Floor Statements

No objection.

Mr. President, the majority leader has stated this morning that we have to stop protecting the President from good ideas and use this as his exhibit A--the Keystone Pipeline bill--which is likely to come up for debate before the Senate the beginning of next week. It is an important measure, an important issue that has been talked about over a long period of time, and the actual debate on the Senate floor will commence the beginning of next week.

The majority leader has moved a bill through the rule XIV process, which under the Senate rules is an effort to bring a bill directly to the floor and not through the committee. At the same time there is a parallel effort under way in the newly formed energy committee of the Senate--formed as of yesterday, I might add--to consider this bill, as well, to mark it up. So I am not sure which bill will come to the floor. Perhaps the effort will be merged at some point. But there is no delay from our point of view from any of the motions or objections that we have raised. We ask only that the committee structures be established so that the bill could go through the orderly process of committee. That happened yesterday and now it is in the hands of the energy committee. If their markup is going to be perhaps later this week or next week, then we will be prepared to bring this measure to the floor after the regular order process of committee consideration of this bill.

This bill, of course, is going to be subject to the new approach of the new majority--amendments on the floor. I welcome that. I have been looking forward to that and a return to that for a long time. We have already said that although we plan on being in the minority for a short period of time, while in the minority we will not be obstructionist. We are going to do our best to work in a constructive fashion toward bipartisan solutions. There will come moments of disagreement, and Members will assert their rights and privileges as Members of the Senate and will follow the traditions in the rules of the Senate in that regard.

I will state that when this measure comes to the floor, there are some important questions that need to be answered. I listened to Republican Senators Blunt and Thune yesterday come to the floor and say something which puzzled me. I thought there was a question--at least a question was raised earlier--as to whether the oil that is flowing through this pipeline is ever going to be sold as a product in the United States. I don't know the answer to that as I stand here.

For the longest time, the companies that wanted to develop this pipeline and the refinery have not agreed that their product would be sold in the United States. Yet I have heard Senator after Senator come to the floor and say we have to have more oil in the United States.

Initially, as I understand it, this pipeline was to end at a refinery in Texas where it could be exported overseas, meaning that the actual oil product may not benefit American consumers of gasoline and diesel fuel.

So during the course of this debate on this Keystone Pipeline, amendments are going to be offered to give Members an opportunity to go on the record as to whether the ultimate product from the Keystone Pipeline is going to be sold in the United States and ultimately whether there will be jobs created in the United States as a result of it. These are worthy policy questions, and I think they will come up during the course of our amendments.

I also take exception to the majority leader's suggestion that this particular measure, the Keystone Pipeline, has been studied endlessly and stranded because of the efforts of the President. Let me say, as we stand here today discussing the Keystone Pipeline, the court system in the State of Nebraska is still trying to resolve some questions about the location of this pipeline--sensitive questions to our environment.

There is an aquifer in this area that they don't want to jeopardize by placing the pipeline in the wrong location. They are fighting it out in the courts of Nebraska as to the right location and the authority of officials in Nebraska to choose that location. That goes on as we debate it on the Senate floor. So to suggest that this is so-called shovel ready and all we need is a green light from Congress and the President to move forward oversimplifies and overstates the case. I wanted to clarify that for the record.

Affordable Care Act

Mr. President, there is an effort under way in the House of Representatives today to amend the Affordable Care Act. For those of us who voted for it and proudly support the Affordable Care Act, this is no surprise. Many of the people who did not vote for it and those on the other side of the aisle have opposed the Affordable Care Act since it was signed into law by President Obama. Some believe that opposition is grounded in this notion that this is President Obama's Affordable Care Act, the so-called ObamaCare. I would say that opposition is not grounded in the reality of what has happened since we passed the Affordable Care Act.

There are Members of the Senate--Republican Members--who have said they want to veto and eliminate every single word of the Affordable Care Act--every single word. One of the Senators from Texas on the Republican side said that the other day. Well, if they do this, it will be disastrous.

