Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise to speak about a very troubling issue--to speak about innocent lives being stolen from communities and neighborhoods across our country and around the globe. I speak of the issue of human trafficking.

Last month, in more than 100 U.S. cities--just last month--168 children were rescued from sex trafficking and 281 pimps were arrested on Federal and State charges.

The weeklong campaign known as Operation Cross Country was conducted by the FBI, law enforcement officials, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. It underscores a heartbreaking reality: Human trafficking is not a far-away problem. It is happening right here in America, in all 50 States.

Each year thousands of men, women, and children are robbed of their basic freedom to live as they choose. They become victims of a rampant and evil crime, coerced through intimidation and even through violence to work as laborers or prostitutes. According to estimates from the Polaris Project, a nonprofit organization dedicated to fighting human trafficking, there were more than 5,000 potential trafficking cases in America last year. However, the precise number of domestic victims is unknown.

It should be noted that sex trafficking affects individuals of all backgrounds and races, but it disproportionately impacts women, both domestically and internationally. According to the Polaris Project, 85 percent of sex trafficking victims in the United States are women. Although news headlines often glibly refer to a ``war on women'' in political terms, we as policy makers might well devote more of our energy to the issue of sex trafficking--a real war, a daily war, a nightmarish war--faced by the most vulnerable among us--young women who are bought and sold against their will for sex.

I stand with colleagues from both political parties in calling for an end to this nightmare. We must not ignore the horror stories on our doorsteps. Earlier this year 16 children ranging in age from 13 to 17 years old were rescued from a sex trafficking operation at the Super Bowl, one of our most celebrated events--the scenario of horror for these 13- to 17-year-olds. These young Americans deserve justice and they deserve rehabilitation.

Our friends in the House of Representatives have recently passed a package of bills on antitrafficking, and I hope we will soon consider similar efforts in the Senate. To highlight a few, Senator Rubio has introduced a bill to help protect children in foster care from becoming victims of trafficking; Senator Cornyn has introduced legislation for increasing federal resources available to trafficking victims; and Senator Klobuchar has introduced legislation to help ensure that minors who are sold for sex are not prosecuted as perpetrators but properly treated as the victims they really are.

This week I have introduced the End Trafficking Act of 2014. Similar to the legislation put forward by my colleagues, my bill would ensure victims of trafficking receive the treatment they need to lead healthy, free, and productive lives. One proposal in my bill would be a court- based pilot program modeled after Hawaii's girls courts, similar to the Federal drug court system. Rather than being correctly treated as victims, trafficked juveniles are often charged with a delinquency offense and detained. Many do not receive the counseling or support they need while in detention and some even return to the trafficker who abused them.

My bill supports a specialized court docket and integrated judicial supervision that would put the well-being of the victim first. Detention does not amount to rescue, and these victims need to be rescued. They should have an opportunity to return home and receive treatment.

Human trafficking is a complex problem that demands multifaceted solutions. Supporting the victims is only one part of the equation. We must also target those who perpetuate these atrocious crimes. The legislation I have introduced also seeks to punish those responsible for trafficking--the providers and the buyers--the pimps and the johns. First, there should be strict enforcement of laws already on the books that prohibit the purchase of sex with minors. Second, child victims should have a longer statute of limitations period during which to file civil lawsuits against their traffickers. Finally, those who distribute or benefit financially from commercial advertising that promotes prostitution should face criminal charges also. My bill would do all three.

We have seen the value of coordination among local, State and Federal agencies to fight trafficking. This was certainly true in Operation Cross Country. Working together, agencies and law enforcement partners can improve the ways they target traffickers to help victims.

We all need to realize that in the United States--the freest, most prosperous nation in the world--traffickers still find and transit victims. Our efforts to fight trafficking within our borders are important to fight against trafficking worldwide. There are some 21 million people around the world who endure this cruel form of modern day slavery. There is no other way to put it. Although the United States cannot single-handedly eradicate the problem, we can serve as a model for other countries to follow by preventing trafficking and supporting victims here at home.

Again, the title of the bill is the End Trafficking Act of 2014-- introduced this week. I am looking for cosponsors. I am looking for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to come forward and say with a unified voice that this Senate, this Congress, this Federal Government, intends to put the full weight of our efforts toward combating this serious national and international problem.

I suggest the absence of a quorum and, following procedure, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided between Republicans and Democrats for the remaining period of morning business.

Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I thank my two colleagues from the other side of the aisle for joining with us today in this colloquy.

Let me say how proud I was as a Republican Senator from Mississippi to

stand shoulder to shoulder with my colleague from Maryland Ben Cardin. There are probably many places in Maryland he would rather have been at the beginning of July 2014, but he is someone who year after year has taken the time to travel to sometimes some rather unknown capital cities such as Baku or Chisinau, Moldova, and represent the United States in our partnership with the OSCE on the Helsinki Commission.

As Senator Cardin said, the 1975 Final Act of the Helsinki Commission recognized 10 principles that 57 countries in Europe and Eurasia said we believe we can stand by and live with and live under, issues such as territorial integrity, sovereignty, refraining from the use of force-- very important cornerstones of peace, democracy, self-determination and the rule of law in Europe.

It is certainly a fact well known within the OSCE and the delegations that come from far and wide to attend these that Ben Cardin is respected internationally, that his word carries weight, that he speaks on behalf of the United States of America, and on behalf of the OSCE countries with authority, evenhandedness, and fairness. So I think it meant a lot for someone of Senator Cardin's stature to come forward and present these.

