Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the Senator from Hawaii be recognized.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of my best friends in the Senate and a long-time public servant whom I greatly admire, John D. Rockefeller IV.

In 1964, in Athens, OH, President Johnson went to Ohio University, and he said:

Poverty hides its face behind a mask of affluence. But I

call upon you to help me to get out there and unmask it, take

that mask off of that face of affluence and let the world see

what we have, and let the world do something about it.

Several months later, John D. Rockefeller IV, 27 years old, came to West Virginia as a VISTA volunteer. Well-educated and well-connected, Jay Rockefeller could have chosen any career he wanted. But to him, it was about public service.

This year marks Jay's 50th year in public service. He found himself in Emmons, WV. Emmons, WV, is a small town. Jay didn't shy away. Jay didn't keep his distance. He wanted to know the people he was going to be working with, and he set out to do that. For 2 years, he worked alongside the people of Emmons for accessible health care, for education, for opportunities. His work included dismantling and moving a condemned elementary school from a neighboring town onto a flatbed truck, and establishing it in Emmons as a community center.

Jay never forgot that, Jay, who in this Chamber sits across the aisle from me at this desk. I was sitting here 2 weeks ago and Jay was talking about Emmons. He said going to Emmons--and I will quote from his farewell speech 2 weeks ago to the Senate:

That set my moral compass and gave me direction. Where

everything in my real life began. Where I learned how little

I knew about the problems people face. I was humbled by that

lesson.

He went on to say:

My time in Emmons was transformative. It explains every

policy I pursued and every vote I have cast. It was where my

beliefs were bolted down. And where my passion met my

principle.

Fifty years ago, Jay learned those lessons. For 50 years, as a VISTA volunteer, as a State legislator, as the Secretary of State, as the Governor of West Virginia, and as a Senator for 3 decades from West Virginia, he learned those beliefs. They were bolted down, and he practiced those beliefs.

In 1966, he was elected to the West Virginia House. Two years later, Jay had an opportunity that most people I know would not have refused.

Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated--the Senator from New York at that time. In June of 1968, the Governor of New York, Nelson Rockefeller-- Jay Rockefeller's uncle--offered that appointment to the U.S. Senate to Jay Rockefeller. The Governor offered that position to Jay Rockefeller, and his answer to his uncle was: No, thank you. I want to earn a seat some day in the U.S. Senate.

That is what Jay set out to do. He reminded us a few weeks ago:

Important undertakings can't be halfhearted. You have to

commit your whole self--almost like pushing a heavy rock

uphill. With both of your hands you push, because if you let

up for a split second with either hand, you and the rock go

tumbling backwards into the abyss.

Jay had a chance to prove that in this body over 20 years ago. He pushed that rock uphill to fight to protect retired coal miners' promised health care benefits. It is easy for Members of this Senate who have good titles, who are well paid, who dress like this, who don't really need to go out and listen to the public very much, to forget people like union coal miners or nonunion coal miners.

He called this ``the greatest moment of my career.'' Jay threatened to keep the Senate in session. He was going to do whatever it took--22 years ago, over Christmas, over New Year's, whatever it took--to make sure his colleagues didn't leave town before passing the 1992 Coal Act. Because of his legislation, more than 200,000 coal miners and their families have kept the benefits they were promised.

He spearheaded efforts to ensure workplace safety. I have talked to Jay after coal-mining disasters when miners are killed in one of the most treacherous, difficult, and dangerous jobs we can imagine. I can see the pain in his face because he knows people who work in the mines and he has listened to them.

When Lincoln's staff wanted him to stay in the White House and win the war and free the slaves and preserve the Union, Lincoln used to say, I have to go out and get my public opinion bath. That is what Jay did. A son and grandson of privilege, Jay understood that he served the public best when he got his public opinion bath and when he went out and listened to people. He fought against unfair trade practices, and he fought against tax policies that shipped jobs overseas. He reinvigorated the steel caucus, fighting for an industry that clearly has been victimized by unfair trade practices.

Most importantly in Jay's career--and the thing I think he is most proud of--was another lesson he learned in Emmons, WV. He learned that many of the community school-aged children had never been to a doctor, they had never seen a dentist before because their families simply didn't have the money. Because of that, Jay made accessible, affordable health care for children part of his lifelong mission. He believes that health care is a right and not a privilege.

He championed Medicaid expansion, and he championed this new health care law. It has Jay Rockefeller's fingerprints all over it. That is why hundreds of thousands of people in my State are grateful to Jay Rockefeller, because hundreds of thousands of people in Ohio now have health insurance who didn't have it before. Hundreds of thousands of families have benefited for a couple of decades because their children had health insurance. Again, this is because of Jay Rockefeller.

In 1997, he devoted much of his time and career at that point to help write the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP. Because of CHIP, 8 million

children across this country--some of them in Emmons, WV, and some of them in my hometown of Mansfield, OH--now have access to health care, health care that they would not have otherwise. He continues that fight always on health care.

I want to close with this. I have seen a lot of Senators come and go. I have seen a lot of Members come and go. I have seen a lot of public officials come and go. There can be a shortage of humility in these jobs. As Members of the House and Members of the Senate, sometimes we are a little puffed up about our titles and about the power that many of us have, and we are caught up in the way we are treated. People are often obsequious to Members in Congress, and all of that.

What stands out to me--it is even more remarkable when you consider his family and what he came from--is Jay Rockefeller's humility. Here is the best example, I think. I found out almost by accident what Jay, as a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, would do regularly during his time in the Senate is he would send all the staff away, he would send the press away, and he would go to someone's home or community center or rec center or labor hall and he would sit with a number of veterans and listen to their stories. He would take notes and help those individually who might need help. Most importantly, he was listening to their stories.