Let me state the record of the Affordable Care Act to date. The Affordable Care Act has given millions of Americans access to health insurance--many of them for the first time in their lives. I have met them in the city of Chicago and around my State. At the same time it has reined in insurance companies and has lowered health care cost increases. Because of this law a person no longer needs to stay in a job simply to have health insurance or be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition.

Who among us does not have a family Member or friend with a preexisting condition? Almost anything qualifies as a preexisting condition under the old law. Under the Affordable Care Act you cannot be discriminated against because of a preexisting condition that you suffered from or someone in your family did. When the Republican Senator from Texas says he wants to repeal every single word of the Affordable Care Act, he is repealing the protection of those with preexisting conditions and families with children with preexisting conditions from having access to health insurance they can afford.

That was the reality of the situation facing America before the passage of this bill.

I might add that because of the Affordable Care Act, preventive care is free and the cost of prescription drugs

for senior citizens is substantially lower. Those who want to repeal the Affordable Care Act are really putting at risk preventive care, which eliminates some of the worst and most expensive medical conditions, and at the same time, they are suggesting that we ought to say to seniors: Pay more for your prescriptions.

If you repeal the Affordable Care Act, you will be repealing provisions that help make seniors' prescription drugs affordable.

Out of the gate, House Republicans are pursuing an extreme bill that they are considering this week that undermines the Affordable Care Act and that is likely to come to the Senate soon and we are told is a high priority by the new majority in the Senate.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the House Republican bill would increase our Nation's deficit by $45 billion. What happened to all these deficit hawks who have been preaching to us day after day and week after week about our Nation's deficit? Apparently, when it comes to the Affordable Care Act, they are going to ignore the reality that the bill being considered by the House will add $45 billion to the Nation's deficit.

That bill would also cause 1 million people in America to lose their employer-based health insurance. The purpose of this effort on the Affordable Care Act was to give more people insurance coverage. The first action by the Republican Congress is to take up to 1 million people off of health care coverage from their own employers.

This action by House Republicans--soon to be brought to the floor of the Senate--would increase Medicaid and CHIP enrollment by 500,000 to 1 million people. It will take people off of their coverage where they work and move them into government health insurance programs. Does that sound consistent with what we are told over and over is the Republican philosophy? I don't think so.

We have had 8 million Americans enroll in private health insurance plans since October 1. That is the enrollment. Over 9 million people have gained coverage through Medicaid and CHIP. In Illinois more than 800,000 people now have health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act. Over 217,000 people purchased plans through the Illinois marketplace. My wife and I purchased our plan through a marketplace that was created by the Affordable Care Act. An additional 530,000 people have enrolled in Medicaid in my State.

In Illinois, 125,000 young adults have been able to join their parents' plan. Any parent with a child in college who is about to graduate knows that this change in the law is dramatic and helpful. Those of us who have had kids graduate from college and have worried about their health insurance coverage once they were out of school-- this Affordable Care Act says these young people can stay on their parents' health insurance policy until they reach the age of 26. While they are looking for a job--internships, travel, part-time jobs--they are covered by their parents. It is peace of mind for parents. When Republican Senators say they want to repeal every single word of the Affordable Care Act, they want to repeal this provision, which in my State is providing coverage for 125,000 young people who can stay under their parents' plan.

According to a Gallup poll released yesterday, the uninsured rate has dropped over 4 points since the Affordable Care Act went into effect a year ago. That was our goal--more and more people with health insurance coverage. The uninsured rate that they now report is 12.9 percent. That is the lowest point since Gallup began to track this measure of health insurance coverage.

