Floor Statements

Madam President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to speak about the tragic shooting last week at Fort Hood. The shooting claimed the lives of three innocent people. One was a son of Illinois, and 16 others were wounded.

As chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I often begin subcommittee hearings by quoting the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey. At his speech at the National Press Club 2 years ago, General Dempsey spoke about the number of challenges facing the military, from Afghanistan to sequestration, and the need to take care of our troops when they transition to civilian status. General Dempsey said: ``No matter how well we address the other challenges''--and I quote him--``if we don't get the people right, the rest of it doesn't matter.''

His words reflect a basic truth. More than weapons systems or stockpiles of ammunition, the strength of our military and the security of America depend on the men and women who volunteer to risk their lives for us.

Investigators are still trying to understand what happened as an Army specialist went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood. Press reports speculated on a host of possible motives, from mental health difficulties following a recent deployment, grief over the death of his mother, and even financial pressure. As we wait for the answers to this tragedy, we are grateful for the discipline and bravery of the military policewoman who confronted the shooter and cut short what could have been an even worse tragedy. We are grateful for the military chaplain who shielded bystanders and helped them reach safety.

In my State of Illinois, we are mourning Army SGT Timothy Owens. He is from downstate, my neck of the woods, born in Effingham, IL, and dreamed of being a soldier since he was a little boy. He used to wear camouflage and bomber jackets with sunglasses to look like a soldier, in hopes that someday that would come true.

He went to high school in Rolla, MO, where he met Billy, the young woman who would later become his wife. They were married just last August.

After high school Tim and his family moved back to Effingham where Tim worked and taught tae kwon do in the local gym. In 2003 Tim Owens decided to pursue his life long dream. He enlisted in the U.S. Army. Sergeant Owens served proudly in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he recently signed up for 6 more years. His tours in Iraq and Afghanistan gave him special understanding and empathy for other soldiers who faced difficulties when they returned home. He used his skill and compassion in his work as a counselor at Fort Hood helping veterans deal with post traumatic stress disorder and other mental health challenges. It was a heartbreaking irony that Sergeant Owens was killed when he tried to persuade the shooter at Fort Hood to lay down his weapon. Sergeant Owens was 37 years old.

I offer my deepest condolences to Sergeant Owens' friends and family, especially his wife and his parents. Tim Owens served America honorably, and I know they are proud of him.

We also pray for the families of the other soldiers who lost their lives last week at Fort Hood and all those who were injured. Losing soldiers on friendly soil seems almost incomprehensible. Yet this is not the first time we have seen this sort of senseless death at a U.S. military facility. It is not even the first time we have seen it at Fort Hood.

Tomorrow at Fort Hood President Obama will lead a memorial service to honor those who died last week. As we remember the soldiers who were lost and pray for those who were wounded, we also need to ask ourselves if there is more that we can do to protect the members of our military and their families.

In the speech 2 years ago, General Dempsey said the vast majority of servicemembers end up stronger from the experience that they served. He said: ``They are disciplined, they are courageous . . . they have a sense of purpose.'' They are men and women we should be very proud of, and we are.

There are also a few who for some reason or another need help. Some may bear invisible wounds from war. As we wind down our involvement in Afghanistan, our task as a Nation is to get all of the people right, as General Dempsey reminded us. Servicemembers and veterans who are struggling with health issues, including mental health issues, need to get the care that is necessary to bring them back to a full participation in life.

Military families shouldn't have to struggle to put food on their table or a roof over their heads. A grateful Nation can do a lot better than that. No member of the military who risked his or her life overseas should have to worry about losing his or her life on a military base in America. In the midst of the tragedy last week many people at Fort Hood acted nobly and courageously, but something went terribly wrong.

We owe it to our servicemembers and their families to understand how this terrible loss happened so we can work to make sure it does not happen again.

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

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

I ask unanimous consent that following the vote on H.R. 3979, the Senate proceed to executive

session to consider Calendar Nos. 688, 706, and 549; that there be 2 minutes for debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to each vote; that upon the use or yielding back of time the Senate proceed to vote, without intervening action or debate, on the nominations in the order listed; that any rollcall votes be 10 minutes in length; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

I ask unanimous consent that all time be charged equally during quorum calls.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), and the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, can you tell us the order of business pending on the floor?