It reminds me of another story from Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln's staff watched him, during one of his public opinion baths, talk to a number of people who were pushing him on something that mattered to them personally.

His staff wanted to send them away. Lincoln said, ``No, I am not going to do that.'' Then Lincoln said--about these people who were talking to him, ordinary citizens outside the White House or anywhere else the President of the United States may have been--Lincoln said: They don't want much. They get so little. Each one considers his business of great importance. I know how I should feel if I were in their place.

I can see Jay Rockefeller meeting with veterans, many of whom had never been thanked for their service. Many of them were suffering from wartime injuries from their time in the service, coming back to West Virginia and eking out a living. I can see Jay Rockefeller saying the same thing: They don't want much. They get so little. Each one considers his business of great importance. I know how I should feel if I were in their place.

Going back 2 weeks ago to Jay's farewell speech across the aisle at this desk, he called upon us to remember that ``our north star must always be the real needs of the people we serve.'' Jay used his farewell speech to exhort us to do better on behalf of miners, on behalf of veterans, on behalf of single parents, on behalf of children, on behalf of sick people, people who do not always get a fair shake in life.

He found his north star in public service, a career he chose because he wanted a mission to complete, a cause to believe in, a dream to follow. He found that mission. He found that cause. He found that dream in Emmons, WV, in 1964. It never left him. That is my friend Jay Rockefeller. For all of that we are so grateful.

Madam President, I wish to congratulate Dr. Vivek H. Murthy on his confirmation as the 19th Surgeon General of the United States.

Earlier today, the U.S. Senate held a series of votes in order to confirm Dr. Vivek H. Murthy as Surgeon General of the United States. The first vote was held to invoke cloture on his nomination, the second to confirm. Dr. Murthy was successfully confirmed by a vote of 51-43.

My flight from Cleveland to Washington, DC was delayed causing me to miss both votes. Had I been present, I would have voted to support Mr. Murthy's nomination.

President Obama nominated Dr. Murthy for this position last November. Dr. Murthy's extensive experience as an entrepreneur, health professional, and public health advocate make him an exceptionally well qualified candidate for Surgeon General. Although I was unable to make it to DC in time to vote to help confirm Dr. Murthy, I would have voted to support his confirmation.

Dr. Vivek H. Murthy will be an exemplary Surgeon General, and it is for this reason that I wrote to President Obama asking that he nominate Dr. Murthy for this position. His long record of innovative business leadership and unwavering belief in a more inclusive health care system advance our Nation's public health agenda.

I look forward to working with Dr. Murthy in his role as Surgeon General.

Mr. President, it is no surprise to any of us that the first thing Carl Levin did when he spoke today was thank his staff. He thanked them, and then he thanked the police force and the groundskeepers and the food service people and the people who too many in this world ignore. That was the first thing he did.

The second thing Carl did in his address was to talk about the gulf between the fortunate few and the struggling many. That has been what I most

admire about Carl Levin--that he is always aware of that and always fighting the fight for people who have a lot less privilege than those of us do who dress like this and get really great titles. And no one, frankly--no one in this body--has stood up against special interests for the most powerful interests in this town more effectively and more energetically than Carl Levin. For that, I am grateful, and I know so many in this country are grateful as well.

Thank you, Senator.

Tom Harkin is my hero. Tom Harkin has never shied away from a fight when it comes to workers rights not only for Iowa but for workers all across the country and workers around the world.

He has come to many of us repeatedly and said: Don't forget what our obligation is to the community of men and women around the world who labor with their hands, who fight challenges every day, who are abused in the workplace, who are abused as children in the workplace, and Tom Harkin has been the single strongest voice for as long as I can remember for those workers.

Tom comes from a right-to-work State. It is not always easy to stand up for labor unions and organized labor. We have a press and media in this country which is consistently anti-labor.

We have a political class in this country at every opportunity that tries to undermine organized labor and undermine the rights of human beings to organize and bargain collectively, and Tom recognized that is one of most important rights that human beings have.

Tom Harkin, being from a right-to-work State, knows he will face a difficult election darn near every 6 years. One of the little-noted historical facts about Tom Harkin--and I have not heard anyone else mention--is that Senator Harkin has defeated more incumbent Members of Congress than any elected official in United States history, and that is not because of the luck of the draw or some lottery in Des Moines or Iowa City or Davenport. It is because Tom Harkin doesn't shy away from his strong beliefs in the rights of humanity--organizing and collective bargaining rights. When you are willing to stand up day after day--not just in quiet groups in the Democratic Caucus--on this floor and you are willing to stand up in Dubuque and the more conservative parts of southwest Iowa and argue for labor rights, you are saying to the other side: Bring them on. Bring on big money, bring on anti-labor forces. He expected to have tough elections, and that is why Tom Harkin is my hero and always will be.

Madam President, I join my colleague Senator Inhofe in the passage of S. 2614. This legislation corrects a glitch in the law that was doing great harm to 100,000 American Airlines employees, including approximately 10,000 employees working out of or residing in Ohio. Ninety-five percent of these workers were unionized.

We are talking about pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, ramp workers, and dispatchers, all unionized. Part of the collective bargaining agreement was a defined benefit pension plan. These are plans where you earn benefits through your hard work, and those benefits provide you with annuitized income for life.

When American Airlines went bankrupt, these workers all received a single lump sum payment. For pilots, these payments were as much as $162,000, but the average payment was $120,000. For other workers, these payouts were much, much less.