The Affordable Care Act includes several changes that are meant to help slow the growth of health care costs, and they are working. Instead of paying hospitals for the services they provide--the old fee- for-service program--hospitals are paid on the basis of making patients better. If their patients have to go back into the hospital, the hospitals are paid less. There is an incentive to take care of people and to make sure that when they are finally released, they are ready to go home and not likely to return. Despite climbing readmission rates since 2007, those hospital readmission rates are now falling since the passage of the Affordable Care Act and our change in outlook when it comes to health care. Hospitals are responding in a positive way to the incentives in the Affordable Care Act, and more of their patients are going home in better and stronger condition and staying at home.

Health care spending per enrollee has slowed in the private insurance market, in Medicare, and in Medicaid. For the first time in years we are seeing the rate of growth in health care costs slow down. That is a dramatic increase in opportunity, not just for individuals and businesses that pay health insurance premiums, but it means less expense for our government. It helps to reduce our deficit.

The solvency of the Medicare Part A trust fund is now 13 years longer than it was prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, which the trustees in 2010 said had substantially improved the financial status of the trust fund.

As I mentioned earlier, the law is also helping seniors with the cost of their prescription drugs by closing the so-called doughnut hole. Remember that crazy provision? It said that if you are getting prescription drugs as a senior under Medicare, it would cover the purchase of drugs up to a certain point and then you had to pay out-of- pocket for a certain period of time and then it came back and covered again. We closed the so-called doughnut hole with the Affordable Care Act. The Republican Senators, who have vowed to repeal every single word of the Affordable Care Act, are going to reopen that doughnut hole, which means seniors will have more out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drugs.

Despite all of the successes, some Governors have decided not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, thereby denying health insurance coverage for millions of people in their States. The Affordable Care Act has already given about 9 million Americans access to Medicaid. By not expanding Medicaid in these other States, these Governors are leaving billions of dollars on the table that could be used to cover people in their States, dollars that could be used for health care for people who need it the most. I met those people. One of them is Ray Romanowski--a great Chicago name. He is a big, barrel- chested Polish musician who has played at wedding receptions and different events with his band all of his life. That is what he has done for a living. Until now he has never ever had health insurance. He qualifies for Medicaid. He has that coverage and carries it in his pocket proudly, and at age 62 he is glad to have it so he can deal with some of the issues that folks face as they get a little older.

Unfortunately, when these Governors decide not to expand Medicaid to cover people in their States, everybody pays. People who would otherwise qualify for Medicaid still need health care. They still get sick, they still show up in the emergency room, and basically they get the services at the hospital and the rest of us pay for it. Isn't it more responsible to say that individuals should have their own responsibility to have their own insurance and show up for preventive care to avoid terrible medical conditions?

One of the things I worry about is that the proposal before us, which Senator McConnell has said is a high priority, will address one of the issues regarding when employers have to provide health insurance coverage. It is an issue which was addressed in the bill but has been controversial.

Senator McConnell said: ``Making the switch from 30 to 40 hours is at the top of the GOP's Obamacare priorities.'' This is a provision being considered by the House of Representatives now, and it is one we ought to reflect on for a moment. It may seem simple to some that if you raise the requirement to 40 hours of work before the employer has to pay for health insurance, that it will mean fewer people are going to be disadvantaged. Exactly the opposite is true. The workweek bill affects how many people are covered by the employer mandate--the requirement that an employer pay for health insurance which went into effect January 1 for businesses with 50 workers or more. These businesses with more than 50 workers have to offer insurance to 70 percent of their full-time workforce this year or pay penalties. Under the law, full time is defined as 30 hours.

Critics of this 30-hour rule say it will force employers to slash workers'

hours to escape the penalties. Many Democrats and even some prominent conservative policy experts say that the change being considered by the House of Representatives now will do more harm than good. Millions more people work a traditional 40-hour workweek than a 30-hour workweek, so putting the cutoff at 40 hours gives employers an incentive to game the hours of their workers--a much larger group of workers. In other words, if you are not required to provide health insurance unless an employee is working 40 hours, the House action creates an incentive for employers to avoid the mandate by reducing the hours worked by those who are currently working 40 hours.