I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes in morning business.

Madam President, I start by commending my colleague from Vermont.

What happened today across the street at the Supreme Court will be lost on most Americans. They can't understand why they should even care about it.

The Supreme Court was asked whether it was proper under the law to limit the number of Federal campaigns and the total dollars an individual can give to candidates. To no one's surprise, the Supreme Court said there should be no limitation. People can give as much money as they want to as many Federal candidates they want with no limitation.

Most Americans will say: So what? You know, these politicians run against one another. During the campaign both sides spend too much money. I am sick and tired of their ads. I don't care how you pay for it; it is all bad.

But I have to say, Senator Sanders put his finger on it. What is at issue here is not just how we finance campaigns. It is who we elect. What we are faced with is a Supreme Court across the street which celebrates oligarchs. They happen to believe that the wealthiest people in America deserve the strongest voice in American politics. I couldn't disagree more.

Sadly, many of us are caught up in this system of campaign financing where we literally have to raise millions of dollars to run for election and reelection. In my State multimillionaires are running for the highest offices against what I consider to be mere mortals--those of us who aren't in the multimillionaire class--trying to compete with them, always wondering if tomorrow the Koch brothers--with an $80 billion net worth--will say: Spend $10 million there; spend $20 million there.

I say to my friend from Vermont, as best we can count, in the last election cycle the Koch brothers--not to be confused with the soft drink--spent over $250 million in ad campaigns. I think the figure, frankly, is much higher, and the suggestion is they are going to double that spending this time. They have already spent $10 million in the State of North Carolina with negative television advertising for 12 months against the Democratic incumbent Senator Kay Hagan, trying to beat her down, so they can defeat her in November.

Make no mistake. There is a lot of money being spent on both sides. But Sheldon Adelson, who--as the Senator from Vermont said--runs one of the biggest gambling operations and maybe is the wealthiest man when it comes to that in the United States, maybe in the world, has become a player. Can you imagine if those who want to run for the Republican nomination for President come hat in hand, land at the Las Vegas airport, walk into a room and see if they can say something that appeals to this man who is worth billions of dollars? Last time he fell in love with Newt Gingrich, and he was going to make Newt Gingrich President. People in many of the Republican primaries saw it differently. Well, this

time he wants to pick another horse to run.

Why are the richest people in America so intent on owning our political process? Because they have an agenda. It isn't just because they love the Constitution. They have an agenda--an agenda which makes the Tax Code work for them, an agenda which makes sure that government spending and things that aren't priorities for them are reduced.

We saw some of that yesterday, when Congressman Paul Ryan in the House of Representatives introduced his budget, his vision of what America should look like. What is it? It is a budget amendment which cuts back on some basic things. One thing the Ryan budget cuts back on that everybody listening to this debate ought to take note of is domestic discretionary spending for medical research--seriously.

Today happens to be World Autism Awareness Day. Do you know a family with an autistic child? Do you have any idea what they are going through? I know a few. Sadly, the number of people suffering from autism and the autism spectrum disorder seems to be growing by the day. We look at these families struggling to give their son or daughter a chance and think: If we only knew a little bit more about this disease, if we only knew a little bit more about the human brain, if we only could see this coming and do something to avoid it, if we could find a way to treat it, what a difference it would make for all of these families on World Autism Awareness Day. But the answer from Congressman Ryan is to cut back on medical research. That is not the answer. It is not the answer for any of us.

God forbid we go to the doctor's office tomorrow with a child, and the doctor says something awful has happened. But the first question we would ask the doctor is: Is there something you can do? Is there a medicine? Is there a procedure?

How many families have been in that position where they have asked that physician, praying to God that the answer is yes? The answer will not be yes when we cut back on medical research. The answer is going to be no.

That is why we have to really reflect on our priorities--not only in Congress but in elections. If we are going to let people take over the American political scene through the Citizens United case across the street or the McCutcheon case which was decided today, we are going to turn our government over to people who are totally out of touch with the reality of American families and American working families. That would be a serious mistake.