Indeed, we did have overwhelming support for the supplemental item authored by Senator Cardin. The amendments to water it down by the Russian delegation were rejected time and again by overwhelming votes. In the end the final resolution was adopted by over 90 votes in favor of the Cardin resolution and only 30 votes against it. Of course, the delegates from the Russian Federation and several of their closest allies and neighbors voted against it. But country after country, delegation after delegation, small brave nation after small brave nation voted in favor of it because internationally we realized that the words of the resolution were correct.

The action of Russia in Crimea--invading this defenseless peninsula and annexing it illegally--that action violated all 10 principles of the Helsinki Final Act, and it needed to be said. It needed to be said not only by the United Nations, which has in effect said this in the General Assembly, and it needed not only to be said by a major power like the United States of America, through our State Department and through the Congress, but it also needed to be said by the collective body that represents these 57 countries from Europe and Eurasia.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the final supplemental item as adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly be printed in the Record.

It may be that Senator Harkin will want to touch on this issue also, but I think it is significant that we have such great leadership in both bodies--in the Senate and in the House--with the OSCE, people who are willing to take the time to get to know our European neighbors at the parliamentary level and have that exchange there, people such as Congressman Robert Aderholt, who is a vice president of the Parliamentary Assembly and who has been very diligent, again, in traveling to some of these exotic locations that nobody perhaps envies; and Congressman Chris Smith, a veteran House Member who speaks out so eloquently and so firmly not only for the rule of law and human rights internationally, but he has actually been recognized by the Parliamentary Assembly as a special representative on the issue of human rights and trafficking. I commend our colleague from the House of Representatives Chairman Smith for his leadership in getting passed a resolution condemning the trafficking of minors internationally and getting the Parliamentary Assembly to make a strong statement on the record on this very serious problem that faces, not only us here domestically, but also on the international front.

Indeed.

Madam President, I congratulate my colleague from Iowa, a senior Member of this body, someone who is respected around the globe for being willing to meet fellow parliamentarians and to successfully put forward language that was adopted by consensus.

If I could mention a couple of other matters that pertain to this trip, First of all, it is interesting that the capital of Azerbaijan, Baku, on the western shore of the Caspian Sea, would be the host of this parliamentary assembly.

Azerbaijan is an important ally of the United States. I think it is important for Americans and for Members to know that their neighbor to the north is Russia and their neighbor to the south is Iran. This is a very tough neighborhood that our ally exists in. Yet they are oriented to the West. They are oriented to the United States. They want to be allies of ours. They were steadfast friends of ours in Afghanistan and have been during the entire time we have been there. They are steadfast allies of the Nation of Israel. Again, I think for a majority Muslim State such as Azerbaijan to take that stand in a troubling neighborhood speaks well of them. There are steps we wish they would take further toward transparency and openness and the rule of law, and maybe their elections weren't all we hoped for in the past, but they are an ally that continues to make progress. So I salute our host nation.

I think it should also be said, and I will yield to Senator Cardin on this point, that we stopped back by Chisinau, Moldova, on our way back from Baku, a member of the OSCE, a nation that is also in a troubling neighborhood that feels the breath of Moscow breathing down their collars and the threats by people from the Russian Federation who would like to exert undue influence on that great little nation.

It happened that we were there on the day the Moldovan Parliament ratified the agreement associating Moldova with the European Union. This was a wonderful day for the friends of freedom and the European- oriented citizens of Moldova. It was great to see the young people walking through the city with the flag and hear Beethoven's Ode to Joy, the European anthem, as it were, and to be there for this very significant, pivotal day in the history of Moldova and to say we will continue to stand with the great people of that country. I know Senator Cardin was thinking of those things when he scheduled that stop.

Madam President, I will let Senator Cardin have the last word on this matter, and I see there are others who want to speak on other issues. Let me emphasize to everyone within the sound of our voices that diplomacy and foreign policy are carried out not only through the executive branch, the State Department, the other good offices that we have in the executive branch. Foreign policy is alive and well through the participation of Members of the House and Senate, the parliamentary assembly, and in the OSCE. It is important we keep our role there.

My hat is off to the leaders of this Congress--House and Senate--who have, over the years, been willing to exercise leadership and to earn credibility in the OSCE. I am proud to have stood with them this year in this delegation. I believe we came back with a better understanding.

I appreciate the role of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty in covering our participation there and getting that out to the rest of the world.

I am proud to have stood with this delegation--eight Members from the House and Senate, senior Members and relatively new ones. We stood for the principles of the rule of law and transparency and democracy among our allies in Europe and Eurasia.

I yield for my friend.

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

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

I rise this afternoon to express my strong support for a new Water Resources Reform and Development Act, which we can send to the President this very week, and it will be a great bipartisan accomplishment. It will be a major win for economic development also.

I am proud to have worked on this legislation as a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and I am excited about the potential the WRRDA bill has to make a difference in States such as my home State of Mississippi.

Like many States, we routinely depend on water infrastructure. In Mississippi, our ports and waterways are crucial to commerce, and our system of levees protects us from natural disasters. These modernized ports and commercial waterways are critical to maintaining competitiveness in a global economy. They are essential to boosting trade and job growth across the Nation.

The House-Senate agreement on this new water resources bill--the first in 7 years, I might add--would accomplish a number of goals, from restructuring the inland waterway system to completing storm protection projects. It would help ensure that U.S. industries have a reliable, navigable, and cost-effective transportation network to do business.