The Cato Institute is no liberal think tank; it is one of the most conservative. Cato Institute scholar Michael Cannon wrote Wednesday that the bill now being considered by the House might lighten ObamaCare's business burden but drive up government spending by making more people eligible for health care subsidies. He wrote, ``How is that a policy victory?'' and added that it is a wrongheaded strategy. He said, ``This proposed change would actually do a lot of harm, not just to the Affordable Care Act but to a substantial number of people across the country.''

Our leader on this issue is Senator Patty Murray. Senator Murray is the ranking member of the Senate HELP Committee, and she issued a statement this week which really is spot-on when it comes to the wrongheaded approach being considered by House Republicans and soon to be brought up here. The Senate HELP Committee may take up the bill as soon as the end of this month.

The Senate HELP Committee ranking Democrat, Patty Murray, pledged to fight the change. Here is what she said:

It's deeply disappointing that as one of their first

priorities, Republicans are putting forward a proposal that

would not only hurt workers by denying them the health care

coverage they depend on, but would actually encourage

companies to cut many workers' hours across the country.

The independent Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday that the House bill would add $53.2 billion to our Nation's deficit from 2015 to 2025 because fewer businesses would pay the fines and because some of the employees who would have been covered at work are now going to be covered by government programs. The CBO estimates that 1 million Americans would lose the health care coverage they currently have at work if the Republicans proposal prevails and up to 1 million will end up on government programs as result of it. This is the wrong approach.

I say to my friends in the retail and restaurant industry, the offer that I made and that I am sure many others have made is still there. Let's sit down on a bipartisan basis and find the right solution. This effort to stop the progress of the Affordable Care Act, increase the deficit, push more people into government coverage, and eliminate health coverage for millions of Americans across the country is the wrong way to approach it at this point.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, a little over 5 years ago a USAID worker named Alan Gross--a contractor with USAID--went to Havana, Cuba. He took with him some Internet equipment he was going to leave at a small synagogue that has survived for decades in Havana, Cuba. He checked in at the airport when he arrived, took all of the equipment he had brought and put it right through Customs for inspection by the Cuban Government. Shortly thereafter he was arrested and charged with spy activities and the like and imprisoned for 5 years--Alan Gross of Maryland.

I am happy to report that just before we adjourned for the holiday recess we were greeted with the great news that Alan Gross, who had been jailed in Cuba for 5 years, was finally on his way home.

I met with Alan in Havana at his holding area in a prison hospital several years ago. I couldn't understand how this man could survive day after weary day of being imprisoned for trumped-up charges that truly bore no relationship to reality. He was given a 15-year sentence for simply bringing Internet equipment to the Cuban people.

When I saw Alan, he had lost more than 100 pounds and had been unable to visit back home with his mother, who later passed away. Amid their own enormous pain, the Gross family remained tirelessly committed to ensuring his well-being and return to the United States.

Many Members of the Senate and House of Representatives visited him in Havana, when they had the chance, to keep his spirits up. We tried everything imaginable with the Cuban Government and with our own government and others to secure his release. Tragically, Alan's detention was yet another obstacle in trying to turn the page on what I considered a decades-old failed foreign policy toward Cuba.

Many people helped make Alan's joyous homecoming a reality; notably, President Barack Obama and many Members of the Senate. Senators Mikulski and Cardin, from his home State of Maryland, helped to lead our efforts; Chris Van Hollen, Congressman from the State of Maryland as well; and I can't leave out Senator Pat Leahy, who truly took a personal interest, as his staff did, in trying to help.

President Obama was the one who helped to finally engineer his release, but I think the President would be the first to say he could not have achieved this goal without the able assistance of an amazing man, who has millions of fans around the world, named Pope Francis.

