impressed with their skill and the caliber of their repair work. as a rider and as our state senator i see how critical amtrak is to our economy, to our communities and to our country as a whole. i hope that is clear to the rest of the members of this chamber. and i hope that anyone watching who lass appreciated the value of amtrak's connecting power that links this country together east to west, north to south will communicate with your senator and convey the importance of strong and sustained investment in the northeast corridor yes, but across the whole reach of our only by strengthening amtrak and ensuring the vibrancy of the entire nation's system of passenger rail can we really ensure that american rail will be there for years and generations to come. thank you, mr. president. with that, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: mr. president, i have 11 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of both the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: thank you, mr. president. with that, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, i come to the floor today as i have repeatedly since the health care law has been passed with concerns i have and to share some information with the senate because my concern is that in order to help some people that didn't have insurance, i'm just afraid that we have hurt many people that did have insurance, did have care that they liked, and the president continued to focus on

coverage, and i have more concerns as a doctor about people actually getting care, getting health care, the care they need from a doctor that they choose at lower costs. and so i come to the floor today to -- to talk about a new story out this morning, actually in the huffington post, called "how obamacare leaves some patients without doctors." now, i recall how the president had said if you like your policy, you can keep your policy. he said if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. yet we're hearing stories from all around the country of people who have found that not to be true. i've heard the majority leader come to the floor and say that -- in a statement that so many stories are lies, they are made up, but i will just tell you that this morning in this publication, there is a lengthy story of several patients in california who have had pain problems, medical concerns, signed up for insurance, and as

a result have found out that they have insurance, they have coverage but they can't find care. so i'd like to just share with the senate today a story, and it was some of the concerns that i have raised during the debate and the discussion of the health care law, but the speaker of the house at the time nancy pelosi from california, the state where this happens, first you have to pass it before you get to find out what's in it. well, now people all across the country are finding out what's in it and they are finding out that they are terribly disappointed and they have found that they are being sold a bill of goods and getting stuck with a bill and they are finding out it's not very good for them. so this -- the report in this morning's huffington post starts with in january, a doctor told miss friedlander who was suffering from excruciating lower back pain that she needed surgery to remove part of the severely herniated disc. she had blue shield insurance

and they report covered through california insurance which is part of obamacare, and she planned to use that coverage to pay for the operation. makes sense. this is what happened. it said that when she started to call surgeons covered by blue shield, she ran into a roadblock. the surgeons who were covered by her insurance amazingly operated out of hospitals that were no longer covered by her insurance. so if the surgeon was covered, the hospital wasn't or vice versa. she could find a hospital that would cover her surgery but couldn't find a surgeon who was covered by her insurance that was on the staff of that hospital. well, it says that miss friedlander spent days on the phone, hours on hold making dozens of calls across southern california trying to match a surgeon with a hospital that would both be covered. in total, she reached out to 20 different surgeons, five different hospitals. no one, she said, could help me. she said some expressed sympathy.

she says she is 40 years old and she told the huffington post this. quote -- "they told me, i am so sorry, it's all just so new. you're a victim of the changes. no one knows what they're doing." so what we have here is a victim of the obama health care legislation because first we had to pass it before we get to find out what's in it. well, unable to match a hospital and a surgeon that were both covered, miss friedlander started haggling between doctors for a cash price for surgery, she chose a surgeon who wasn't covered by her insurance but who operated in a hospital that was covered because she couldn't with her insurance get both the hospital and the doctor. she said she expects her insurance to pay the hospital bill. she had to pay her surgeon's bill herself all out of her own pocket. the article goes on to report that nationwide, about 70% of obamacare plans, about 70% of the plans purchased under the

obama health care law offer fewer hospitals, fewer doctors than employer-sponsored group plans or pre-a.c.a. individual markets, according to a study from the consulting firm mckenzie and company. they released this study in december. so this narrowed number of doctors, narrowed number of hospitals is what miss friedlander encountered when trying to match a surgeon and a hospital that were both covered. and what we are hearing today is that about 70% of obamacare plans offer fewer hospitals, fewer doctors in spite of the president's promise to the american people that if you like your doctor, you could keep your doctor, if you like your plan, you could keep your plan. now, covered california says they are aware of the problem and a spokesman for the group said that a senior medical advisor with the obamacare plan in california says we understand that some people are having