In particular, I am encouraged by reforms to the harbor maintenance trust fund which promise to help our ports with much needed dredging. The fund, which was established for port improvements, is currently underutilized. Using this money for its intended purpose would help facilitate critical port upgrades--an especially important investment in preparation for the upcoming completion of the Panama Canal expansion.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has estimated that America's busiest ports, including the Port of Pascagoula in Mississippi, are operating at their full capacity only 35 percent of the time or less. This is unacceptable. As a matter of fact, for other ports around the country, the situation is worse than that.

A lapse in maintenance can become a vicious cycle, impairing a port's ability to secure future maintenance dredging. Coastal ports, such as Mississippi's Port of Gulfport, have been disadvantaged as a result. We haven't received the maintenance. We have less traffic. Therefore, we are entitled to less future maintenance dredging.

I am pleased to report to my colleagues that thanks to an amendment by Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi on crediting authority for navigation projects, ports such as the Port of Gulfport would have greater flexibility in making dredging upgrades.

Other provisions in the new water resources bill seek to ensure fiscal responsibility by streamlining project requirements and timelines. This means allowing greater private contributions to infrastructure repairs and deauthorizing projects no longer in the national interest.

Mississippians understand why water resource infrastructure matters. In recent years we have faced very different challenges because of extreme conditions on the Mississippi River. First, historic flooding put flood control mechanisms such as the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project to the test. Then the very next year severe drought turned large stretches of the river into nothing more than sandy beaches. These situations can have a big impact. Any disruption in the movement of goods along the Mississippi River has the potential to affect staple products such as corn, grain, and petroleum. When that happens, consumers are often left with higher costs. The Mississippi River alone is responsible for more than $100 billion of America's gross domestic product.

For our coastal communities, this Water Resources Reform and Development Act would also advance beneficial storm protection projects. Many of these projects, developed after Hurricane Katrina under the Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program, have been left unfinished. Their completion would help create more resilient coastal communities and lower the risk of future hurricane and storm damage.

Of course, our work is not finished. Implementing this legislation will require oversight, and more can be done to improve our inland waterway trust fund and to protect medium-use ports. I hope in a couple of years we will be considering another Water Resources Development Act. In other words, I hope we don't wait another 7 years for a WRDA. But today and tomorrow we have an opportunity for a great step forward, demonstrating the strong bipartisan cooperation that exists in the House and Senate for America's future vitality and competitiveness.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I sorrowfully rise this morning to take note of the sad state to which this great deliberative body has fallen, and I do so reluctantly because I must specifically criticize the majority leader of the U.S. Senate for bringing this body to what many historians observe is a new low in terms of our ability to move legislation and our ability to have open debate and open amendments in the Senate.

We see what has become a new normal in the Senate. Earlier this week a bipartisan and popular piece of legislation on energy efficiency was derailed by the majority leader's resistance to the open amendment process. Certainly, it is not only members of my party, it is not only persons on my side of the aisle who have concluded this. There was a very scathing opinion piece on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal this morning entitled ``Harry Reid's Senate Blockade.''

I ask unanimous consent to have this opinion piece printed in the Record.

I will quote at length from the Wall Street Journal this morning, because in mentioning this popular piece of legislation, the editorial gets right to the point. It says:

. . . the reason [the bill failed this week] tells the real

story of Washington gridlock in the current Congress. To wit,

Harry Reid has essentially shut down the Senate as a place to

debate and vote on policy.

I absolutely agree. Additionally, the editorial says:

The Majority Leader's strategy was once again on display as

the Senate failed to get the 60 votes to move the popular

energy efficiency bill co-sponsored by New Hampshire Democrat

Jeanne Shaheen and Ohio Republican Rob Portman. Mr. Reid

blamed it on Republican partisanship. But the impasse really

came down to Mr. Reid's blockade against amendments that

might prove politically difficult for Democrats.

Once again, the majority leader has made it clear he doesn't intend to let the Senate work its will on amendments. Instead, the new normal is that the majority leader comes to the floor and says: If the bill is worded as I think it should be, if we can come to an agreement with how it should be written, I will bring it to the floor and we can vote it up or down. But this idea of amendments, that is unacceptable to the majority leader, and it is a complete departure from the way this Senate has operated for decades and decades on important pieces of legislation.

I would point out that in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, one of the major accomplishments of the Congress in the 20th century, there were 115 amendments called up during its consideration. The leadership didn't know how those votes would turn out. They had probably done a whip count and they had a decent idea, but the idea was the Senate was going to be allowed to vote up or down with the light shining on the process and the American people seeing how their elected Senators felt on that issue. There were 115 amendments called up during the consideration of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. The Panama Canal Treaty of 1978 was another major piece of deliberative work that was done by the Senate. There was a total of 89 amendments offered to the Panama Canal Treaty. Those amendments were called up and debated in the clear light of day. Votes were held and the American people

found out how their elected representatives in the Senate felt about those amendments. This week and for the last 52 weeks that has not been the case with the majority leader currently in power in the Senate.

The Wall Street Journal goes on to say that the majority leader

. . . used parliamentary tricks to block energy-related

amendments to an energy bill. This blockade is now standard

procedure as he's refused to allow a vote on all but nine GOP

amendments since last July. Mr. Reid is worried that some of

these amendments might pass with support from Democrats, thus

embarrassing a White House that opposes them.

I wish to point out that during the time when Republicans--in this supposedly greatest deliberative body in the world--have been given nine amendments over the last year, Republicans, which hold the majority in the House of Representatives, have given their Democratic colleagues 125 minority votes. This is in a House which routinely shuts down debate, has a rules committee, and historically limits the number of amendments and the number of votes. Minority Members in the House have had 125 votes during that same time period. This Senate has allowed minority Members nine votes during that same period of time, and that is an outrage, which the Wall Street Journal continues to point out.