Pope Francis urged both sides--the United States and Cuba--to meet and talk with one another, to work to find a solution for the release of Alan Gross and try to resolve other humanitarian issues between our two nations. Writing personally to both President Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro, Pope Francis played an important role in finally bringing these sides together after decades of separation.

Over 18 months quiet talks moved forward, including a critical one late last year hosted by the Vatican. Pope Francis said to a group of new Vatican Ambassadors the day after the release of Alan Gross:

The work of an ambassador lies in small steps, small

things, but they always end up making peace, bringing closer

the hearts of people, sowing brotherhood among people. . . .

And today we're happy because we saw how two peoples, who had

been apart for so many years, took a step closer yesterday.

What wise and beautiful words from this impressive new Pope Francis-- the first Pope from Latin America and one widely recognized for his humility, his dedication to the poor, and his commitment to dialogue and reconciliation. He is clearly continuing the role of the Vatican in pursuing peace and freedom, whether it be the role of Pope Paul II in helping to encourage the Solidarity movement in Poland or the Vatican's help in diffusing a border standoff between Chile and Argentine in the 1970s and a 2007 dispute between Britain and Iran over hostages.

That is why Senators Leahy, Flake, Cardin, Mikulski, Enzi, Collins, Udall, and Brown will join me in submitting a resolution that praises Pope Francis's role in securing Alan Gross's release and fostering dialogue between the United States and Cuba.

The resolution's message is simple and straightforward. It extends its gratitude to Pope Francis for his extraordinary efforts in helping to secure the release of Alan Gross; it commends His Holiness for his role in encouraging improved relationships between the United States and Cuba; and it warmly welcomes home Alan Gross to the United States.

I know that Cuba itself elicits many strong and passionate political feelings here in the Senate and across America. I respect the differences many of us have on this issue. I am certainly no fan of the Castro regime, neither Fidel nor Raul, and I have pursued accountability and progress on human rights violations on that island, including the suspicious death of Cuban patriot and democracy activist Oswaldo Paya.

While many of us may disagree on the best path forward in seeing democratic change in Cuba, I think and I hope we can all agree that Pope Francis deserves special thanks and praise for his role in bringing Alan Gross home.

I will submit this resolution. I ask any of my colleagues of either party who would like to join in cosponsoring it--if they would like to, I would be honored to have them. I will try to move this resolution in a timely fashion, but I hope we can at least go on record in the Senate commending the Pope's efforts.

I yield the floor.

If the Senator would yield for a moment, I failed to mention Congressman Jim McGovern. Congressman Van Hollen and Congressman Jim McGovern were both very committed to Alan Gross's release.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) are necessarily absent.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, before I read a statement into the Record which was written by the minority leader, Senator Reid, I have to say that the Senators who serve on the Democratic side of the aisle are committed to the traditions, precedents, and the rules of the Senate. We, of course, will work to preserve this great institution and protect our own individual rights and responsibilities in the Senate.

I welcome what Senator McConnell, our new majority leader, has envisioned as a more active floor in the Senate where we do not run into lengthy and repeated filibusters but bring amendments to the floor, debate them, vote on them, and ultimately pass legislation. That is the procedure of the Senate which historically had been honored but fell, sadly, into disrepair over the last several years.

Although we hope our minority status in the Senate is short-lived, I think we will establish that the Democrats are a much better minority when it comes to the Senate than perhaps those on the other side of the aisle, but only time will tell.

I have the opening remarks from the Democratic leader, Harry Reid, which I wish to read into the Record.

Senator Reid states:

As some already know, I had a mishap in my home last week

while exercising. As a result, I sustained several broken

bones in my face and ribs. As bad as that sounds, I am doing

well and recovering quickly.

I regret I am not on the Senate floor to make these remarks

in person, but my doctors have urged caution and ordered me

to stay home while I recuperate.

I thank my friend, the Assistant Democratic Leader, for

delivering my remarks today.