While we are on the subject, these are the first people in line who want to eliminate the Affordable Care Act. I was in the Rose Garden yesterday, invited by the President with a large group to celebrate the announcement that more than 7.1 million Americans have now enrolled by the deadline under the Affordable Care Act, and more than 3 million young people, fresh out of college, looking for jobs are covered by their mom and dad's health insurance while they are looking for work. Then add another 8 million people across America who now have health insurance protection through Medicaid--meaning their income is so low that they qualify for this basic health insurance. Add those numbers up, and they come to somewhere in the range of 15 million to 18 million people who benefited by the Affordable Care Act--people, who until they had this opportunity, some of them, many of them had no insurance. I have met them. I have met them across my State. I have met those in downstate Illinois who worked all their lives. They are 62 years old.

A friend of mine never had health insurance one day in her life, never missed a day of work in her life. Now she has the protection of health insurance at age 62 for the first time--and thank God she does. She has just been diagnosed with diabetes. She has a chance now because she has health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. So what is the response from the other side? Repeal it. Get rid of it. We don't need it. It is a waste--too much government.

We are not going back. We're not repealing. We can make it better, and we ought to do it on a bipartisan basis. But we are not repealing the Affordable Care Act.

What would repealing the Affordable Care Act mean to the rest of us who have health insurance? The Affordable Care Act guarantees that if you have a child or a spouse with a medical condition--a medical history of asthma, diabetes, survived cancer--you cannot be discriminated against when you buy health insurance. What we are talking about here is giving families a fair shot at affordable health insurance--giving them a fair shot even if their child is born with a serious medical issue.

Secondly, the Affordable Care Act says: When you sell me a health insurance policy, it ought to be worth something when I need it. They used to sell these policies and put limits on them. God forbid tomorrow you are diagnosed with cancer and facing radiation therapy, chemotherapy, surgery, and hospitalizations. But there is a limit on your policy, and pretty soon you bust through the limit, and now it is all coming out of your meager savings. That is the number one reason people declare personal bankruptcy in America--health bills. The Affordable Care Act puts an end to that and says that your health insurance policy has to be there in an amount when you need it.

The third thing it says is if you are a senior citizen getting prescription drugs--there used to be something called the doughnut hole. It was a crazy thing. You couldn't even explain it. I pay for prescriptions--no, wait a minute. I don't pay for prescription drugs for the first 3 months, and then I pay for them for 4 months, and then the government pays for them. It was called the doughnut hole. It made no sense at all. We closed the doughnut hole, saying to seniors: We are going to make sure that your prescription drugs are covered and you don't have to pay out of pocket, and you can get that annual checkup that you need to stay healthy. Those who want to repeal the Affordable Care Act want to do away with that, and that is just plain wrong.

As I mentioned earlier, if you happen to be a family with a child under the age of 26, you can keep that child on your health insurance plan while they are finishing college and looking for a job, maybe getting that first job. It may not be the best, may not have benefits. They are still covered under your policy.

Have you as a parent ever called your 24-year-old daughter and asked her, as I have: Jenny, do you have health insurance?

No, Dad. I'm fine. Don't worry about me.

Right. I will stay up all night worrying about you.

You don't have to do that anymore under the Affordable Care Act. Those who want to repeal it want to go back to those days where young people fresh out of college had no health insurance protection. We are not going back. We can make this bill stronger and better, and I will work to do it. But for the millions of Americans who now have a chance at affordable, accessible health insurance, we are not turning the clock back.

There is one other thing worth mentioning. Not only are millions now on health insurance, the good news is for the last 5 years since we passed this bill, the rate of increase in costs for health insurance has been going down--yes, going down. Not as fast as we want it to, but it used to be trending up in a way we couldn't even manage or control. Now we are moving in the right direction in terms of health care costs. So for those who come to the floor of the Senate or the floor of the House growling and whining about the Affordable Care Act, the good news is that this debate is over in America. The Affordable Care Act is here to stay.

