church council, the Hooper and Logan View school boards, and other organizations. Schwab's commitment and connection remained strong in part through his membership in the Cornelius Tillman American Legion Post 18 and the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 10535 in Hooper.

First Lieutenant Schwab died at age 86 in 2005. Although the Medal of Honor comes 9 years after his death, the bravery and heroism he showed in 1944 is now rightly recognized. I congratulate his wife Maralee, his children, and his grandchildren, who accepted this award in his memory. Nebraskans have a long and proud tradition of military service. Schwab's actions exemplify selflessness and courage, setting a worthy example for many others who would follow.

First Lieutenant Schwab's commitment to community and country is truly inspiring. I ask my colleagues, my fellow Nebraskans, and all Americans to join me in honoring his service, recognizing the valor for which the Medal of Honor was awarded.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Hope Jarkowski, a member of Senator Crapo's staff.

Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart that I pay tribute to the life and legacy of a friend, Jim Young. Jim passed away on February 15 after a courageous battle with pancreatic cancer. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife Shirley, his children, and his grandchildren during a very difficult time.

Even as we mourn his passing, though, we celebrate his deep love for his family, his tremendous commitment to his community, and his impressive example of leadership. Jim's family, friends, coworkers, and admirers from across Nebraska and our great Nation are mourning the loss of a life defined by great service and great leadership. It is my privilege today on the floor of the Senate to honor his legacy.

Jim knew the importance of hard work and commitment to purpose. That is how he climbed the ladder of success to become the president and chief executive officer and, later, chairman of the board of Union Pacific Corporation.

Jimmy's integrity was unquestioned. He loved his work. He carried his enthusiasm beyond UP as he led the American Association of Railroads and other professional organizations.

Jimmy's leadership spurred impressive reinvestment and growth in the railroad, but many would say his true accomplishment was his focus on a positive work environment and taking care of his coworkers. His concern for their well-being was genuine, and they knew it.

It would be difficult to categorize Jimmy's greatest contributions because beyond his tremendous impact on UP and the rail industry, Jim did everything. He loved our great State. He loved his hometown of Omaha. He set a shining example of what it means to give back to the community.

The list of boards on which he served and organizations for which he volunteered could literally fill a book. From the Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce to the Joslyn Art Museum, from the University of Nebraska to the Salvation Army, Jimmy's commitment to serving and to improving the lives of others is just simply unmatched.

He did not take for granted his success, and he dedicated time and attention to assisting those who had less--those with fewer resources. Evidence of his generosity can be found in all corners of the community. It would range from the Jim and Shirley Young Scholarship Program at Jimmy's alma mater, the University of Nebraska at Omaha, to his involvement in the Knights of Ak-Sar-Ben and his service as a church elder and a youth sports coach.

I am so confident I speak for all Nebraskans when I say we have lost a great leader and a community partner. I feel as though I have lost a friend.

Jim gave of himself in all he did. From the boardroom to the ballfield, his presence is going to be so missed.

It is my sincere hope that Jimmy's wife Shirley, his children and his grandchildren, find comfort knowing that so many lives were made better because of his efforts.

Jim leaves a vibrant legacy of leading by example, inspiring others by believing in every single person's potential, and of dedicating both time and treasure to opening doors of opportunity for those who just needed a champion. It would be difficult to imagine a more meaningful life legacy.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to come to the floor of the Senate and talk about ObamaCare's broken promises for our Nation's seniors.

The administration's most recent proposal to significantly cut Medicare Advantage is certainly not news to my colleagues on the floor today. During the health care debate, we warned over and over again that cutting $\1/2\ trillion from Medicare to fund ObamaCare would have disastrous consequences and that it certainly would not strengthen Medicare. The law drains $308 billion from a very well-received Medicare Advantage Program.

The stories from Nebraskans illustrate how these cuts are hurting senior citizens. I heard from a couple in Carney, NE. They wrote to me saying that the Medicare Advantage plan they had for several years was something they liked. It was a plan that worked for them, but that plan, because of ObamaCare, was cancelled. She went on to say to me that another plan was going to cost more money and higher rates were coming for them.

She said: ``I have not been shy about telling people that we lost our insurance plan thanks to ObamaCare!''

I could add to that that she has lost her insurance plan--and thousands of others, tens of thousands of others across the United States--because of the votes of the majority and the President.

A Nebraskan from Hastings shared that her Medicare Advantage plan was discontinued and her new Medicare Advantage plan option was, get this, 357 percent more expensive. Is that fair treatment to that senior citizen?

When ObamaCare was passed, we tried to get amendments done that if there were any savings in Medicare, it would go back to Medicare to protect the system. That was voted down by the majority.