The editorial goes on to say:

In the case of Portman-Shaheen, Republicans had prepared

amendments to speed up exports of liquefied natural gas; to

object to a new national carbon tax; to rein in the

Environmental Protection Agency's war on coal plants; and to

authorize the Keystone XL Pipeline.

I believe these amendments were good amendments. I would have voted for them. The case could be made on the other side of the aisle that they were bad policy. But make the case. Let elected Senators from North Dakota, Mississippi, and all across the United States of America be heard and vote the wishes of their particular constituencies on these issues. Instead, the majority shut down these amendments.

The editorial goes on to say:

Yet the White House and Mr. Reid's dominant liberal wing

won't take the chance that a bipartisan coalition might pass

these amendments, most of which the House has passed or soon

would. President Obama would thus face a veto decision that

would expose internal Democratic divisions. So Mr. Reid shut

down the amendment process.

As I said, he has shut down the amendment process in every case except for nine lonely votes.

The editorial goes on to say:

It's important to understand how much Mr. Reid's tactics

have changed the Senate. Not too long ago it was understood

that any Senator could get a floor vote if he wanted it. The

minority party, often Democrats, used this right of amendment

to sponsor votes that would sometimes put the majority on the

spot. It's called politics, rightly understood. This meant

the Senate debated national priorities and worked its

bipartisan will. Harry Reid's Senate has become a deliberate

obstacle to democratic accountability.

And sadly so, I might add.

This Harry Reid gag rule is new to the Senate. We have had a number of distinguished majority leaders whose names will go down in history as the giants and statesmen of our time, and they did not resort to this gag rule. This is largely a Harry Reid invention.

I will give the facts. Mr. Reid has used the gag rule to fill the amendment tree--which is a parliamentary term. He has used his gag rule to cut off amendments 85 times, more than twice the number of the previous six leaders combined, and these were Democrats and Republicans.

Senator Dole invoked the procedural tactic only seven times. Senator Robert Byrd, a giant, a historian, and an expert in the use of Senate rules, invoked it only three times. Senator Mitchell of Maine invoked it 3 times; Senator Lott, 11 times; Senator Daschle, 1 time; and Senator Frist, 15 times. Yet time after time--some 85 times--this majority leader has decided that the Senate doesn't have a right--that the people of Mississippi and the people of North Dakota don't have a right--for their Senators to come up and offer an idea and let it rise or fall based on whether it is good policy or not. This is an outrage that the people of the United States need to understand.

It seems past majority leaders, when entrusted with protecting this institution, recognized that the gag rule should be used sparingly. Its current abuse undermines the Senate's ability to address pressing national issues and to carry on the tradition of debate that has always defined this body. That really cannot be denied.

Senator Robert Byrd, who I alluded to earlier, called the Senate ``the last bastion of minority rights.'' That was true during Democratic majorities when Senator Byrd was the majority leader. Sadly, it is not the case any longer.

The Wall Street Journal editorial--I would commend it to the attention of anyone within the sound of my voice--concludes this:

The lesson for voters is simple: If they want anything

meaningful done in the last two years of the Obama

Administration, they will have to elect a Republican Senate.

Those are the words of the Wall Street Journal and not my words.

What has become of the Senate under this Harry Reid gag rule is unconscionable. It should be reversed and Senators of both parties should stand in resistance to the idea that we cannot offer amendments and have them debated as they have always been debated in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to speak as in morning business for 1 minute.

Madam President, I simply want to take a moment to say a few words about the devastating storms that swept through my home State of Mississippi yesterday.

My prayers are with the families of those who lost their lives, those who were injured, and the communities across the State that are now hard at work to pick up the pieces.

We are grateful for local officials, weather forecasters, and first responders who saved lives by getting the word out that people should seek shelter from the storm. This is government at its best, when State, local, and Federal forces, alongside the news media and private businesses, work together to keep people out of harm's way. There is no doubt this cooperation and communication saved hundreds of lives across the South yesterday. Both will be instrumental in preparing for additional storms in the forecast today.

Mississippians are known for being resilient in the wake of tragedy. We have overcome unprecedented challenges in the past, and we will do so again. Nature's wrath may be fierce but the spirit of fellowship and perseverance of my fellow Mississippians--as well as all Americans-- will move us forward.

I thank the Chair.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, I do not know if I need to seek recognition to be in a colloquy, but I do appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Alaska.

I rise this afternoon to join them in wholehearted support of these four important measures. They are an important step in combating--the term we use, as the Senator from Alaska said--is illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, IUU fishing, but I will also join my colleagues in saying that it is nothing short of pirate fishing.

It has broad economic, social, and ecological consequences. I am glad to join in support of these four measures. They have been hotlined. For those within the sound of our voices today that do not understand that, it is an expedited way to move things on a unanimous basis. I have every reason to believe that it will only be a matter of time before we have these hotline requests cleared on both sides of the aisle.

Alaska and Rhode Island have their interests in this. I can assure you that Mississippi does too. Mississippi is home to many hard-working fishing communities. They depend on the oceans for their livelihoods. We are the sixth largest seafood-producing State in the country. Many people might not realize that. We are second in the Gulf of Mexico to the State of Louisiana.

Pirate fishing hurts our fishermen. Our fishermen abide by the law. Pirate fishing puts them at a competitive disadvantage, as the Senator said. These fishermen who are small business owners, for the most part, should not be penalized for playing by the rules. International cooperation and standards are needed to protect local commerce and the environment. That is what the Agreement on Port State Measures would do.