trouble getting access to doctors and hospitals they need. he said we're working very hard to fix as fast as we can. well, perhaps if we had actually -- people had actually read the law, understood what was in it, they would have seen this coming. so the president has said that insurance premiums would drop, he said families would save $2,500 a family, but the article says that to make up for a.c.a. costs and to keep premiums low, blue shield asked its doctors and hospitals to accept payments from the insurers at rates well reduced, reduced to what they normally got, reduced by up to 30%. so not surprisingly, the article goes on, some doctors and hospitals rejected blue shield's reduced payment rates and decided not to resign contracts with the insurers. at least three major los angeles hospitals previously covered by blue shield. and, madam president, i will tell you these are first-class hospitals, these are highly thought of hospitals, hospitals

with incredibly good reputations. three previous major l.a. hospitals previously covered by blue shield, ucla, university of california los angeles, cedars sinai and good samaritan have opted out of the insurers' new network. and according to the communications manager from blue shield, blue shield of california now has about 40% fewer physicians and 25% fewer hospitals in its network than last year. now, you listen to what's happening and they talk about the significant gaps occurring in california. these are the concerns that i hear about when i go home to wyoming every weekend. these are the concerns i heard about this past weekend in casper and douglas, in riverton, in thermopolis, in new castle traveling around the state. people aren't able to keep their insurance, aren't able to keep their doctors, and it's

happening all across the country, and we see this story out of california today. now, the interesting part of the issue with california is that the article goes on and they talk to an insurance agent in sacramento who says people who already had insurance, people who already had insurance, especially healthy young people, may be paying more under covered california, may be paying more. not what the president promised. may be paying more for fewer hospitals and fewer doctors. that is not what the tenth of the health care law -- intent of the health care law was but it's what the health care law has delivered. well, those -- this is what's happening to real people, real families all across the country. the majority leader says false, made up, whole clot, but i will tell -- wholecloth, but i will

tell you these stories continue to occur. when signing up for a plan, it's difficult to determine -- this is the article in today's huffington post. when signing up for a plan, it's difficult to determine which doctors and hospitals are still covered. you are talking about californi now. it says -- quote -- "you can sign up on covered california and think you're totally fine only to find out later that -- now, this is quoting an insurance agent in california -- only to find out that you're totally hosed. as david fehr goes on to say specialists, such as ob/gyn, urologists decline blue cross and blue shield most frequently. david fehr estimates about two-thirds of blue cross and blue shield specialists have opted out of the networks. now, it's not just that one patient that i talked about. there is like miss friedlander, ruth rio, a 35-year-old new

mother from los angeles, she is struggling to find the care she needs in the blue shields smaller network. she signed up through blue shield from covered california in november because the covered california web site lifted her hospital, the web site, the president's web site, the cover california web site, listed her hospital ucla as accepting blue shield. this is what she said. however, after she gave birth in december, she was told that her ob/gyn at ucla was not covered by her insurance, so she paid out of pocket. she has not been able to find a urologist for her son or an ob/gyn who is both covered by her insurance and practicing in a hospital that is covered. the president said you can keep your hospital, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. now, she has called over a dozen doctors who were covered by her insurance, and each has told her that if she or her son needs an operation in the hospitals that the doctor works at, well, it won't be covered.

so even if they get a doctor who is under their plan, they can't go to a hospital to get actually a procedure done. as the lady says, my insurance is pretty useless and i'm not fussy about what doctor i see. she said i don't know what to do. i may just drop it for myself and keep my son on it. she said it's really depressing. it's really depressing what the president and the democrats have forced down the throat of the american people with this health care law. she goes on to say before joining covered california, she had an individual blue shield plan that was cheaper than what she now pays and that gave her wider access to doctors and hospitals. cheaper, wider access. exactly what the president had promised her is exactly what this woman has lost because of the health care law. she goes on and says i'm paying