What we ended with is a situation where those funds were pulled out of Medicare and used to finance ObamaCare. For millions of Americans and about 35,000 Nebraskans who rely upon Medicare Advantage, this law has not delivered on its promises.

As I have said over and over since this debate began, I have been committed to ensuring that Medicare is sustainable for decades to come, not only for the current generation but for our children and our grandchildren. The health care law does not accomplish this goal, and I believe strongly it needs to be repealed.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, last Friday we heard that the health care law is scheduled to deliver yet another blow to Americans. The administration released a proposal that would significantly cut Medicare Advantage.

Medicare Advantage is a very well-received program. It offers private plan options for seniors on Medicare. Nearly 30 percent of Medicare beneficiaries voluntarily choose to enroll in Medicare Advantage because it offers extra benefits, it offers lower costs, more flexibility, and better care coordination than the traditional Medicare program.

This program, Medicare Advantage, has been very well received in the State of Nebraska. About 35,000 Nebraskans are enrolled in Medicare Advantage.

An analysis notes that further cuts to Medicare Advantage would ``disproportionately affect beneficiaries with low incomes, including the 41 percent of enrollees with incomes below $20,000.''

This announcement is absolutely no surprise; the health care law has siphoned over $700 billion from Medicare--not to strengthen the program but to pay for ObamaCare; $308 billion of those cuts come from Medicare Advantage, again disproportionately affecting beneficiaries with low incomes, including 41 percent who are trying to live on incomes below $20,000.

The reality is these cuts will likely mean fewer benefits and higher out-of-pocket costs for seniors who can't afford that. Plans could drop out of the market all together or seniors could find out that their trusted doctor will no longer be covered by their plan. We have already started to see the consequences.

Since the passage of ObamaCare, the number of Medicare Advantage plans available to seniors has not been strengthened. In fact, they have been reduced from 48 in 2009 to now 20.

In rural areas, seniors have fewer choices. The plans available have dropped from 36 to 13, according to a Kaiser analysis.

Another study estimates about 526,000 of current 2013 Medicare Advantage enrollees will have to make some changes because their plan is not available in 2014.

How do these consequences match up with the President's promises? Well, they don't. The President spoke about Medicare, and he said: ``Don't worry; I am not going to touch it''--or his promise: If you like your plan, you can keep it, which an independent fact checker has called the lie of the year.

The Medicare Advantage issues unraveling today are symbolic of the broader problems with the law. The math doesn't add up, and the promises aren't kept. Nearly every week it seems the authors and supporters of this law are trying to bury their past. They are trying to create hollow promises. They are trying to get around misleading statements and hide behind a new position, at least until the November elections are over.

It is remarkable that they are perfectly willing to evade the key pillars of this law. The law's employer mandate has been ignored and delayed. Mandated plan benefits aren't required for another year, and deadlines are conveniently rescheduled--to when? Until after the election.

This time around 19 Democratic Senators have joined a number of Republicans in writing the Medicare administrator saying the administration's Medicare Advantage cuts ``create disruption and confusion'' and ``inhibit plans from driving the innovation that has resulted in better care and improved outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries.''

What is so contradictory is that these same individuals voted against amendments offered by Senator Hatch, twice, during the health care law debate that would have struck ObamaCare's Medicare Advantage cuts. They twice voted against that.

Understanding the consequences of these Medicare Advantage cuts before the law was passed would seem like the responsible course of action. But rejecting these amendments, voting for a bill that cuts over $300 billion for Medicare Advantage, then backpedaling when the politics get tough, and when the cuts become real to everyday folks, apparently, they were for the cuts before they were against the cuts.

It is even more frustrating when you consider that recent efforts to dodge these cuts are only part of the story. For the past few years, the Obama administration has been pumping money back into Medicare Advantage under the guise of a so-called demonstration program that the Government Accountability Office says they probably don't even have the authority to run. GAO asserted that HHS should terminate the demonstration program, but the administration flat-out ignored that.

The real purpose of the $8 billion program was to effectively mask the health care law's significant cuts to Medicare Advantage until when? After the November election. It is just another example of the administration's hiding their poor decisions and then rewriting the law as they see fit. But as this new Medicare notice clearly shows, this phony demonstration project is about to run out and our senior citizens are truly caught.

Our taxpayers deserve a government that is held accountable for its actions. Americans are tired of temporary fixes and lip service. They are rightfully demanding the truth. It is time for my friends across the aisle to own up to the devastating consequences of this law and acknowledge it is time to repeal it.