We could make it better. We should work to make it better. We should do it on a bipartisan basis. But there are 18 million reasons why we are not going to repeal the Affordable Care Act--18 million Americans that have peace of mind with health insurance because of this law.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, in order to keep this bipartisan emergency legislation

pending on the floor and to benefit 2.7 million Americans, I respectfully object.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the filing deadline for first degree amendments to H.R. 3979, which is the legislative vehicle for the unemployment insurance extension, be at 2:30 p.m. today, April 1.

I listened carefully to the statement just made by the Republican leader, Senator McConnell of Kentucky, in which he promised concrete ideas, real hope, change, job-related approaches, free enterprise--giving free enterprise a chance, trying to deal with putting America back to work. Then he gave us three examples.

I might say to the Senator that I am familiar with all three because none of these are new. We have heard them over and over from the Republican side of the aisle. I will not go through each one of them. A couple of them relate to the Affordable Care Act. It is interesting to me that the House of Representatives has voted--I believe 45 times--to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The Senator from Kentucky said we have to get back to free enterprise ideas.

Let me tell you about the free enterprise idea when it came to health care. Before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the free enterprise idea was this: If you and your family were unfortunate enough to have a sick baby, if your wife was a cancer survivor, if your child had diabetes, the free enterprise answer was: We will raise the cost of health insurance to the point that you cannot afford it or we won't even offer it. That was the free enterprise idea on health insurance for millions of American families.

There was another free enterprise idea out there in health care as well. It said: We are going to sell you health insurance policies that just protect you up to a certain amount of money. If tomorrow you are in a terrible auto accident, if the day after tomorrow you are diagnosed with cancer and face millions of dollars of radiation, surgery, and care before you can get your life back together again, be my guest to pay for it yourselves. That is why medical bills are the number one driver of bankruptcy in America today. That is free enterprise at work. But we said, let's put some sensible rules for the road in here, so that families who buy health insurance have the promise that they will have peace of mind when they face these life threatening struggles which families face every day.

So we passed the Affordable Care Act and not a single Republican--not one--not a single Republican would join us in that effort. We rejected the free enterprise approach to health care and said let's have something that basically respects families, basically respects the needs we all have to have protection when somebody in the house is sick. Not a single Republican would support us, and they never have since.

The bill we passed isn't perfect. Changes will have to be made. I have said that from the start, although I supported it. But not a single Republican has been willing to sit down and work on bipartisan compromises and changes--not one. It is take it or leave it, and they want to walk away from it.

We are not going back to those old days. I can guarantee them that the American people will never return to their idea of health insurance because it was fundamentally unfair, it was too expensive, and a lot of Americans didn't have a fighting chance to ever have health insurance once in their lives. Things have changed. The reports are in, and the reports are telling us that dramatic things are occurring. As the Affordable Care Act's initial enrollment period closes, at least 9.5 million previously uninsured people have gained coverage. Some have done so through the marketplaces created by law, some through private insurance, others through an expanded Medicaid. Incidentally, Medicaid has been expanded in about half of the States.

Listen to this: The increased coverage from the Affordable Care Act so far amounts to substantial progress toward one of the law's principal goals. It is the most significant expansion of health care coverage since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid 49 years ago.

The Republicans want to return to the ``good old days,'' and they want to tell these people being uninsured is really better for you. It is the free enterprise system.

That is not good enough, I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle. What we have here is an opportunity for families for the first time in their lives to have health insurance coverage.

Has there ever been a moment in your life where you had a sick baby and you were in the hospital waiting room and you had no health insurance? I have. It happened when I was in law school. I remember it to this day, sitting there with my wife and baby with a number in my hand waiting to see who would walk through that door and be the doctor for my baby. You will never forget that as long as you live. That shouldn't happen to anybody. Everyone should have the peace of mind of health insurance coverage, and that is what this bill does. If the Senators on the other side want to return to the

``good old days'' of no coverage, I can just tell you, America is not going back.

We are not going back to the days when families with kids graduating from college had no health insurance while they looked for a job. We protect those families until the kids reach the age of 26. We are not going back to the days when struggling senior citizens can't afford to pay for their prescription drugs because of the so-called doughnut hole. We are not going back to that day. We are going to move forward as a Nation.