A Greek philosopher once wrote: ``There is nothing

permanent except change.'' Our nation's elections prove that

theory every two years. This is one of those times of

change--for the Senate and for our country.

The desks in this Chamber have been rearranged, committee

assignments adjusted, and a new majority assumes control for

the next two years. Or in other words, it's just another

Wednesday in January at the start of a new Congress.

For all of the changes, our duties as United States

Senators remain the same: We are here to help working

Americans and ensure our government has all it needs to serve

the people.

In spite of almost no Republican cooperation over the last

six years, we've made significant strides in many regards.

The new Majority Leader claims the Senate hasn't achieved, in

his words, ``squat'' in recent years. The numbers, however,

tell a different story. Today the U.S. unemployment rate

stands at 5.8 percent. Over the last six years the American

economy has added 10 million jobs. The stock market has

reached all-time highs. Our nation's manufacturers are

thriving. The American automobile industry was brought back

from the brink of collapse in spite of Republican opposition.

And let's not forget that there are more than 10 million

Americans newly insured with health care coverage.

While some here in Washington may see that as ``squat,''

the economic recovery has been very real to American

families. I know how important it has been to working

Nevadans.

And while we worked to improve the economy without

Republicans' help, we also worked to fulfill our

constitutional obligation to offer advice and consent on

Presidential nominations.

Just last Congress we confirmed 132 judges--the most since

the Carter Administration. Overall, we confirmed 611 of the

President's nominees last Congress in spite of Republican

opposition. As we speak, we have an Attorney General and a

Secretary of Defense waiting to be confirmed. I remind

everyone that last Congress the Republicans mounted an

unprecedented filibuster for a nominee for Secretary of

Defense [a former Republican Senator].

I challenge my friend, the Majority Leader, to change

course and work with Senate Democrats in confirming the

President's nominees in the 114th Congress. Working together,

we can easily meet and surpass last Congress's benchmark of

611 confirmations.

My Republican colleagues, and especially the Majority

Leader, should also know that Senate Democrats are especially

eager to continue to help American families.

Working together, we can send meaningful, bipartisan

legislation to the President for his signature.

The mistakes of the past, the gratuitous obstruction and

wanton filibustering will not be a hallmark of the Democratic

minority in the 114th Congress. The filibuster is an

indispensable tool of the minority, but Republicans' abuse of

it last Congress has come to epitomize the gridlock here in

the United States Capitol.

To be clear, I have no intention of just rolling over. I

can't. Not when the middle class is teetering on the verge of

extinction.

Any attempt to erode protections for working American

families--the dismantling of Dodd-Frank, the weakening of net

neutrality rules, or the Republicans' never-ending quest to

repeal the Affordable Care Act, known as ObamaCare--will be

met with swift and unified Democratic opposition.

But we'd rather legislate together. And there's plenty of

common ground for bipartisan compromise if Republicans are

willing.

That is the end of the statement from Senator Reid.

Mr. President, throughout the history of the United States of America, we have had a remarkable alliance with the nation of France. It bears remembering and repeating that the French stood by our side when America was fighting for its independence from Great Britain. The French were honored in many ways for that alliance and help, including, as I recall, a portrait of the Marquis de Lafayette which hangs in the U.S. House of Representatives to this day.

That was not the only time by any means that the French have stood with us and we have stood by their side. It happened during World War I, World War II, and many times after that. Through the NATO alliance and in many other ways, we have worked with the people of France for common goals and common purpose, and that is why we were so saddened this morning to learn of the news that was reported by the Tribune:

Masked gunmen shouting ``Allahu akbar!'' stormed the Paris

offices of a satirical newspaper Wednesday, killing 12 people

before escaping. It was France's deadliest terror attack in

at least two decades.

With a manhunt on, French President Francois Hollande

called the attack on the Charlie Hebdo weekly . . . ``a

terrorist attack without a doubt.'' He said several other

attacks have been thwarted in France ``in recent weeks.''