During the debate, Republicans also supported an amendment to ensure Medicare savings were invested back into Medicare, not used to back ObamaCare. Remarkably, nearly everyone on the Democratic side of the aisle rejected that idea. Republicans are still committed to that principle, and we stand ready to work on ensuring the Medicare Program is accessible, that it is flexible, and that it is cost-efficient for seniors today and for our grandchildren in the decades to come.

Taking money out of Medicare to finance ObamaCare was wrong and it needs to stop. That is a promise worth delivering on.

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

Madam President, I rise today to speak again about the

President's health care bill--ObamaCare. Monday of this week was another milestone for ObamaCare. It marked yet another admission by the President that the health care law is unworkable as written.

So what happened? On Monday, unilaterally, the administration decided to delay the employer mandate for 1 year once again. This time around the delay is for employers with 50 to 99 employees. It is amazing to me, and it is completely contradictory, that one day the President is behind the podium talking about how great this law is and the next day he is erasing the very text he supports.

The administration had nearly 4 years to implement the major provisions of the law, yet the President finds it necessary to literally rewrite the law with delay after delay after delay. On one hand, I am pleased the President recognizes the grievous harm being done by this legislation. I appreciate that he recognizes the harm is too great to leave it in place. But all he is doing is delaying the pain until after the elections, which is unfair to American families.

The truth is further delays don't solve the problem; they extend the pain. Reports certainly indicate we have only seen the tip of this iceberg.

Last week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office dealt yet another blow to ObamaCare. The CBO estimates there will be about 2\1/2\ million fewer full-time workers in 10 years than if this law had not passed. These new figures are nearly three times greater than the CBO's already dismal analysis back in the day when the law was being debated before its passage.

I found it remarkable back when we were debating this law--when unemployment was hovering around 10 percent--that any of my colleagues would support any bill that would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Now we are learning the truth and it is even worse. It is three times as bad. CBO says the law's subsidies and taxes reduce incentives to work. Is that what this Congress should be about? And their report asserts the cost of the employer mandate penalty will be passed on to workers in the form of lower wages or other compensation.

A number of Nebraskans have reached out to me. An individual from eastern Nebraska shared this:

I work part time and I have had my hours cut from 30 to 28

hours due to ObamaCare last April. My employer implemented it

early to be sure I did not exceed 30 hours in the year 2013.

Even with the delay in the mandate, they have stuck to the 28

hours for part time help. The loss to me is about $150 a

month and it sure has hurt our budget. My employer's hands

are tied as they would have to pay health care for employees

with 30 hours or more or pay a fine if not offering health

care. This ObamaCare is a job killer. I keep hoping I will

wake up and this will all have been a bad dream.

Another Nebraskan from the northeast corner of the State wrote to me and said:

My wife just left my office in tears. She worked for the

city for over 10 years. She is, or rather was, a 34 hour a

week employee who was informed that she is having her hours

cut back to 29 as a result of the Affordable Care Act. To

many those 5 hours per week may not seem like much but to our

family it will result in a huge loss. We currently have 3

children, including one daughter who is a senior getting

ready to graduate and go to college. As a family we pretty

much live ``hand to mouth'' with our income and this

reduction in hours, which I'm sure seems ``minor'' to a lot

of folks, is a huge blow to my family. The thing that pains

me most is the impact it is going to have on our daughter's

decision about college, that one thing alone is so unfair.

She should not, on the cusp of choosing her path in life,

have to be put in the position--over 5 hours of work--of

delaying or altering her life plans. In a world where we tend

to be futurists--always talking about the importance of

education and the next generation being the future--it just

doesn't seem right that I have to look my daughter in the

eyes tonight and have a discussion about how 5 hours may

alter her future.

These are heartbreaking stories about Americans who want to work but their government has gotten in their way. We are seeing smaller paychecks and 2.5 million fewer full-time equivalent jobs.

We all remember this law's primary marketing pitch was that it would provide coverage for tens of millions of uninsured Americans, but CBO now estimates 31 million Americans will likely be without health insurance in 2024--roughly 1 of 9 Americans--and 6 to 7 million Americans won't get coverage through their employers who otherwise would have. This is according to CBO.

Let me say that again. Six million to 7 million fewer Americans will not get health insurance from their employer under ObamaCare compared to no bill at all.

So ObamaCare has been counterproductive, to say the least. It is hardly a good return on investment, considering this law cost over $2 trillion and raised taxes by about $1 trillion.

I appreciate and support goals to help our most vulnerable Americans receive access to health care, and I support reforms which will increase competition and lower costs, such as expanding health savings accounts and not reducing them. I appreciate the opportunity to work on reforms which allow insurers to compete across State lines and allowing small businesses to pool together to create a broader pool to be insured at lower rates. These solutions would produce results.