Now, $162,000 may sound like a lot of money, and it is a lot. But not when it is meant to take the place of your entire pension for what could easily be a 20- or 30-year retirement. What we have done in the past for employees at United, Delta, Northwest, and US Airways is allow them to roll this entire amount over into an Individual Retirement Account or IRA.

It is important to understand what this is. When you roll over, you generally do not pay tax on it until you withdraw it from the new plan. The assets in the account continue to grow tax deferred. Deferred is the operative word.

This does not mean that the employees do not pay taxes. It means they will pay them as they make withdrawals to finance their own retirement. This bill is needed to give the American Airlines' employees that same opportunity. It is a simple fix, and it is the least we can do for workers who work hard and play by the rules, but lost their pensions through no fault of their own.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Vermont.

I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, of up to 10 minutes, that Senator Manchin be recognized for his remarks.

Mr. President, every year about this time--actually every few months, or maybe every month--there are attempts by Wall Street to again change the rules, cut back consumer protection laws, and change the regulations that protect the American public against Wall Street greed.

It happens almost weekly, it seems, in the Financial Services Committee in the House of Representatives. There are attempts in the Agriculture Committee, beaten back by Senator Stabenow, to her credit, and attempts in the banking committee, beaten back by Chairman Johnson, to his credit.

Almost every week, it seems, there are efforts by Wall Street to undermine the protections that we were able to build in under the Dodd- Frank bill to stop Wall Street from doing to the economy what it did in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. September of 2008 had been preceded by a decade of deregulation of the financial industry, decades of lobbying by very effective lobbyists for the six biggest Wall Street banks. Risky behavior was rewarded with gargantuan profits for the firms and multimillion-dollar bonuses for the executives.

The CEO of one of the largest megabanks in the history of the world-- not just in our country--said: As long as the music is playing, you have got to get up and dance. There is a lot of money to be made on Wall Street, and they have to take advantage of every loophole, particularly those loopholes that their lobbyists create.

This unmitigated greed led to 8 million people losing their jobs, 7 million losing their homes after being foreclosed on because the financial system lacked the necessary safeguards to protect Wall Street. Dodd-Frank was supposed to end all of that. It has made progress by preventing taxpayer bailouts for banks. Risky derivatives trading was one of the central goals of Dodd-Frank. An amendment by Senator Lincoln, then the Chair of the Agriculture Committee, brought forward an amendment in 2009. Dodd-Frank went through the process.

The day that President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank bill to protect Americans from Wall Street greed, the chief lobbyists for the chief financial trade association in this town said: Now it is half-time. What does ``now it is half-time'' mean? Well, the bill passed, and Wall Street financiers and lobbyists said, we don't like that, but now we can go to the regulatory agencies and weaken the rules, delay their implementation, sometimes stop some of the rulemaking, and we can go back to Congress and continue to lobby and weaken these rules.

To give you an example of what has happened, in 1995, the 6 largest banks in the United States had assets equal to 18 percent of the GDP. I don't want to bore people with numbers, but in 1995, the 6 largest banks had assets equal to 18 percent of GDP. Today they make up 64 percent of GDP. The largest six Wall Street banks--everybody knows their names--are getting larger and larger, increasing their economic power, and as we see almost every day in this Congress and especially in the House of Representatives dominated by tea party Republicans and people at the beck and call of Wall Street, we see their political power growing.

Under the accounting rules applied by the rest of the world, the derivatives holdings of the 6 largest banks--basically insurance policy on top of insurance policy on top of insurance policy as financial instruments--are 39 percent larger than we think they are, which is a difference of about $4 trillion.

Derivatives were described by Warren Buffett as timebombs--financial weapons of mass destruction carrying dangers that are potentially lethal. Senator Levin, who is about to retire from the Senate after 36 years, calls these derivatives nuclear weapons.

According to the New York Times, bank lobbyists wrote provisions dealing with derivatives that will repeal--not to get too technical-- the Lincoln language. And here is what the language in section 716 says: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal assistance may be provided to any swaps entity with respect to any swaps, security-based swap, or other activity of the swaps entity.

This is the language that is now Federal law. This language says no more bailouts.

However, the legislation likely to be in front of us, the omnibus we will be facing, because of Wall Street lobbyists, because of Republican financial services members caving to special interests, this provision that says ``no more bailouts'' is done with. We will see language now stripped out of Federal law that says ``no more bailouts.''

The public needs to understand that if this language passes to strip this language out, if this bill passes, that again bailouts can be imminent--bailouts brought on by Wall Street greed, bailouts brought on by risky trading, now protected by taxpayers. So, in other words, it is heads I win, tails you lose. If I make big bets on derivatives and I am a Wall Street banker, I make tens of millions of dollars. However, if I make big bets and something bad happens, taxpayers get to pay for it. That is the problem with stripping out section 716.

I am not the only one who thinks this. Tom Hoenig, Leader McConnell's selection to the FDIC board, supports keeping 716 in the law. Sheila Bair--once Senator Bob Dole's chief of staff, President Bush's appointment, and then President Obama kept her on as a major Federal regulator--she is opposed to repeal, as has the White House opposed the repeal.

Mark Stefanski, a friend of mine from Third Federal in my neighborhood in Cleveland, in Slovak Village, which is about an $11 billion bank on the southeast side of Cleveland. That is a bank which makes mortgages. It does not trade in exotic derivatives. He told me: You know, banking should be boring. It is not about taking excessive risks, especially when those excessive risks are underwritten by taxpayers.

That is what abolishing 716--that is what the repeal of the 716 language does. It puts taxpayers on the hook in the form of a future bailout. It is a subsidy today for the six largest banks. It puts taxpayers on the hook in the future, gives all kinds of additional incentives for Wall Street bankers to engage in more risky derivatives trading, and puts us all again under the possibility of a bank bailout.