France raised its security alert to the highest level and

reinforced protective measures at houses of worship, stores,

media offices and transportation. Top government officials

were holding an emergency meeting and Hollande planned a

nationally televised address in the evening. Schools closed

their doors.

World leaders including President Barack Obama and German

Chancellor Angela Merkel condemned the attack, but supporters

of the militant Islamic State group celebrated the slayings

as well-deserved revenge against France.

This event in Paris recalls what we lived through not that long ago when the United States--on September 11, 2001--was attacked by terrorists and more than 3,000 innocent Americans lost their lives in New York, in Washington, and in the countryside of Pennsylvania. Many of us recall that at that moment--that sad, awful moment--people around the world rallied to stand with the United States in our grief and in our determination for justice. We particularly remember that the people of France did that, and they spoke out in one voice saying they were going to be by our side in this battle against terrorism. I think it is appropriate today that we follow suit, that we join in that same spirit. ``A ce moment tragique, nous sommes tous Parisiens, nous sommes tous Francais.''

Let us all work together not only to bring justice to this horrible situation--this attack on free press in France--but let us also work together to bring an end to terrorism in our time. We can work with our allies and friends in France to achieve that goal.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, 40 years ago this week, a young prosecutor from Vermont was sworn into the Senate. He was part of a historic group of lawmakers often referred to as the ``Watergate babies.'' Today that man is President pro tempore emeritus as well as the most senior Member of the Senate. It is an honor to serve with him and to recognize Senator Patrick Leahy for reaching this historic milestone.

Patrick Leahy remains the youngest Senator--and the only Democratic Senator--ever sent to this body by the people of his home State of Vermont. But that is not what makes Patrick Leahy exceptional. What makes him exceptional is the fact that he is a consensus builder--a thoughtful man committed to making government work better. It has been a privilege for me to work closely with Senator Leahy serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

As a member of that committee since 1979 and for many years as chairman, Senator Leahy made a profound mark on America's system of justice. He has voted on the nominations of every sitting member of the U.S. Supreme Court. He has fought to preserve the balance between liberty and security during especially difficult times. Senator Leahy has also fought to make America's respect for human rights a cornerstone of our Nation's foreign policy. He has been a leader in the global effort to ban antipersonnel landmines. He championed the ``Leahy Law'' to prevent U.S. tax dollars from benefiting human rights abusers abroad. He was a leader in recent efforts to free U.S. citizen Alan Gross from a Cuban jail and in the modernization of our Nation's policy toward that island.

One last point, Pat Leahy is also, almost certainly, the biggest ``Dead Head'' in the Senate. Twenty years ago, he invited his good friend, Jerry Garcia--the lead guitarist for the Grateful Dead--to join him for lunch here in the Capitol. Two other members of the band came, too: drummer Mickey Hart and bass player Phil Lesh. As one might imagine, this unusual foursome created a bit of a stir in the Senate Dining Room. Then in walked Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. Ever the bridgebuilder, Senator Leahy walked over to Senator Thurmond and said: ``Please join us. There's someone I want you to meet.''

It is a story worth pondering as we begin the 114th Congress. If we could all be so open to creating unlikely alliances, there is no telling what we might achieve in the next 2 years.

Again, I thank my friend Senator Leahy on his 40 years of service to the people of Vermont, America, and to the great causes that face our generation.

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

Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Oregon for reminding us of this 50th anniversary of President Johnson's recommendation to Congress to create Medicare and Medicaid. Today, as we witness 54 million people benefitting in America from Medicare--in my State some 2 million--and 68 million from Medicaid--in my State 3 million--we understand the importance of this program. Almost half the people who live in Illinois are covered with health insurance by Medicare and Medicaid. When we add in the Affordable Care Act, we have literally half the population of my State.

It is a testament to the fact that when we made a commitment and followed through on a bipartisan basis, as the Senator from Oregon said, we created programs that had vibrancy and really served people for a long time.