Is this bill perfect? Of course not. Should it be changed for the better? Yes. But let's not lose sight of what we have achieved and what we can achieve if we work together.

The Minimum Wage

When it comes to the creation of jobs, there is something else I want to say. I believe that people who get up and go to work every single day, who work hard for a living and are not lazy at all, should not be living in poverty. That is it--a basic statement. If you want to go to work, work hard 40 hours a week, you should not be living in poverty in America, and that is happening because the minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. Do the math. It is less than $16,000 a year to live on. Who could do it? Well, some people try and struggle paycheck to paycheck.

Yesterday in Chicago, IL, Gloria came to the microphone in the Federal Plaza and told the story of working a minimum-wage job. She has two kids and lives in a homeless shelter--40 hours a week on minimum wage and living in a homeless shelter. Come on. This is a better Nation.

Would I pay 10 cents more for a hamburger so Gloria would have enough money to have the dignity to live in her own place with her children? You bet I would, and I wouldn't think twice about it. We ought to have respect for people who work in this country. Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour is our show of respect for the people who get up and go to work every darn day. They are on the buses of New Jersey in the morning. They are on the trains of Chicago in the morning. They just dropped the kids off, and they are hoping that they are going to be safe because it is a neighbor and it is the best they can do for daycare. There wasn't a lot in the refrigerator when they left their house. They are hoping to pick up something before they get home. They go to work every day, and they know that struggle is going to be repeated over and over.

The free enterprise system is the best system in the world, but there are moments when we need to step in as the American family and set some standards, set some goals.

Unemployment Compensation Benefits

The same thing is true for unemployment compensation. We finally have a bipartisan approach to this in the Senate--five Democrats and five Republicans. We have worked out a plan we are going to pass, I think-- let's keep our fingers crossed. We are going to pass an extension of unemployment benefits.

What do these benefits mean? It means if you are out of work--some people who work for 20 years in the same place, lost their jobs, now they are trying to find another job--we are going to help you keep your family together while you are looking for that job. How much money are we talking about here? The average is $300 a week.

How long could you get by on $300 a week? It would be tough, wouldn't it, to pay the rent, mortgage, utility bills, food, clothes, shoes for the kids, cell phone--you need that to find a job, don't you--300 bucks a week. Well, we have a chance to pass a bipartisan bill on unemployment compensation for a 5-month period to cover these folks, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Republican John Boehner, says: Forget it--dead on arrival. Won't even take it up; won't consider it. I think he's wrong, and I think it is unfair, and I think these people deserve a fighting chance. They want to become part of the free enterprise system again, and our giving them a helping hand in time of need is what every family expects and what they usually offer when asked to help. But instead, what Speaker Boehner has said is: No way, you are out of it. You are out of work. You are out of luck. I don't buy it.

There have been times in my life and in the lives of most people when neighbors, friends and relatives, and even the government came in to give a helping hand. For me it was government loans when I went to school. I couldn't have done it without it. I think it has paid off. It sure has in my life. Ultimately the voters have the last word about whether Speaker Boehner's approach against unemployment compensation is the right way to do it.

There is another bill we are going to take up next week--pay equity. My wife and I have been blessed with a daughter and a son. They are both in the marketplace and both are talented. We are so proud of them. There is no reason why a daughter should be paid less than a son for the same work, but it happens every single day.

We have to establish a standard in America of equal opportunity and mean it, equal opportunity when it comes to daughters and sons and women and men in the workplace. It is not too much to ask.

The first bill President Obama signed into law as President was the Lilly Ledbetter Act. I remember this woman. She worked in Alabama in a tire factory. After she had been there more than 10 years, she finally realized she was doing the same job as the man standing next to her but paid less every single day. She had enough of it so she brought a lawsuit against the company. The Supreme Court turned her away so we had to change the law, and the President signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act into law to make sure women had a fighting chance.

We now want to move it to a new level and make sure that pay equity for those in the workplace is an American dream come true. We can do that. The free enterprise system is good, but, listen--let's be honest about it--in some aspects it doesn't reach the goals we want in terms of equal opportunity in this country.