It simply does not make sense. We have the opportunity to reject this part of this legislation. We owe it to the families in my State, to families in Virginia, to families in Delaware, to families in Georgia, and all over this country. That is why we cannot support a measure that values corporate greed over working America.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 2614 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I and other original cosponsors and strong supporters of S. 2270 have, like you, been disappointed by the regulators' failure to recognize that they have the authority to implement the Collins amendment as it applies to insurers in a manner that tailors the capital requirements for insurers to reflect the substantial differences between insurers and depository institutions. We continue to believe that the regulators could solve this problem using their existing authority. This legislation shows that there is strong bipartisan support for addressing this issue. As you know, 31 of your colleagues and I cosponsored the bill, and the legislation passed the Senate with unanimous support in early June.

S. 2270 is narrowly crafted to only address this issue as it relates to insurance companies and insurance savings and loan holding companies. If you are a bank, or another entity that owns a bank, you will be subject to the full force of the Collins amendment for your banking activities. At the same time, if you are a financial organization engaged in insurance which is also engaged in bank activities, including derivatives market making, those activities would be subject to the Collins amendment.

To accomplish the goal of directing the Federal Reserve to tailor rules for insurance, our legislation permits the Federal Reserve to create a non-Basel III regime for the insurance operations of supervised entities. The legislation allows the Fed to work with State insurance regulators to develop appropriate insurance-based capital standards for insurance activities.

Another important provision of our legislation addresses the issue of insurance accounting for a small number of non-publicly traded insurance companies. While every publicly traded company in the United States is required by the Federal Securities laws to prepare consolidated financial statements under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, GAAP, all insurance companies in the United States--whether in mutual or stock form of organization--are required by their State insurance regulators to utilize an accounting method known as Statutory Accounting. Indeed, most mutual insurance companies only use Statutory Accounting in preparing their financial statements.

Statutory Accounting Principles, SAP, are generally more conservative than GAAP because they are specifically designed to promote insurer solvency and the ability to pay claims instead of measuring an insurer's value as a going concern. SAP does not allow a number of non- liquid or intangible assets to be included on an insurer's balance sheet and provides less favorable accounting treatment for certain expenses. In both the text of the Dodd-Frank Act and its legislative history, Congress recognized the acceptability of SAP for holding companies engaged in insurance activities coming under Federal Reserve jurisdiction. Specifically, Congress 1) directed the Federal Reserve to rely on existing reports and information provided to State and other regulators (which for insurance companies would have been prepared according to SAP); and 2) included Senate report language stating that Federal Reserve assumption of jurisdiction over savings and loan holding companies engaged in the business of insurance did not reflect a mandate to impose GAAP. However, in proposed rulemakings, the Federal Reserve expressed its intention to require all companies to eventually prepare GAAP financial statements-consistent with their existing model for all bank holding companies. Imposing such a mandate on companies using only SAP would cost insurers a substantial amount to take on multi-year financial projects yielding minimal, if any, supervisory benefit to regulators.

S. 2270 makes clear that under Section 171 of the Dodd-Frank Act and the Home Owners' Loan Act, such a mandate is inappropriate where the holding company is a non-publicly traded insurance company that is only required to prepare and file SAP statements. Nothing in this provision prevents the Federal Reserve from obtaining any information it is otherwise entitled to obtain from a SAP-only insurer.

Mr. President, I attended a Martin Luther King, Jr. event in Cleveland on a cold, snowy day earlier this year. The keynote speaker said something that we have all heard, but so often do not think about. He said, ``Your life expectancy is connected to your zip code.''

Whether you grew up in a city like Cincinnati, a suburb like Kettering, or in rural Appalachia, your zip code often determines whether you have access to quality health care, great education, and the social support necessary to succeed.

Ohio is fortunate to have many organizations, like the Center for Closing the Health Gap in Cincinnati, working to create zip codes where every resident has the opportunity to succeed.

For the past 10 years, The Center for Closing the Health Gap under the leadership of Dwight Tillery has worked to address health disparities across Southwest Ohio through private-public partnerships. Their work is invaluable in the Queen City, as we know health disparities take both a moral and economic toll on our communities.

Today, more than 1.8 million Ohioans live in poverty and almost one in six families do not know where their next meal will come from. We also know that the end of the school year does not mean an end to hunger.

That is why the work of nonprofits like The Center for Closing the Health Gap and programs like the Summer Food Service Program are so important. They work together to ensure that Ohio families know about these programs and ensure our students have enough food to keep growing and learning long after the final school bell rings for summer vacation.

As we work together to address child hunger and nutrition, we are also working to eradicate infant mortality. Ohio ranks 48th in the nation for infant mortality, and we are the worst State for the survival of African American babies.

Each year, there are more than 4,600 sudden unexpected infant deaths, and there is no known cause for as many as half of the 25,000 stillbirths in this country.

No parent should ever have to grieve the loss of a child with no answers and no help.

My Sudden Unexpected Death Data Enhancement and Awareness Act would fill in the gap in how infant deaths are tracked by the Federal Government so that we can better understand and prevent these tragedies.

We can begin to address the disparities facing our communities--and our economies--by working together on the local, State, and federal levels. Ohio is fortunate to have organizations like The Center for Closing the Health Gap working to make sure that all Ohioans have a chance to lead healthy, successful lives.

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

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

Mr. President, after the election, I have heard a number of my colleagues in the House of Representatives and in the Senate say they are going to come to the floor of the Senate and to the floor of the House and again try to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

I said last night on the floor that it strikes me that during an election I would think Members of Congress would hear from their constituents, whether it is in Minnesota or Ohio--the Presiding Officer's State or mine, or around the country--and once we start talking to real people--not campaign rallies, not a country club dinner, not a fundraiser, but real people--about their lives, we would understand what the Affordable Care Act has meant to a whole lot of people.