I read something the Senator from Oregon is, I am sure aware, of, which is that because Medicare was a complete Federal payout, it was implemented throughout the United States almost within a year. It took 17 years for every State to join the Medicaid Program. It wasn't until 1982 that the last State joined into Medicaid--Arizona--because there was a State contribution. Look at the experience we have now with the Affordable Care Act, where some States are reluctant to join in. So that is part of it.

The point I wish to get to and which the Senator made so well is how it changed life for senior citizens and for those who were poor. It gave them a chance for quality health care that didn't bankrupt them in the process.

Medicaid has been a dramatic success. For critics of government health programs and critics of Medicaid, the 2011 survey found that 70 percent of physicians across America accept Medicaid patients. People would believe from some of the critics that the opposite is true. Seventy percent accept Medicaid patients. So it is a good program. The reimbursement attracts 70 percent of physicians willing to treat them.

The last point I will make to the Senator from Oregon particularly, if he happens to know a good bookstore, I would suggest he consider the new book by Dr. Gawande entitled ``Being Mortal.'' I am virtually through it, and he really challenges us to look beyond health care for the elderly to where they are living, how they are living, and how they are being treated.

So I am hoping we can rise to another level of conversation beyond Medicare and Medicaid, celebrating this anniversary but accepting a new responsibility to that generation of seniors who served America so well.

I thank the Senator from Oregon for reminding us of this anniversary.

I am proud to stand with my colleague Senator Wyden today in support of his resolution honoring President Johnson's commitment to creating the Medicare and Medicaid Programs.

Fifty years ago today, President Lyndon Johnson sent a message to the Congress which he titled ``Advancing the Nation's Health.''

In that message the Johnson quoted President Thomas Jefferson who in 1787 wrote, ``without health there is no happiness. An attention to health, then, should take the place of every other object.'' Those words were true then, true in 1965, and true now.

President Johnson was concerned about the health of our nation because of the staggering effect that no insurance and chronic disease had on the elderly. At that time, 80 percent of people over 65 were disabled or lived with a chronic disease. Unfortunately, 50 percent of people over 65 did not have health insurance.

From his concern and effort came the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Both programs created a social safety net that has improved the lives of millions of Americans.

Today more than 54 million people are enrolled in Medicare, 2 million in Illinois. The vast majority of Medicare enrollees are seniors. They receive quality, affordable, care and access to prescription drugs because of the President Johnson's commitment. In this new Congress, we should work together to ensure this highly successful program remains in place for future generations.

Medicaid has been a lifeline for millions of people, especially for children. Sixty-eight million people are enrolled in Medicaid, 3 million in Illinois. And thanks to the Affordable Care Act, 600,000 became newly eligible for the program last year. Medicaid makes it possible for more than half of the babies born in Illinois to be delivered with medical care. Some argue that Medicaid isn't working because physicians refuse to see people in the program. But the data says that isn't true. 2011 data shows that 70 percent of office-based physicians nationwide were willing to see new Medicaid patients. I call that a success.

As we remember President Johnson's tireless effort today, we should also keep in mind our commitment to these vital programs and work together to strengthen them.

Mr. President, this approach met our needs for the last two Congresses, and I too would like to see it continue. In addition, last Congress, special reserves was restored to its historic purpose. We should continue to fund special reserves to the extent possible in order to be able to assist committees that face urgent, unanticipated, nonrecurring needs. Recognizing the tight budgets we will face for the foreseeable future, it is necessary to continue to bring funding authorizations more in line with our actual resources while ensuring that committees are able to fulfill their responsibilities. I look forward to continuing to work with the majority leader to accomplish this.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 22, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I would just say for the Record, following the comments of the majority leader, these are the minority committee assignments and ranking member positions for all of the standing committees.

Mr. President, the Democratic leader is necessarily absent. I will be acting in his stead until his return.

Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.