Under the agreement, vessels carrying illegally harvested fish would not be allowed to enter our ports and thereby dilute the market with fraudulent product. In this way, the agreement would protect U.S. fishermen, seafood buyers, and consumers, while also supporting marine habitat, coastal economies, and coastal communities.

Estimates show that pirate fishing costs as much as $23 billion per year globally and poses a serious threat to the sustainability of marine habitat. In parts of the world it accounts for up to 40 percent of the wild marine fish caught.

Other treaties under consideration address high seas fisheries resources. As the Senator from Alaska said, one in the North Pacific, yet another in the South Pacific, as well as amendments to the 1978 Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Convention. These amendments simply update the conventions with standards similar to those that we in the United States use for our domestic waters.

These treaties can serve as powerful tools for showing that the United States is committed to enforcing fisheries laws and encouraging other countries to follow suit. Like other fisheries treaties that the Senate has ratified, they would protect America's interests, and they would protect American workers.

Our commercial and recreational fishing industries are responsible for 1.7 million American jobs and countless more at docks and facilities for processing and distribution. In summary, these four measures are good for the economy, they are good for the seafood industry, they are good for consumers, they are good for small business people, and they are good for our commercial fishermen.

It is an opportunity for us to strike a blow for bipartisanship and internationalism. I am glad to see the widespread support. I look forward to the measures being cleared on both sides of the aisle. I see my other distinguished colleague from Alaska here.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, does the Senator yield the floor?

Mr. President, I rise briefly this afternoon to join my colleagues in expressing deep disappointment with yet another decision by the Obama administration to undermine the health care options of millions of Americans.

As we all know, the President promised, ``If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.'' But his law's drastic cuts to Medicare and Medicare Advantage are creating an impossible environment for Americans to keep their insurance plans or to keep their doctors. Even more troubling is that funds raided from Medicare will be spent on the President's flawed health care law.

In particular, Medicare Advantage serves more than 15 million American senior citizens, including some 56,000 Mississippians. It is a program that incentivizes market-based competition and patient choice. These are two elements that have made it both popular and successful. Nearly one-third of all Medicare patients voluntarily enroll in this type of health care plan, and 95 percent of Medicare Advantage members rate their quality of care as ``very high.''

Independent reports show that seniors will see their plans canceled. They will see higher premiums and fewer choices because of these severe cuts to Medicare and Medicare Advantage. I have heard from health care professionals in Mississippi who are concerned about the law's negative impact on patient care.

I came to the floor earlier this week to speak about the profound human

cost of the President's health care law. It is past time for the President and his allies in Congress to recognize the devastating consequences of ObamaCare. Delaying and changing the law, which the administration has done some two dozen times--with questionable legal authority, I might add--will not fix the damage. This is a law that just doesn't work.

The solution is to repeal and replace ObamaCare with market-driven reforms that empower Americans to decide which health care options are best for them. We can do better than this law, and we owe it to the American people to do so.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, are we in morning business? What is the pending business?

With the Senate's permission, I propose to speak, along with Senator Manchin, as in morning business on another matter.

I rise today to speak about a recently introduced bill regarding the future of Puerto Rico's political status. Known as the Puerto Rico Status Resolution Act, this legislation would call for an up-or-down referendum on Puerto Rican statehood, excluding the option of Puerto Rico's current status of Commonwealth. The President and Congress would have to proceed with legislation if statehood receives a majority of votes.

I support Puerto Rico's right of self-determination. This is an issue I have closely followed and been involved in for the better part of two decades. Concern about the way we do statehood determination votes in Puerto Rico is an issue that has crossed party lines in the Congress.

I would say to my colleagues, Congress needs to make sure, at a minimum, that any process used to measure the intent of Puerto Rican voters is

objective; otherwise, the outcome will be neither fair nor a meaningful test of public opinion. That is why it is so important not to exclude the option of the current Commonwealth status.

The status resolution act does not rise to the threshold of fairness or a meaningful test of public opinion. There are two reasons:

First, legislation has already been enacted that calls for a plebiscite on Puerto Rico's political status. The 2014 omnibus already includes funding for a plebiscite that would include all available options for political status. Allowing Puerto Ricans the opportunity to choose a status besides statehood is in keeping with a recommendation from the White House Task Force Report released in 2011.

Second, the referendum proposed by the status resolution act would have the same shortcomings as the plebiscite held on November 6, 2012. The results of that referendum were widely criticized, as well as the tortured ballot designed by the pro-statehood party. Of the 1.9 million Puerto Ricans who participated in the referendum, only 834,191--or about 44 percent--favored statehood. Only 44 percent favored statehood. Close to half a million voters declined to respond to the second question on the ballot, evidencing their dissatisfaction with the choices offered. We need to offer better choices. The percentage of statehood supporters has not changed significantly over the past 20 years and certainly does not serve as an impetus for Congress to entertain yet another admissions process now.

Elsewhere on the November 6 ballot that I referred to, public support was clear for the pro-Commonwealth Popular Democratic Party and the election of pro-Commonwealth and anti-statehood candidate Alejandro Garcia Padilla as Puerto Rico's new Governor. In fact, the Commonwealth's legislature, as a result of that election, is now controlled by the pro-Commonwealth party, as is the mayorship of San Juan, the capital of the Commonwealth.

Statehood advocates may attempt to manipulate ballots and election results to support their preferred outcome, but they do so at the expense of the democratic process and the right of every Puerto Rican to have a say in the island's political future.

The referendum process should be conducted in a fair and transparent manner that reflects the true will of the people. In the past, I have introduced legislation that would recognize Puerto Rico's right to convene a constitutional convention--a process that could help build consensus rather than advance the exclusive agenda of one political party over the other.