In my State, there are a lot more than 500,000 people who have health insurance today who did not have it 1 year ago because of the Affordable Care Act. In addition, there are 97,000 and counting young people--18--20--25-years-olds--who are on their parents' health care plan who wouldn't have insurance without it. There are a million seniors in my State, from Gallipolis to Troy to Toledo to Zanesville, who have gotten free--meaning no copay, no deductibles--free cancer screenings, preventive care, diabetes checks--all of these kinds of preventive care, including when their doctor prescribes getting a physical for seniors that is free, all because of the Affordable Care Act. There are thousands and thousands of people in Ohio who have a child with diabetes or a son or a daughter with asthma, and that family has been denied coverage year after year, but now, because of the Affordable Care Act, they have coverage. So we know what this has meant.

I heard Pope Francis say a few months ago, speaking to his parish priests--he exhorted them to go out and listen to people and understand their lives, as should others, before they come to the floor and try to repeal the Affordable Care Act. There is something a bit untoward where people of privilege--we are Senators; we have great titles, we are paid good salaries, most of us dress well, most of us have nice haircuts--we come to the floor with government-paid insurance, and we say we are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act and take insurance away from 500,000 Ohioans and tens of thousands of Minnesotans, and take away young people's and their parents' plan, and take away these benefits for seniors.

I came to the floor to share a handful of letters because I want to put a face on some of these, what this actually means, if we were to-- if Congress, thinking that is what the voters want--come to this floor and say we are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Let's talk about what that means.

Connie from Hamilton County, in Cincinnati--the Presiding Officer has been in that city a couple of times--writes: As one of your constituents, I want you to know the deleterious impacts of the DC Circuit Court's ruling on my well-being. Because of a change in both my employment status and marital status, I have looked at the Affordable Care Act as a godsend. I worked full-time in a well-paying job for more than 35 years when I was organized out of a position at the worst time during the recession. I have been able to maintain limited and temporary part-time contract work since. But the income I net is substantially reduced from what it was.

She said she worked for 35 years, so I assume she is at least in her fifties.

As an older worker, I'm having a difficult time securing

permanent employment. I believe strongly in the importance of

health care. I have recently qualified for a catastrophic

health plan with tax credits on healthcare.gov. Paying for it

is a stretch, but I have willingly bit the bullet.

As you know, Ohio is one of those States that has opted out

of establishing its own state plans. That wasn't a problem

until recently. Now, facing a plan that may be ineligible for

the Federal tax credit, I face a dire financial situation. If

I were the only one caught in this Catch 22, I would not be

writing. I understand there are approximately 5 million

Americans in similar straits.

Living in a State where the Governor did not want to set up an exchange, and the Supreme Court--nine privileged men and women who are lawyers, who get government health insurance--may take these benefits away from these 5 million people. That was my editorial comment.

She writes:

Please, please, help find a way to ameliorate the impact of

this circuit court ruling. Many of us are dependent upon it

so we don't become burdens on the health care system.

So the question: Why do people who dress like this, who have titles such as ``Congressman'' and ``Senator, who get health insurance paid by taxpayers, why do they want to take it away from so many other people? Why do they want to take these benefits away? Why do they want to cancel these consumer protections? So when they cast these votes on repeal of the Affordable Care

Act, they should be thinking about the Connies of the world.

Sharon from Franklin County in the middle of State, Columbus, is a lupus patient. She writes:

I urge you to maintain the health care reform that helps us

afford coverage. Before Congress starts gutting the health

care reform, please visit a support group for any chronic

illness, and listen to the stories of people struggling to

pay their medical bills, about people being denied insurance

due to preexisting conditions, cutting their meds in half to

try to stretch them to the end of the month.

My wife was in a drugstore not too long ago. Right in front of her, somebody was trying to figure out: Can I skip, take half this number of pills so they last twice as long? That happens all the time. If more of us would get out to a drugstore, if more of us would get out and talk to people, we would learn that.

Sharon writes:

I have got a good education, a good job, good insurance,

but I know I could be wiped out in a matter of months if my

job were outsourced or discontinued. Since I work at home and

telecommute due to my illness, my chances at a new job and

new health insurance are grim. The health care reform bill

isn't perfect, but when it was passed, a collective sigh of

relief went up for millions of Americans who are struggling

to maintain their jobs, their families, and their lives while

suffering with chronic illnesses like lupus. Please don't

play politics with our lives. Please don't gut the health

care bill.

Again the question is, Why do my colleagues--almost all of whom have health insurance provided by taxpayers--why do they want to take these benefits away from Sharon and Connie?

A couple more.

Rose from Hamilton County writes:

Senator Brown, please vote no to repeal the health care

law. My family and friends appreciate the added benefits we

are getting from the current health care law. My son's

fiancee is currently finishing her graduate degree.

She is 25.

Thank God she is able to remain on her parents' insurance;

otherwise she would not be able to afford the high cost of

private insurance.

This a young woman about whom Rose is writing. This is a young woman who wants to get more education, wants to do better in life, wants to further her career, but what will happen? If she cannot stay on her parents' plan, if my colleagues are successful in repealing the Affordable Care Act, what will happen to her? Why should we even be asking that question?

My niece graduated last year from college and has not been

able to find a full-time teaching job.

She is doing what we need more of--good teachers in our country.

Fortunately, she too can now stay on her parents' insurance

because of the health care law. In addition--

She has an illness--

the current health care law ensures that when it's time for

her to get her own health insurance, she will not be

discriminated against.