But a 2,700-page bill packed full of perverse incentives and negative consequences which hurt workers, increase taxes, and costs trillions is not what Americans want. That is why I am committed to shielding Americans from the harmful effects of ObamaCare. We must repeal this law and build on the alternative solutions which have been proposed by Republicans to help our American families.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my cosponsor Senator Tester, and he is 1,000 percent right. We have been down this road. We have worked so hard to get everybody on board. States are on board. It does empower States. It does allow them to do what they need to do.

I urge my colleagues to be a ``no'' vote on the Coburn amendment.

Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to Senator Boozman and Senator Thune for being down here this morning to talk about an issue that is extremely important and an issue we certainly are hearing a lot about in our Senate offices and hearing a lot about when we travel back to our home States; that is, the whole issue of ObamaCare.

The President, of course, mentioned this in his State of the Union last night, and I think he truly hopes he can change the subject here. But the reality is he cannot because so many people are being hurt by this legislation.

Over 4 years ago, when the health care law was being debated, there was one concern that dominated the discussion when we talked to our constituents back home. That concern was cost. They talked about the rising cost of health care and wanted to see what we thought in terms of this law's impact on that. But since this year's rates were posted, it has become absolutely obvious that this law did not hold true to its promise to reduce costs.

Our Nebraska insurance director was asked to comment about this when the rates were coming out. He said: ``Basically, the rates are going up.'' No truer words could have been spoken.

A CNBC headline read: ``Consumers say they're shelling out more for health insurance.''

But it is not just those headlines or the opinion of our director of insurance. It is what is happening to real people in their lives.

A father from just outside Omaha, NE, wrote a letter to me, and he said this: In 2013, his family's flexible spending account was cut from $5,000 a year to $2,500 a year as a result of the health care law.

If there was one thing people appreciated, it was the flexible spending account. Why you would want to cut this does not make any sense, but that is what the health care law did to him. He goes on to say that his wife's employer-sponsored insurance premiums have increased by an incredible 50 percent and their deductible and maximum out-of-pocket costs--well, they have not gone down--have gone up too, and these increases have been the worst they have seen in 14 years of employment, all due to the health care law.

His sons who are struggling to pay for college had their work hours restricted to 28 hours a week. Why? Because of the law. So as a result they are applying for more financial aid, they are going further in debt, and even taking on part-time jobs so they can stay in school.

But that is not the only person who has written to me. A Nebraskan from the south central part of the State reports this: He spent 27 hours trying to enroll on healthcare.gov only to find out he could not afford coverage, even with a premium subsidy. Under the best option, his deductible would increase by $7,000.

To a middle-class family, $7,000 out of pocket is bankruptcy. They do not have it. It is not like that money is going to fall out of the sky.

A young traveling nurse from northeastern Nebraska also faced sticker shock and reached out to me. Under a new plan, her premium more than doubled and her deductible went from $3,500 to $6,500. She wrote to me and said: ``This is not affordable when I have student loans to pay for and I'm trying to support myself.''

It is possible some Nebraskans have temporarily renewed their old policy under the delay that was announced by the President, but that just means they have delayed the pain until next year, and we will see more of these stories of skyrocketing costs and deductibles.

Let's face it. Americans did not get what they were promised when the law was passed. They expected a bill that would deliver on the promises and address the cost of health care. Instead, they are stuck with the very real consequences of a poorly crafted policy.

I think it is time we show Americans we can do better. I believe the place to start is to repeal the law and start working on step-by-step solutions that draw down health care costs for American families.

Those of us on the floor today are ready to tackle the challenge. I hope we find willing partners.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak for approximately 12 minutes as in morning business.

I rise today to discuss a bill my colleagues and I introduced to establish trade promotion authority, otherwise referred to as TPA. Senators Baucus and Hatch, along with Congressman Camp in the House, introduced the Congressional Trade Priorities Act only last week. The Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on it today.

This bill would resurrect the partnership between Congress and the administration to promote a robust trade agenda. That partnership, known as TPA, came about as a way to thoughtfully and pragmatically exercise Congress's constitutional authority to regulate foreign commerce. TPA effectively combines this authority with the President's authority to negotiate treaties.

Congress therefore provides the marching orders to the President, and the President, in turn, gets an up-or-down vote on the agreement that is negotiated. Some might ask why would we do this? Why should Congress set rules for itself to consider trade agreements through a very special legislative process? Simply put, negotiating modern trade agreements would be virtually impossible without providing some assurance that agreed-upon provisions, negotiated provisions, won't be picked apart after the negotiators shake hands.