For Commonwealth supporters, Puerto Rico's current status is instrumental to preserving the island's rich heritage and maintaining the authority needed to address specific needs. The status resolution act not only has the potential to trample on people's rights, but it also distracts from the island's pressing economic and security concerns.

In conclusion, Congress and the Obama administration should continue to strengthen the partnership between Puerto Rico and the United States in constructive ways instead of encouraging a shortsighted and flawed referendum. Puerto Rico faces economic, energy, and public safety challenges that have a direct impact on the quality of life of its residents. Joint efforts to restore economic growth, modernize energy resources, and reinforce strategies for combating drug trafficking could have a big impact. I am encouraged by proposed reforms, and I wish the best to Gov. Garcia Padilla in the early days of his term in office.

I hope the Senate will not attempt to impose a solution from Washington, DC, on Puerto Rican voters--a solution that would be contrary to the public opinion of inhabitants of the island.

I am glad my colleague from West Virginia, who serves on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee which exercises jurisdiction over matters relating to Puerto Rico, has joined me on the floor, and I would now yield for him--Senator Manchin--to comment on a recent study by the GAO on Puerto Rico's economy and the potential effects of statehood.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if I might, let me congratulate my colleague from West Virginia on his remarks and in closing make three observations.

Despite the economic hardships of the region, the economy of Puerto Rico is the strongest of any of the Caribbean islands, and this has occurred under Commonwealth status--the special relationship that Puerto Ricans have with the United States as U.S. citizens but with their separate identity on the island.

Secondly, I would point out that some of the most vocal pro- Commonwealth voices in this Congress are Puerto Rican Americans who happened to have been elected to the Congress from the States, and they speak also and have spoken also with authority in favor of the Commonwealth concept but also in favor of a fair and accurate election.

Finally, I wish to just drive home a point Senator Manchin and I have made. On election day in 2012, 1.9 million Puerto Ricans showed up to vote in that election. The pro-Commonwealth candidate for Governor was elected, the pro-Commonwealth candidate for mayor of San Juan was elected, and a majority of the legislature of the island that day turned out to be pro-Commonwealth.

As flawed as the plebiscite was, the fact remains, of the 1.9 million American citizens in Puerto Rico who voted--who showed up to vote--only 44 percent of them cast a ballot in favor of statehood. That is a figure that cannot be controverted: 1.9 million people showed up to vote--American citizens in Puerto Rico--and only 44 percent of them checked the box for statehood.

So as we go forward and as we implement the provisions of the omnibus act, let us make sure that whatever we do we have the facts, as Senator Manchin has pointed out, and also we have a process to accurately reflect the will of the Puerto Rican people.

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

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Iowa talks convincingly and persuasively about so many times when Members are shut out of the process. Certainly chief among those would have been in 2009, when we could have used the expertise of Senator Grassley, had our colleagues across the aisle been willing to work with him in a bipartisan fashion to write a bipartisan health care bill which employed market principles and competition. Instead, just as he mentioned in his remarks, he was shut out of the process, as were all Republicans. So we have an ObamaCare law on the books now supported by every Democrat in the Senate and supported by no Republicans, some 18 percent of our gross domestic product turned on its head by this legislation, and it was not done in a bipartisan fashion as anything this big should be done. The Senator is correct, and I appreciate him mentioning the larger sense in which Members feel they are being shut out of the process.

I rise tonight particularly to call Members' attention to an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal, Monday, February 24, page A-15, entitled ``ObamaCare and My Mother's Cancer Medicine,'' by Stephen Blackwood.

I have no idea about Stephen Blackwood's politics. The article at the end says Mr. Blackwood is president of Ralston College, a planned liberal arts institution in Savannah, GA. So I know he comes from academia, and I know he loves his mother and is concerned with what ObamaCare has done to his mother's cancer coverage.

The story Mr. Blackwood tells about his mother Catherine reflects the very real life-or-death consequences of the President's health care law. Many of us who oppose the law often point to the financial costs, the delays, and the flawed implementation. But the human aspect is much more tragic.

In relaying his family's current situation in this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today, Mr. Blackwood depicts the law's devastating effects on individual Americans. He begins by saying:

When my mother was diagnosed with carcinoid cancer in 2005,

when she was 49, it came as a lightning shock.

I know it would to any family. He goes on to say later:

Anyone who's been there knows that a cancer diagnosis is

terrifying.

He explains later on in the op-ed that:

Carcinoid, a form of neuroendocrine cancer, is a terminal

disease but generally responds well to treatment by

Sandostatin, a drug that slows tumor growth and reduces (but

does not eliminate) the symptoms of fatigue, nausea, and

gastrointestinal dysfunction. My mother received a painful

shot twice a month and often couldn't sit comfortably for

days afterwards.

As with most cancers, one thing led to another. There have

been several more surgeries, metastases, bone deterioration,

a terrible bout of thyroiditis (an inflammation of the

thyroid gland) and much more. But my mother kept fighting,

determined to make the most of life, no matter what it

brings. She has indomitable will and is by far the toughest

person I've ever met. But she wouldn't be here without the

semimonthly Sandostatin shot that slows the onslaught of her

disease.

And then in November, along with millions of other

Americans, she lost her health insurance. She'd had a Blue

Cross/Blue Shield plan for nearly 20 years. It was expensive,

but given that it covered her very expensive treatment, it

was a terrific plan. It gave her access to any specialist or

surgeon, and to the Sandostatin and other medications that

were keeping her alive.

And then, because our lawmakers and the president thought

they could do better, she had nothing. Her old plan, now

considered illegal under the new health law, had been

canceled.