This woman, Rose's niece, is in this situation. She is right out of school. She wants to teach. She does not have a job yet. She is on her parents' health insurance plan. Then when she gets a job, if it were not for the Affordable Care Act, she probably would be denied coverage because she has a preexisting condition. So she is a perfect example of two things about this law that my colleagues for whatever reason want to take away.

I will close with this. Chris from Fairfield County--kind of southeast of Columbus--writes:

Senator, I just wanted to thank you for standing by the

health care law. I now have insurance after 4 years without

it. I am now receiving treatment for my knee after 3 years of

pain and swelling. Turns out I have arthritis and I go to an

orthopedic surgeon next week for further diagnosis and

treatment. Without the insurance I purchased through the

exchange, the x-ray that discovered the arthritis would have

never been possible because I could not afford it.

So, again, why would my colleagues--almost all of whom have health insurance--why would they want to take those benefits away? Why would they say to this person in Fairfield County--why would they say to Chris: Well, sorry, you are not going to get that x ray.

In the end, what would happen? Chris would not get the x ray, would not know about the arthritis until it gets worse, and then it would cost the health insurance company more money.

Part of what the Affordable Care Act does--and the Presiding Officer played a role in writing many provisions of this law--part of what it does is it encourages and gives people incentives to get preventive care.

So if we repeal this law, if my colleagues--again, I know I said this over and over, but almost all of whom have health insurance provided to them by taxpayers--if they have their way, all of these people--Chris and Rose and Sharon and Connie--where do they turn? Where do they turn? Their lives end up worse. They end up being sicker. They possibly die younger. They end up costing the health care system more money. They are less productive as citizens. The niece and the son-in-law and the fiancee one of these ladies talked about would not be able to get an education, get ahead--all of the things we say we value in this country.

How can any anybody think in good conscience that repealing the Affordable Care Act makes sense for our families, makes sense for our communities, makes sense for the States of Minnesota and Ohio, makes sense for our country?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank the senior Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, in the days after the election this year, I heard a number of my colleagues--many from my State--in the House of Representatives and in the Senate talk with great exuberance about repealing the Affordable Care Act. They call it ObamaCare; others call it the Affordable Care Act. I am not sure where they were over the last month or so, but I remember hearing Pope Francis I exhort his parish priests to go out and smell like the flock. Abraham Lincoln used to talk about it. He would say he needs to go outside of the White House and get his public opinion baths.

I cite Pope Francis and President Lincoln because I think if my colleagues had been out talking to real people and not going to fundraisers, not meeting with rich people at country clubs, and not going to the political rallies, but out talking to real people, they would have seen what the Affordable Care Act has done.

In a moment, I wish to talk about a couple of numbers, but more importantly, I want to share some stories. More than 500,000 people in Ohio--and I think New Mexico, the Presiding Officer's State, is proportionately no different--have health insurance today who did not have it 14 months--did not have it 1 year ago. An additional 97,000 young Ohioans--people who are just a bit older than the pages sitting here; 18, 20, 25--are on their parents' health plans. Thousands of Ohioans have been protected as patients, as people who are insured. When they would get sick and their coverage was expensive, they would be dropped by insurance companies because they were too costly. Now they have the consumer protections and they can't be dropped from coverage. One million Ohio seniors now have gotten--with no copay and no deductible--free preventive care for osteoporosis and physician screenings. One million Ohio seniors were able to get their screenings at no cost.

I have to tell a quick story. Every Thursday anybody from Ohio can come to a coffee we have in our office at 8:30 a.m. when the Senate is in session. A family came by on one of those Thursdays. They were pretty conservative. I assume they were not really voters for me, but it didn't matter. We were talking about a bunch of different issues.

The mother said: Thank you for the Affordable Care Act. See my son over there? He is 15 years old.

I said: Yes.

He was across the room. She said that when he was 7, he was diagnosed with diabetes.

She said: I have counted, since he was diagnosed, 34 times that he was turned down for insurance.

My family was turned down for insurance. Last week she told me I got insurance because of the Affordable Care Act, because we don't allow under Federal law now that that be done.

Let me share for a moment, if I could, a handful of letters I have received from people who have written me because of the Affordable Care Act.

Rachel from Hamilton County writes that since 2008 she and her husband insured themselves through individual insurance. It had been difficult, and at times, we had to go without insurance because of the incredibly high cost. I had also been denied insurance due to a preexisting condition. All of that changed since we were able to sign up via the healthcare.gov site. But imagine my surprise when I heard the D.C. Circuit Court struck down subsidies people like myself receive. I receive a subsidy because health insurance has become so expensive that it is unaffordable for so many of us. I fear we will not be able to afford insurance if we lose our subsidy.

Linda from Madison County, west of Columbus, writes: My husband and I have personally benefited from the portion of the bill that did away with lifetime maximum payments. I suspect it may have saved our retirement and kept us off welfare rolls. My colleague benefited from the portion of the bill that allowed her son, who suffers from a potentially fatal illness, to stay on her insurance through age 26, at which time he graduated with a master's degree and got a job.

So this is exactly what this was written for--a 23-24-year-old graduating from college, going on to get more school, getting a master's degree, preparing himself or herself for something better in life. That young man could

stay on his parents' health insurance plan until he got a job at 27, with insurance.

Chandra in Summit County writes that she recently commented to some friends about the surprising benefits she was receiving under the Affordable Care Act, and one of her friends suggested she share her story with her elected officials. She says: Because of the ACA, we were able to switch to my husband's insurance without worrying that I would not be covered due to my pregnancy being a preexisting medical condition. The ACA had a very real financial impact on my family.