$500 a month and every doctor i'm calling is saying no, i can't see you. she said i feel like a second-class citizen. is that what the president's health care law is all about, making people feel like second-class citizens, hearing from folks when they call and ask for help, that sorry, you're just a victim of the obamacare health care law, a nation of more and more victims, and it does seem as you look around the country for those who have been helped, we should not have had to hurt this many people because of a law that the american people said we do not want and was forced on single party lines down the throats of the american people. this law is bad for patients. we have seen that today. it continues to be bad for providers, the nurses, the doctors who take care of those patients, and it's terrible for taxpayers. tax rates will continue to go

up. taxes are continuing to go up as a result of the health care law and the expenses related to it, and it has failed repeatedly in dealing with the needs of the american people who knew what they wanted in the first. they wanted the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. instead, they got this. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: madam president, i rise today to speak on behalf of s. 1074, the thomasina jordan indian tribes recognition act of 2013. this is a bill granting federal recognition to six indian tribes. the bill has recently been reported out of the senate committee on indian affairs, and i want to thank chairman tester,

the former chairwoman senator cantwell, and all the members of the committee for this action. these six indian tribes, the chickahominy, the eastern division, upper madapani, rappahannock, ronnick and nadsomin are among the best known tribes in history but they have never received federal recognition. 566 federal tribes have received federal recognition. the vast majority by congressional action, but these tribes have not been recognized. madam president, the story of these tribes and why they've never been recognized is why i take the floor. it's an amazing story, but it is also a deeply tragic story. but the tragedy can be redeemed if congress acts to correct a gross historical injustice that has deprived these tribes of their rightful place. this is about a full accounting of our past but it's also about

a fair and truthful recognition of living people who have maintained their own tribal identity and customs and traditions against unbelievable odds for hundreds of years. madam president, the english settlers who arrived at jamestown in 1607 established a settlement on an island on land that was already under the control of the pow etan -- p ow hatan indians. they were a group of tribes who had organized in the chesapeake region. the interaction between these powatan indians, and the english is known to virtually every american because the original settlement of english in the united states was on the verge of failure numerous times and had to be re6bgd by a commoner who -- rescued by a commoner who was part of that group, john smith.

only john smith could keep this little settlement alive, and early after the arrival of the english, john smith was captured by the powatan indians and on the verge of being executed by the chief because they were unsure what they thought of these english settlers. in this wonderful story as he was about to be executed, poke ahundred thousandas --, poke ahauntas saved his life. that paved the way for the survival of this very struggling colony and that colony then grew into english-speaking america as we know with the arrival of later groups of english at plymouth rock and thereafter. that act by pocahantas is known to virtually all americans and they were back and forth between the relationship between the tribes and the colonist and then between the tribes and the african-american slaves.

the first slaves came to jamestown island in 1619. after that, it was jebl a peaceful relationship. there were times of hostilities but in treaties in the 16 40's and a final treaty in 1677 the treaty of the middle plantation, the poahatan con fed res arrest said we want to live in peace with you. po cohantas got married to john rolfe, a planter, and that was a seminar event in colonial history. by the 16 80's, 75 years after the settlement of jamestown island, the confederation was no more but these virginia indians continued to live and live in complete peace with the settlers that were their neighbors. the treaty, madam president, the treaty of the middle plantation was signed a hundred years before the declaration of

independence. and that peace that was made between the indians and the settlers paved the way for the modern virginia and modern english-speaking america. it's been continuous since 1677, the peace of these tribes. the relations between virginians and the tribes have been strong. they've -- they've endured significant adversity, their numbers of population have dwindled from 25,000 down to 3,000 or 4,000 enrolled tribal men's today. they converted to the religion of the english settlers, christianity, they fought as american patriots in every war this country has been in from the revolutionary war to the wars in iraq and afghanistan. they face discrimination as indians, often kept out of schools in virginia because of the color of their skin, because they weren't deemed to be caucasian by state leaders at the time, but the relationship is a peaceful one and these tribes still exist. two tribes in virginia have small rezzer vaitionz and the