Because the exchange website in her state (Virginia) was

not working, she went directly to insurers' websites and

telephoned them, one by one--

This is a woman with carcinoid cancer whose policy has been cancelled because of ObamaCare

--over dozens of hours. As a medical office manager, she had

decades of experience navigating the enormous problems of

even our pre-ObamaCare system.

Even with her experience, she had trouble with the repeated and prolonged phone waits, which Mr. Blackwood described as Sisyphean. In the end, she was told she could purchase a Humana policy.

The enrollment agent said that after she met her deductible for all her treatments and medications, including those for cancer, she would be covered 100 percent. However, the enrollment agents did not have access to the coverage formularies for the plans they were selling. They said the only way to find out what was in the plan in detail was to buy the plan.

Does that sound familiar? It sounds like what the former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, famously told us in 2009. We have to hurry up and pass the bill so we can find out what is in it.

In this case, Mrs. Blackwood needed to hurry up and buy the insurance plan--pay the premiums--so she could then find out whether she was covered, and it turns out she was not covered. The cost of the Sandostatin alone, since January 1 of this year, was $14,000, and the company was refusing pay.

To quote Mr. Blackwood further:

The news was dumbfounding. This was a woman who had an

affordable health plan that covered her condition. Our

lawmakers weren't happy with that because . . . they wanted

plans that were affordable and covered her condition. So they

gave her a new one. It doesn't cover her condition and it's

completely unaffordable.

Though I'm no expert on ObamaCare (at 10,000 pages, who

could be?), I understand that the intention--or at least the

rhetorical justification--of this legislation was to provide

coverage for those who didn't have it. But there is something

deeply and incontestably perverse about a law that so

distorts and undermines the free activity of individuals that

they can no longer buy and sell the goods and services that

keep them alive. ObamaCare made my mother's old plan illegal,

and it forced her to buy a new plan that would accelerate her

disease and death. She awaits an appeal from her insurer.

Will this injustice be remedied, for her or millions of

others? Or is my mother to die because she can no longer

afford the treatment that keeps her alive?

Like every American, I want affordable health care, and I'm

open to innovative solutions of all kinds--individual,

corporate, for-profit, nonprofit and public. It will take all

of these, and all the intelligence, creativity and self-

discipline we have, as well as everything we can offer one

another as families, neighbors, friends and citizens--and it

still won't be perfect. But it is precisely because health

care for 300 million people is so complicated that it cannot

be centrally managed.

Mr. Blackwood concludes:

The ``Affordable'' Care Act is a brutal, Procrustean

disaster. In principle, it violates the irreducible

particularity of human life, and in practice it will cause

many individuals to suffer and die. We can do better, and we

must.

At this point, I ask unanimous consent that this opinion piece by Stephen Blackwood be printed in the Record.

We talk a lot about the failures of the Affordable Care Act. Because of ObamaCare, 7 million people are expected to lose their employer-sponsored health insurance by 2024. Another 5 million Americans have seen their health care plans canceled, and one of them is Mrs. Blackwood.

I say again to my colleagues and everyone within the sound of my voice, I don't know the politics of the Blackwood family. They had an insurance policy that worked for Mrs. Blackwood. It covered a vital drug--Sandostatin--that kept her alive from the disease of carcinoid cancer, and she has lost that coverage because of the very act that was supposed to help people.

Mr. Blackwood says, ``We can do better,'' and I suggest we can do better. We need to repeal this ill-considered law which has caused so much pain for millions and millions of Americans and still left 31 million people uninsured.

We need to work together across the aisle in a bipartisan way to fix this system and have a system that doesn't throw innocent and sick people out of their insurance coverage and threaten their health and their very lives.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I wish to speak as if in morning business.

Madam President, I see that S. 1963, a bill to repeal certain reductions made by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, is on the calendar. I didn't vote for the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, and my no vote was cast for one reason--this so-called CPI-minus-1-percent injustice done to military retirees. Military retirees under the age of 62--according to this newly passed bipartisan budget bill signed by the President--will not be able to keep up with the cost of living because their annual cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, would be reduced each year by 1 percent.

I think we have clearly pointed out to the American people the injustice of this provision in the Budget Act. An enlisted person would lose approximately $80,000 out of his or her pocket over their lifetime. These military retirees have fulfilled every part of their bargain. After they have done their share and subjected themselves to worldwide duty--perhaps serving in a war zone any number of times--the government comes along in the form of this bill and says: We have changed our minds. We are not going to give you your full cost of living. We are going to take a percent of that each year. For officers it is even more than $80,000 over their lifetime.

I believe most Americans now realize that it was a mistake to do this. It needs to be corrected, and we need to go back and keep our promise to military retirees. We have an obligation to do this for our military retirees.

At the same time, we have an obligation to future generations not to go back on the budget savings that were so hard fought in this budget act. I supported the level of budget savings, but I didn't like the way they were done.

Time and time again I, along with Senator Ayotte, Senator Graham, and others came to the Senate floor and pointed out that there were other ways to pay for the savings that needed to be made in the budget. There are better ways to do that than taking it out of the hides of the people who volunteered to serve their country in the military.

We have a bill, S. 1963, that we will be considering, and it is authored by Mr. Pryor, Mrs. Hagan, Mrs. Shaheen, and Mr. Begich. I like the idea of addressing the problem. There is only one fault in the bill. It does not have a pay-for. So of the budget savings that we made last December, some $6 billion of that would simply go away and we would end up spending that $6 billion we were planning to save.