The question is, Why do some Members of this Congress, all of whom, I believe--almost all of whom--are receiving government-sponsored health insurance benefits from a good government insurance plan--why do they want to deny it to people such as Chandra and people such as Rachel and others.

Chandra says: I am not the type of individual who one would first think of when thinking of beneficiaries of the ACA. I have a master's degree, my husband and I both work full-time, and our employers also offer a full range of medical, prenatal, and optical benefits.

A few years ago, my husband and I decided to begin growing our family. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, there were no copays for my prenatal care, suggested immunizations or potential well visits. When our son was born, I immediately saw the true impact of the Affordable Care Act. Babies have many well visits and the cost of copays and immunizations have been a burden to some of my friends. Thanks to the ACA, we didn't have that financial burden. Thanks to a combination of good insurance and the Affordable Care Act, I was the recipient of a very nice, double electric breast pump. I also became the first employee at my job to utilize the provisions of the ACA for nursing mothers. A few years later, 2 months before our second child was due, I had the opportunity to take a better job.

She goes on.

The question again is, Why do they want--why do a bunch of politicians who have good insurance, paid for by taxpayers--why do they want to take these benefits away from the 25-year-old man who now has insurance on his parents' plan before he finishes school and goes out in the workplace? Why do they want to take away the preventive care families now have so when their daughter has an earache they can actually go to a family doctor because of the insurance rather than go to the emergency room? All of those things just beg the question, Why the politics of repealing ObamaCare and repealing the Affordable Care Act and taking these benefits away from so many Americans?

Five hundred thousand Ohioans have insurance, 100,000 more young people, a million Ohio seniors getting benefits with no copays and no deductibles, preventive care that helps them live longer, healthier lives. That is really the question.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I would like to follow up on the Presiding Officer's comments a moment ago about the crux of this issue--why this big money in campaigns is so bad for our country.

The public does not really care who has an advantage, who has a disadvantage. They do not really care if a Republican wins or a Democrat wins. They care about what we do here and how we can help people's lives.

The Presiding Officer talked about the minimum wage. In my first year in the Senate, 2007--my first speech on the Senate floor, four or five desks over from here, was about the minimum wage. It passed the Senate with a bipartisan vote. It was signed by a Republican President, increasing the minimum wage. That was then. Today we cannot even get a minimum wage out of the Senate because of a Republican filibuster.

The minimum wage is worth one-third less in real dollars, in purchasing power, than it was in 1968. The subminimum wage--the tipped wage--has been stuck at $2.13 an hour for 20 years. People who push wheelchairs at airports, valets, and waiters in downtown diners can make as little as $2 or $3 an hour, and they hope to get up to $7 or $8 or $9 on tips.

If it were not for the political pressure, the money that just rolls across the political landscape, that washes across the candidates for the Senate, the candidates for the House, we could pass the minimum wage. But Members of the Senate, when they think about voting on this, they think about the big money that might come in against them if they vote for the minimum wage.

I am convinced that if we could pass this constitutional amendment, we could begin to address the issues of Wall Street and oil companies and Big Tobacco buying elections, spending not millions, not even tens of millions, but hundreds of millions of dollars. We could pass the minimum wage. We

could pass a real jobs bill. We could reform Wall Street. We could pass consumer protection bills. We could invest in education and community colleges and federally qualified health centers and veterans' benefits the way we should. That is why this constitutional amendment is so important on campaign spending. That is why it matters.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, one man, one woman, one American, one vote--that is what the writers of our Constitution put in the Constitution--not one corporation, one vote.

What I hear on the Senate floor today and yesterday from those candidates who seem to rely on corporate money, who are the beneficiaries of a showering of--not thousands, not tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands, not millions--tens of millions of dollars, candidates who benefit from the showering of tens of millions of dollars for their campaigns, what they are saying on this Senate floor is almost laughable.

It would be laughable if it weren't so serious. It would be laughable if it didn't contribute to the corruption of this institution, of this government of which we are so proud--``of the people, by the people, for the people''--one man, one American, one vote.

With Citizens United, with McCutcheon the Supreme Court has effectively ruled the more money you have, the more influence you have over our democracy.

When what I hear from the other side--again, those who are the beneficiaries of the millions, of the tens of millions of corporate dollars, often Wall Street, often oil companies, often big drug companies, often big tobacco companies--when they come to the floor and plead, they are pleading in many ways that the supporters of this constitutional amendment are restricting the right to free speech. I agree.

Whether it is the Koch brothers, whether it is the Big Tobacco executives, they should get one vote.

But when they can spend millions and millions of dollars and shower some of my colleagues with this kind of corporate money to get their way, we know what is happening in this country. We know for the richest 1 percent of this country incomes have grown and grown, gone up and up.

We know for the broad middle, for the bottom 90 percent, for the middle, for the great majority of people in this country, their wages have been flat. No, they have actually been worse than flat over the past 20 years.

The wealthy are getting extraordinarily wealthy, extraordinarily wealthier. The middle class, even sort of the upper middle class--let alone those who are making minimum wage or making $15 an hour, their wages have been stagnant or worse.

One reason for that is--the Presiding Officer from Massachusetts has spoken out about this nationally over and over again--one of the reasons wages have been flat in this country--and the rich are getting richer and richer--is the corruption of Big Money in our political system.

I know how it works. In my race for reelection in 2012--and I am not complaining about this. As my wife's book publisher said: No whining on the yacht. If you get to be in the Senate, don't complain. But I also understand when they spent $42 million against me in my campaign--I am a big boy, I can take it--it was oil money, it was tobacco money, it was mostly out-of-State money. It was money from some of the richest people in the United States of America.