other tribes own land in common. they have tribal churches, tribal cemeteries and community centers where they still gather. madam president, there's a wonderful tradition if you're the governor of virginia. on thanksgiving day, the day before thanksgiving day every year, the virginia tribes come to the governor's mansion and they present to the governor deer and turkey and fish and gifts as a tribute to the peaceful relationship between these tribes and the commonwealth of virginia since 1677. it was a wonderful aspect of my time as governor and something we looked forward to every year and the members of these tribes look forward to it as well, tribe members who moved all across the country and all across the world come home for a homecoming and it begins at the virginia governor's mansion. now, madam president, now i get to the injustice. the interactions between these indians and the first english settlers is known to everybody. that story about pocahantas and john smith, and the wedding to

john rolfe. you can go to her grave at gravesend which is where the thames river, and the english tend her grave at a small episcopal church at that seaside community. these -- this is the most arc atypal story of the -- arc typal story of the interaction between the natives and the colonists. despite the fact that the tribes have lived and maintained their existence intact since before the settlers got here, the tribes have never been recognized along with the 566 tribes who have. why? why have they never been recognized? well, unbelievably, the first reason they haven't been recognized is they made peace too soon. they made peace with the english. if they'd waited until 1780 and made peace with the americans,

that treaty, a treaty with the americans would have been the basis immediately for a federal recognition. but they became peaceful too soon with their european neighbors. tribal recognition often begins with a treaty, but the treaties are treaties with the american government. all historians acknowledge that the treaties of 1646 and 1677 happened, there are copies, the originals are still maintained and all acknowledge that these treaties and the indians' decisions to live in peace with their neighbors was a precondition for the modern virginia. if there hadn't been peace our history may well have been different. and, madam president, i'll tell you something else, these treaties are recognized by a government, the english government. when our tribes who have never been recognized by the united states go to visit england, they're given a royal welcome and treated as the sovereign they are by the government with whom they made a treaty in 1646 and 1677.

so that was the first, quote, mistake that was made, these tribes made peace too quickly. there's a second mistake that is in some ways even more difficult to acknowledge. many of these tribes live in six counties in virginia and five of the county courthouses where all their birth, death, and marriage records were scored were burned during the civil war but there were still some records that existed, some, but in a bizarre bit of our 20th century history, virginia passed the racial integrity act in the 1920's and under a bizarre notion of racial purity, the eugenics movement, state officials determined either you were white or colored and there was no such thing as an indian. the leader of the state bureau of vital statistics, walter

plecker sadly held the position of the head of the bureau of vital statistics for 41 years and remaining records such as they were in that 41-year period he undertook what is known in virginia as the paper genocide, the paper genocide. he systemically went into every remaining record he could find and recharacterized anybody who had claimed a descent and a tribal condition as an indian to colored. and records were destroyed or altered in a very significant way. both of these reasons have made tribal recognition through the b.i.a. process, the bureau of indian affairs, very difficult. of the 566 tribes that have been recognized, only about a fifth have gone through the administrative process and that process usually requires heavy documentation. but the treaty was with the wrong government and the birth, death, and marriage records have been destroyed because of a racist state policy and the burning of courthouses during the civil war.

now, these six tribes they should be rewarded, not punished for making peace with their neighbors in the 16 40's and 1670's and shouldn't be held back because of a misguided state policy that stripped them of the means to easily demonstrate by paper what all historians acknowledge to exist, the continuous history of these tribes. madam president, we started in virginia to correct this in the 1980's. in 1983, virginia began a process of state recognition of all these tribes, the six tribes have all been recognized by the state in the 1980's. all tribes that are part of this bill are now recognized by virginia. and a full effort to finally receive federal recognition began in 1999 supported overwhelmingly by all virginians including the current entire virginia congressional delegation, democratic and republican, house and senate and all ten living virginia

governors. recognition bills you might remember this, madam president, have passed out of the house for these tribes twice. in the 112th congress a bill passed out of the house and then came to the senate and it passed out of the senate committee only to die because of inaction on the senate floor. it is my deep hope that the 113th congress will finally see the realization of this long-held dream. madam president, we should pass this bill because it's right. these tribes exist. they still live in virginia and uphold their tribal traditions and they deserve to have their existence acknowledged just like the hundreds of other tribes in this country. but there's a final reason why recognition has a very immediate importance to these virginia tribes. madam president, if you walk just three blocks from here down the mall you arrive at the national museum of the american indian.