I also want to make a point about the whole question of affordable care. I happened to have met a man by the name of Ray Romanowski. He was in a health care clinic in Chicago. He is 62 years old and has been a part-time worker and musician most of his life. For the first time in his life Ray Romanowski has health insurance. He has a Medicaid card. He was patting his wallet, and he said: I can't tell you how good I feel now that I finally got this health insurance.

There are some people who don't understand Medicaid. Medicaid is health insurance for low-income people in America, and millions depend on it every single day. Recently some Republicans made statements discrediting the Medicaid Program. Let me set the record straight: Medicaid is successful. It has been a lifeline for millions of people, and especially for children. My friends on the other side of the aisle find it easy to discredit a government program. As Senator McConnell said earlier, we tend to look to the government. Well, we do when there is no place else to look. In this case, these individuals had no chance for health insurance without government's help. Over 54 million people benefit from Medicaid, and it is not surprising that interest in this program grows when our economy is struggling.

Before the Affordable Care Act, two out of three people on Medicaid were pregnant women and children--36 million of our most vulnerable citizens. Medicaid also serves the disabled. It has been a lifeline for those who have a low income and are disabled. Before the Affordable Care Act, almost 3 million people were covered by Medicaid in Illinois and over 50 percent of all births were covered by Medicaid. Since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, over 210,000 people in Illinois have signed up for Medicaid, and thousands more who are eligible are in the process of finishing up their paperwork, and that is a success.

According to 2011 data, 65 percent of all office space physicians in Illinois would take Medicaid patients. Nationwide the number is 70 percent. This argument that new Medicaid patients won't have a place to go for care is wrong.

I see that Senator Harkin from Iowa, chairman of our HELP Committee, is on the floor. He was one of the real leaders when it came to the determination of the Affordable Care Act and how many people would be covered. I will yield the floor to him in 1 minute, but before I yield, let me say this: The Affordable Care Act is making a difference. For people in the low-income

category, Medicaid means when they walk into a hospital facing a medical emergency or need for care, they will not walk away leaving bills behind them. Their bills will be paid by the Medicaid system, and that is part of what we are trying to achieve--the personal responsibility that every person, every family, and every business will have a responsibility to have health insurance and an opportunity for an affordable alternative.

The free enterprise system is a strong system. The free enterprise system created unfairness and injustice when it came to health care, which we are addressing with this Affordable Care Act.

I yield the floor for Senator Harkin and thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following disposition of Executive Calendar No. 532, the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 687, without intervening action or debate on the nomination, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to thank a longtime member of my staff who is leaving the Senate after 27 years of service to Congress. Alan Bruce is not technically from Illinois, but he is from Indiana--in this case, close enough. The fact is that he served the people of Illinois in an extraordinary way during his time on Capitol Hill.

For the last 22 years Alan has been my systems administrator. He joined my staff in 1992 when I was a Member of the House and moved with me to the Senate in 1997. He is the person most responsible for keeping my offices in Illinois and Washington connected electronically to each other and to the world outside the Senate. He oversees our network of desktop and laptop computers, BlackBerrys, cell phones, and all the rest.

Over the years, he taught me a lot of things, and there was a lot to learn, everything from how to make my computer work, dealing with email, saving a digital photo, and how to Skype. He has been a good teacher and a hard-working, loyal member of my staff.

In an age when most people change employers and even careers repeatedly, Alan is unusual. The U.S. Congress is the only employer he has had since he graduated from Cumberlands College--now the University of the Cumberlands--in Williamsburg, KY, in 1986. He didn't plan to come to work on Capitol Hill. Six weeks after he graduated from college, he was getting ready for an interview to become a manager of a Radio Shack in Fort Wayne, IN.

On the morning of the interview, his mom said: You don't really want to do this, do you?

Alan said: No, I really don't. My heart is not in it.