What did they want? They didn't dislike me personally, I assume. Maybe they did. I don't really care. But what it was really about is they wanted--whether the person came from Troy, OH, or Troy, MI, or Troy, NY--a politician in office from Ohio, as they wanted in Massachusetts, as they want this year in New Hampshire, as they want this year in Arkansas, as they want this year in Kansas, as they want this year in North Carolina, in Louisiana, Alaska, and Colorado--they want a lap dog. They want somebody who will go to the well and vote with Big Tobacco, go to the well and vote for Wall Street, and go to the well and vote for oil companies.

That is what they will get if we continue this corrupt way of campaign financing.

The Presiding Officer remembers--after we passed the Dodd-Frank legislation in this Congress 4 years ago and when she was working to establish a consumer protection agency--after the vote on Dodd-Frank, do we remember what the leading financial services lobbyist in this town said? The President signed the bill--within an hour or two, or at least the same day--and the lobbyist said: Well, folks, it is half- time.

What did that mean? He wasn't talking about the NFL. He was talking about: Well, we lost in Congress. They actually passed a bill that Wall Street wasn't wild about. They actually passed a bill that the largest financial institutions were not particularly happy about, but they knew they could use their lobbying, and they have thousands of lobbyists in this town.

They have a number of lobbyists for every Member of Congress. They knew they could use their lobbying force.

They knew they could use the politicians they had--I won't say people here were bought, but you might suggest they are on a long-term lease in some cases. They were suggesting just the threat of spending money.

So if you cast a vote in this institution next week, let's say, on a controversial issue, we know a couple of things. You know you should do the right thing. You know what your constituents back in Florida, Massachusetts or Ohio are saying, but you also know one other thing. You know if you cast a vote that Wall Street might not like, if you cast a vote that Big Tobacco might not like, if you cast a vote that oil companies may not like, do you know what is going to happen? What is in your mind if they come to your State in the next election and spend $10 million or $20 million or $30 million or $40 million.

I had $40 million spent against me because I don't do what Wall Street wants. I don't do what tobacco wants. I don't do what the oil industry wants. Of course, they are going to come after me.

They fell short in 2012--not by much but they fell short. But we know they will do it again. We know every time we cast a vote they are keeping a scorecard and saying: Well, we like what that Senator did, we will help him or her--usually him in that case. We don't like what she did, we don't like what he did, so we may be looking out to spend that kind of money. One man, one woman, one American, one vote--not one corporation, one vote.

Fortune 500 companies straddle the globe. They reap millions of dollars of profits. American corporations are at their most profitable time perhaps in their history sitting on tens, hundreds of millions of dollars in profit.

It doesn't take a Ph.D. in math to understand they spent a small, small, microfraction of the money they are making to protect those profits.

How do they do it? They come to Ohio, they come to Massachusetts, they come to Florida, they come anywhere in the country and they spend millions. They spend tens of millions to protect themselves on behalf of Wall Street, on behalf of Big Oil, on behalf of these big tobacco companies. It is all pretty simple: one man, one woman, one American, one vote.

Citizens United and McCutcheon make clear there is now an entry fee for participating in our democracy. That is why I support the constitutional amendment proposed by Senator Udall that curbs unlimited campaign spending: one man, one woman, one American.

This amendment grants Congress the authority to regulate and limit the raising and spending of money. We are not shutting anybody off. Anybody can still give fairly significant amounts of money. But we do know--do the math. After the McCutcheon decision, donors can now contribute up to $3.6 million an election cycle.

I don't know for sure, because I have not met most of the 300 million people in our country, but I don't think there are all that many that have the wherewithal financially to contribute $3.6 million. But I also know--because my staff did the math on this one, I acknowledge--the average person making minimum wage at $7.25 an hour--and, parenthetically, the same people who love McCutcheon love the millions of dollars spent, showered on us from Wall Street or against us from Wall Street, from Big Tobacco or from Big Oil. Those same people are stopping the minimum wage from being increased.

The minimum wage is at its lowest level in buying power since 1968. It has been stuck at $7.25 an hour.

Back in the era of bipartisanship on minimum wage--we actually passed one in 2007, my first year in the Senate, signed by Republican President Bush. Those days seem to be past.

Think about the math. At $7.25 an hour, people are allowed to give $3.6 million under the McCutcheon decision--pushed by corporations and handed down by the Supreme Court--that says corporations are people too, more or less.

For a minimum wage worker, it would take 239 years, working full time, making $7.25 an hour, to make $3.6 million. And then they would have to give it all away in that election cycle to be able to compete with the oil companies, the drug companies, and Big Tobacco and Wall Street.

This is very clear. We can change it.

Again, back to the arguments on the other side. They are laughable at home. I don't think I know anybody who thinks it is OK that we are allowing somebody to come in and spend--except for colleagues whom I like. Most of the people on the other side of this issue, I like them personally, but I don't know very many people, unless they are in Washington, unless they have a stake in this system--I don't know people who think it is a great idea to let people spend $3.6 million. They are not spending it out of their charitable whims. They are spending it because they want their people, their water boys, their water girls for the drug companies, the water boys and the water girls for Wall Street, the water boys and the water girls for Big Tobacco, they want those people elected, not people who will stand up to those interest groups and do the right thing.

To restore voters' faith in the political system, to ensure voters that their voices are being heard, one man, one

woman, one American, one vote, that is what we stand for. Those are our values. That is why this is an important issue.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Florida for allowing me to do this before his final remarks of the evening.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 423, S. 1934, and Calendar No. 418, S. 898 en bloc.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment to S. 1934 be agreed to, the bills, as amended if amended, be read a third time and passed en bloc, and that the title amendment to S. 1934 be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.