Trade agreements span a multitude of issues affecting international commerce. To reach these agreements there needs to be extensive negotiation by representatives of the countries involved, but Congress is hardly equipped to engage in multilateral negotiations with foreign countries. We know that. We can hardly negotiate with each other these days.

TPA allows Congress to set priorities for trade agreements and engage with the President throughout the process. During floor consideration, amendments cannot be offered because it would undermine our Trade Representative. It would undermine our Trade Representative's hand in negotiation.

Imagine our negotiators signing a deal, shaking hands with our counterparts from other parts of the world, and then bringing the deal to Congress. Then, after 535 people offer a plethora of amendments, they have to go back to the other countries and try to reopen negotiations because everything has been changed. No one would ever negotiate a trade deal with the United States again.

So why is that a bad thing? Should we negotiate trade agreements at all? I would argue, unquestionably, the answer is absolutely yes. White Houses from Reagan to Obama would agree.

Furthermore, the overall benefit of free trade is undisputed by the economists. A free rules-based trading system is much better for America than a system where the government picks winners and losers, and it is better for American jobs when the playing field is a level playing field.

I want to give an example: Colombia. In 2011 Congress passed a trade agreement with Colombia--already one of our most important allies in Latin America. That trade relationship is thriving as a result of that agreement. Consider this: Between 2011 and 2013 U.S. goods exports to Colombia have increased 18 percent. At the same time U.S. goods exports to the rest of the world have decreased by 2 percent. Trade agreements are a great benefit to Americans as well as in corners of the world where they need a strong ally.

Unfortunately, that is a message that doesn't always make it through. Instead, we hear a chorus of scare tactics about job losses, environmental concerns--whatever it is. Critics ignore the proven power of trade to expand job opportunities and to improve the standard of living, not only here but around the world. At the same time the lives of millions of people around the world improve. Almost all economists would agree that countries should move toward more free trade, not less.

One need only examine tariff rates to understand why it is in our best interests to pursue trade agreements. U.S. barriers to trade are already very low by global standards. Our average tariff rate is 3.5 percent. Compare that to our current trade negotiating partners. Vietnam has an average tariff rate of 10 percent. Malaysia's average is 6 percent. Japan and the EU both have average tariff rates of 5.3 percent. Only New Zealand has a lower rate than we do. So trade agreements help to level the playing field by bringing down tariffs imposed on our goods by our competitors. Put simply, trade agreements knock down barriers. They open doors for U.S. producers and manufacturers to get our economic engine going again.

Critics falsely claim we are going to experience a flood of cheap imports as a result of new agreements.

My friends, that simply doesn't make sense when our tariffs are already low. Trade agreements bring down our competitors' high tariffs. They level the playing field.

The benefit to trade is especially clear for agricultural products-- huge drivers of the economy in my State. Our average tariff on these imported products is 5 percent. Malaysia's is 11 percent, the European Union's is 14 percent, Vietnam is at 17 percent, and Japan has an agricultural tariff rate of 23 percent. These countries all already have a number of trade agreements in place with other countries. That means we face restrictions while our competitors reap the benefits of the open market. We are on the sidelines while other countries are filling the orders and creating the jobs. Trade Promotion Authority paves the way to lowering these barriers and, in some cases, eliminating them altogether.

Of course, tariffs are not the only barriers our exporters face, and TPA would help us address the others too. Countries also impose nontariff barriers, often claiming some illegitimate basis in science, and they have brought our industries to their knees. Modern trade agreements address those barriers as well, and we cannot get good trade agreements inked without TPA.

In general, the U.S. abides by true science-based trade standards. This is less common, however, in the rest of the world, to say the least. Trade agreements help bring export markets in line with the same kind of science-based standards that we apply to our imports. So if you are concerned about foreign countries blocking American exports, you should support TPA. Without TPA it becomes much harder to open those markets for American workers.

We should all get behind this TPA bill and get it across the finish line so that new trade agreements can clear the way for more Americans to be hired as export demand increases.

I am pleased President Obama now recognizes the immense benefit that trade provides to our great Nation. Despite being all talk and no action on trade early on, this administration is currently negotiating the two largest trade agreements in history. In my opinion, it is time for the partisan bickering to end. There are clear job-creating benefits to our country, and it is time for the President to make that case to the American people and to his allies in Congress.

In a couple of weeks the President will have an opportunity to do so in the State of the Union address. I hope he follows through. Given the ambition of potential agreements across the Pacific and the Atlantic, the President must lay the groundwork, the vision, for the passage of this legislation. Creating jobs in this Nation is too important to leave at the mercy of electioneering politics. It really is time to act. So my hope is we will pass TPA quickly so we can put Americans back to work.

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