Well, that day happened to be Saturday. It was also the day of the annual Circus City Days parade in Alan's hometown of Peru, IN. Alan canceled his interview at Radio Shack, and he and his mom instead went to the parade. Working the parade line that day was a new candidate for the House of Representatives--a man who would later become a friend of mine when we served together. His name was Jim Jontz. Jim introduced himself to Alan and Alan's mother and learned that Alan just graduated from college and, in fact, was looking for a job. Radio Shack's loss was Congressman Jontz's gain--and my gain as well. A few days after that parade Alan was working as a volunteer driver for Jim's campaign.

When Jim won his election, he hired Alan to work in his Kokomo, IN, office helping constituents on matters related to military and veterans affairs. It was a good fit. Alan grew up in a military family. His dad, Phillip ``Bud'' Bruce, was a career Air Force man. In 1989 Alan moved to Washington to work in Congressman Jontz's DC office as system administrator. Managing a congressional computer network in those days was a lot different. The Internet was still an obscure tool used mostly by elite researchers. People didn't have email. Back then, high-tech communications meant fax machines. Computers were used mainly for keeping lists--data entry. Cell phones were a perk of just the wealthy few. Almost no one had ever heard of Web sites, and smart phones, YouTube, Twitter, and Flickr--nobody even imagined what that meant.

Alan joined my staff as systems administrator in 1992. To give a sense of how dramatically his world changed, consider this: In 1997, my first year in the Senate, I received 30,000 pieces of mail--that is real mail--through the U.S. Postal Service. Last year my office received 600,000 pieces of mail, and only about 2 to 3 percent went through the post office; the rest were emails. However constituents reach out--whether by the postal service or email--Alan works with the rest of my staff to make sure their letters are answered.

The technological revolution is only one of the big societal changes Alan has taken part in in the last 25 years on Capitol Hill. Alan was an early leader in Congress among staff to end workplace discrimination against lesbian and gay congressional staffers. In the early- to mid- 1990s, he was an early board member of what was then called Lesbian and Gay Congressional Staffers Association. The association held frequent brown-bag lunches to brief other staffers on issues of importance to lesbian and gay Americans, including the don't ask, don't tell policy and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. Today, both don't ask, don't tell and DOMA are history. Federal employees who are legally married to same-sex spouses receive the same Federal privileges and responsibilities as other married Federal workers.

As Alan prepares to start the next phase of his life in sunny Tampa, FL, I want to thank him again both for keeping my office connected to the larger world and, of course, to the State of Illinois and for keeping the U.S. Congress as an employer, moving toward the American ideal of equality and justice for all.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, Senators Rubio, Murphy, Kaine, and I recently introduced in the Senate a concurrent resolution on the need for the investigation and prosecution of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide committed by any groups involved in civil war in Syria. Congressman Chris Smith has introduced the House version of this concurrent resolution. It calls for President Obama to have our Ambassador to the U.N. use the influence and vote of the United States to promote the establishment of a Syrian war crimes tribunal. The need is stark. Quite simply, the terrible crimes being committed in the civil war in Syria call out for justice. As such, the U.N. should establish a tribunal similar to the ones created in response to the charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in the former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, and Rwanda.

As the Syrian conflict entered its fourth year this month, the horrific violence there continues unabated. The losses from the conflict are staggering. According to some estimates the death toll has reached more than 146,000. There are an estimated 6.5 million internally displaced persons in Syria and millions of Syrian refugees have fled their country.

Last week I had the privilege of meeting with a number of dedicated

Chicago-area members of the Syrian-American Medical Society who recently returned from a medical mission to treat Syrian patients in the north of Lebanon. They shared heartbreaking stories of the Syrian refugees they met and treated and appealed for continued international help for these millions of innocent victims. As a hearing I chaired in January on Syrian refugees illustrated, this humanitarian catastrophe has created grave challenges for neighboring countries that are hosting the vast majority of the refugees. Additionally, the fighting in Syria is inflaming sectarian violence in neighbors such as Iraq and Lebanon.