Our obligation needs to be to the military people and to future generations. Why do we need to cut $6 billion? Why do we need to stay with the $6 billion in budget savings? Because we have an obligation to do something about the debt. That was the whole reason for the budget bill last December. We are drowning in a sea of debt to the tune of $17 trillion-plus and growing every day. We need to rectify the wrong done to military people, and at the same time we need to find the budget savings elsewhere.

Today I will vote to proceed to the bill. I will do so in the hope that Republicans and conservatives will be allowed to offer amendments in the regular order and find the $6 billion in savings needed over a 10-year period to pay for this bill.

There is a proposal by me, Senator Ayotte, and Senator Graham that would use an Obama administration pay-for to pay for the cost of rectifying the wrong to the military retirees. It is a closing of a loophole in the U.S. Tax Code. The loophole I am referring to allows people to improperly claim an additional child credit.

The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that this change could save approximately $20 billion over the next decade. This was an issue identified by the Obama administration's Treasury Department and their inspector general. We are not taking something from the Heritage Foundation. This is something by the Treasury Department of the Obama administration and their inspector general.

I simply submit this to my colleagues. Let's rectify the wrong done to the military retirees and also admit we have an obligation to future generations and not add to the debt any more than this Congress has already done. We can fulfill both of these obligations today, and the way to do it is to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed, which I, and I believe many of my Republican colleagues, will do.

In return, we ask for regular order on this important bill. Allow amendments and pay-fors through the Ayotte-Graham-Wicker legislation or perhaps through another amendment. If there are Members on the other side of the aisle who have a better pay-for, bring that to the floor, offer it, let the sun shine on these suggestions, and let the American people know where we stand on righting the wrong and protecting future taxpayers.

I say to my colleagues, vote yes on cloture on the motion to proceed. I say to the leadership, don't lock it down this time like it has done in the past. Don't fill up the amendment tree. Allow Republicans and Democrats--who have other ideas about how to protect our future generations from a sea of debt--to bring those ideas to the floor, vote on them, and let the American people see that we can correct this wrong to the military without adding $6 billion to the debt.

I hope we will have a bipartisan consensus and begin this new year with regular order and allow the elected representatives of the States to work their will rather than having deals cut behind closed doors.

I thank the Presiding Officer and note the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I rise today to commemorate a special occasion for the Tennessee Valley Authority and the city of Tupelo, MS.

Eighty years ago, on February 7, 1934, Tupelo, MS, became the first city to receive electricity from the Tennessee Valley Authority. If you visit today, you will see the sign at the intersection of Gloster and Main Streets proclaiming Tupelo as the ``First T-V-A City.''

Tupelo's connection to TVA power has had a tremendous impact, improving the quality of life and economic well-being for residents of Tupelo, the State of Mississippi, and across the South. The success helped Northeast Mississippi become a pioneer of rural electrification. As a resident of Tupelo myself, I am proud of the partnership Mississippi has built with TVA over the past eight decades.

Anyone who has experienced a power outage can attest to our reliance on electricity today. It touches almost every aspect of our lives. But imagine a time when access to electricity was confined to major cities and densely populated areas. Luxuries such as the radio, the washing machine, and the refrigerator were known only to those who lived in cities because it was not profitable for energy companies to provide electricity to rural areas.

In those days, the difference between life with electricity and life without it was so great that a large migration was taking place from rural to urban areas. Already impoverished regions of the country were at risk of lagging even further behind.

Like much of the rural South, Mississippi struggled with restricted access to electricity and the economic limitations it perpetuated. It became clear that improving rural life depended on access to electricity.

By 1930 nearly 85 percent of homes in large urban areas had electrical service, but barely 10 percent of rural homes had the same access. In Mississippi, only 1.5 percent of farm homes had electricity--the lowest in the country.

The creation of the TVA was a game changer. As America spiraled into a devastating depression, Mississippi Congressman John Rankin worked with Nebraska Senator George William Norris to improve and expand rural electrification. The result of their efforts was the TVA Act, passed by Congress on May 18, 1933. TVA began serving Mississippians in 1933 and powering Tupelo in 1934. The goal was simple: to improve the living and economic conditions of seven Southeastern States. By providing affordable electricity to rural communities, TVA was an important economic boost, delivering a needed commodity to one of the country's poorest regions.

Tupelo's proximity to the Wilson Dam on the Tennessee River enabled it to become the first TVA city in 1934, allowing its residents to purchase electricity at some of the most affordable rates in the country. This completely revolutionized life for the citizens of Tupelo and even more Mississippians as TVA expanded.

About 50 miles north of Tupelo, the town of Corinth, MS, was also at the forefront of rural electrification, proving that an electric power cooperative could work. In McPeters Furniture Store, ``The Corinth Experiment'' led to the creation of the Alcorn County Electric Power Association--the first electric power cooperative in the United States.

In November of 1934 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt came to Northeast Mississippi, stopping in Corinth and Tupelo. We still talk about that visit today.

The effort and dedication of the communities in Northeast Mississippi paid off. From 1930 to 1940 the number of farm homes in the State with electricity skyrocketed from 4,792 to 27,670. Today TVA provides reliable, clean,

low-cost energy to more than 332,000 households in Mississippi.

The TVA of 1934 is much different from the Tennessee Valley Authority of 2014. Eighty years ago hydroelectric dams provided TVA's power. Since then, TVA has developed coal, nuclear, natural gas, and renewable energy--all of the above serving approximately 9 million customers in seven States.

I look forward to TVA's continued success, and I congratulate the many Mississippians who have contributed to the legacy of TVA over the past 80 years.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two legislative fellows on my staff, Errol Robinson and Brandon Elsner, be granted the privilege of the floor during the remainder of this Congress.