A staggering 9.3 million Syrians inside the country are estimated to be in need of assistance due to the conflict, and even more barbaric, starvation is being used as a weapon of war, with an estimated 220,000 people trapped in besieged areas in Syria. The Assad regime and, to a far lesser extent, some opposition groups have blocked humanitarian assistance in a deliberate effort to increase pressure on besieged civilians. If the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime wasn't horrific enough, it has also utilized so-called barrel bombs, mixes of explosives and shrapnel stuffed into barrels, that helicopter gunships drop in civilian areas controlled by the opposition such as Aleppo.

The Syrian conflict has devastated even the most innocent members of Syrian society. I was deeply moved by the plight of the children when last year I visited Kilis, a Syrian refugee camp in Turkey. Yet sadly their plight continues. In January the U.N. issued a report which estimated that more than 10,000 children have been killed. UNICEF said in March that the real number is likely to be even higher. The January U.N. report stated that children in Syria experienced suffering which was ``unspeakable.'' Some of the reports of terrible abuses include sexual violence against children held in Syrian Government detention as well as minors being used in combat and as human shields. In addition, UNICEF released a report in March that estimated there are up to 1 million children who live under siege and in hard-to-reach areas that UNICEF and its humanitarian partners cannot access on a regular basis.

As my colleague Senator McCain mentioned in his remarks in February on the Senate floor, respected former war crimes prosecutors issued a report in January based on evidence they obtained regarding torture and murder by the Syrian regime. The report stated that the evidence-- largely provided by a Syrian defector and which includes 55,000 photographic images of approximately 11,000 detained persons who had been tortured and killed by the Syrian regime--was credible. Additionally, these war crimes prosecutors noted that such evidence could support findings of war crimes as well as crimes against humanity against the Assad regime.

In 2011, I was joined by Senators Boxer, Cardin, and Menendez on a letter to then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice urging that Assad be referred by the Security Council to the International Criminal Court. Now, 2\1/ 2\ years later, with so many further atrocities in Syria, the need for holding those accountable for war crimes is as strong as ever. We, and other concerned countries, have an interest in seeing justice served. Those who commit war crimes and crimes against humanity must be put on notice that the international community will strive to hold them accountable for their unlawful acts.

Unfortunately, establishing a Syrian war crimes tribunal may face opposition from other members of the U.N. Security Council, most notably Russia. Particularly given the widespread condemnation of Russia illegally violating the territorial integrity of another state, it seems that Russian President Putin does not care about the laws or views of the international community. The hypocrisy of Putin stating that other countries should not intervene in Syria where there is an undisputed humanitarian catastrophe, while he illegally annexes the territory of another state, in part on false humanitarian ground, is staggering.

Nevertheless, if Putin wants to block establishing a Syrian war crimes tribunal, let us have Russia go on the record to say why it opposes justice for those who have suffered so much in Syria. Let them explain how Russia, having suffered its own horrific siege of Leningrad during which 800,000 people--one-third of the city's population--died of starvation during the almost 900-day siege by the Nazis, continues to support the same brutal starvation techniques of its client autocrat in Syria, Bashar al-Assad. With these types of brazen actions and statements, Putin will never earn the global respect and credibility he so desperately demands by invading neighboring countries, while at the same time continuing to support and arm butchers such as Assad.

In February the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution, which Russia finally supported, demanding greater humanitarian access as well as calling on all parties to immediately cease attacks against civilians and lift the siege of populated areas. Yet 1 month after the Security Council ordered all parties in Syria to allow aid workers into besieged areas and stop indiscriminate attacks on civilians, a soon-to- be-released U.N. report says that the Syrian Government has essentially ignored the Security Council. Food supplies have been held up at government checkpoints, medical supplies removed from aid convoys, visas stalled for U.N. officials, and key supply routes cynically kept closed. And Assad's forces persist in using brutal barrel bombs, causing horrific indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians. The international community should not let this obstruction stand and must enforce the Security Council resolution.

Ultimately, as President Obama has stated, this conflict needs to be resolved politically. Last year, I did support the limited use of military force when Assad broke a long-established global taboo against the use of chemical weapons but also agree that a political solution must ultimately be pursued in Syria. But for a long-term and stable political solution to the war there must also be justice for those who have suffered so much, and a Syrian war crimes tribunal would play a vital role in such a process.