it's part of the smithsonian. america's national museum, the smithsonian is every bit as much a part of our american government as congress is. and it's a marvelous museum. it tells the story of our indian tribes and their amazing histories of adversity and triumph. the smithsonian curators recognize what congress has failed to do. go to the second floor. there's a permanent exhibit on the second floor of the museum and the title of the exhibit is "return to a native place, algongian peoples of chesapeake." and that permanent exhibit with the plastic die-a-rama -- diorama highlights the bill. here's how the museum describes the permanent exhibit dedicated to these tribes. through photos, maps, ceremonial and everyday objects, this display provides an overview of the history of the native peoples of the chesapeake region from the

1600's to the present day. so we do recognize these tribes in a museum. and we acknowledge that they're not just a part of history but in the words of the museum display description, but that the people continue to maintain their tribal identity to the present day. but while we recognize the tribes in a museum three blocks from the capitol, we will not -- we not have, we do not yet recognize these tribes in law. and, madam president, finally, the failure to recognize these tribes in law has an unusual and very tragic consequence. and it also deals with the smithsonian. because there's another department of the smithsonian that's far out of the prying eyes of tourists on the mall. it's the warehouse of the smithsonian where they hold remains of archaeological

exhibits. and they hold all kinds of remains and all kinds of artifacts from archaeological exhibits all over the united states and all over the world. one set of remains that the smithsonian is holding is the bones of about 1,400 virginia indians that were disturbed and unburied during the course of archaeological ex-im bank itions in virginia -- exhibit itions in virginia. the tribes we're talking about today, the bones of their ancestors are held in a warehouse by the smithsonian. and for years these tribes have gone respectfully to the smithsonian and they've asked them, please return to us the bones of our ancestors. we want to bury the bones of our ancestors in accord with our tribal customs. we want to rebury the bones of our ancestors in accord with the

customs of christianity that we embraced at the tutelage of the english settlers. but the smithsonian will not return the bones to these tribes. it seems like such a reasonable request. it seems so reasonable. but the smithsonian will not return the bones to these tribes for one reason. they're not federally recognized. the law governing the an particularties and objects held by the smithsonian leads the smithsonian to conclude they can't give these bones back for reburial unless the tribes are federally recognized. so our great national museum recognizes the tribes in a permanent display behind plastic glass and talks about these tribes but at the same time while we recognize them for one purpose we will not hand the bones back to these folks in a manner they deserve. madam president, to conclude, it is long past time that these

tribes receive the tribal recognition that hundreds of other tribes have received. it is long past time that these tribes be accorded the same respect in the america for whom they fought since the revolutionary war that they receive in england when they go visit and it is long past time that the bones of these powhatan ancestors be returned to virginia so they can be buried by their families in the only land they ever knew as home. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent to address the senate as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: madam president, today we commemorate the 20th anniversary of the rwandan genocide. this week again and again and again i will rise to remind my colleagues and fellow citizens of the humanity we share and

appeal to their conscience about the mass atrocities that the assad regime is perpetrating in syria. this past sunday, the world joined rwanda in marking 20 years since the beginning of the genocide that claimed the lives of more than 800,000 innocent men, women and children. as we reflect on our failures to stop the genocide there, i can't help but think of the less ons we learned from rwanda and those we didn't. as president obama stated in his remarks on sunday -- and i quote -- "the rwandan genocide was nor'easter he neither an accident nor unavoidable. the genocide we remember dla today and the world's failure to respond more quickly reminds us we always have a choice in the face of hatred we must remember the humanity we share. in the case of cruelty we must choose compassion. in the face of intolerance we must never be indifferent." i couldn't agree more with the president of the united states.

the united states along with the international community failed to take the necessary action to prevent a tragedy in rwanda. we chose to ignore the death of hundreds of thousands of people and in so doing we foresook our humanity and now we're dangerously close to doing the same in syria. i'd like to believe that never again means something in this context. i look around the world today and i'm haunted by the fact that we simply haven't learned the fundamental lesson from rwanda that preventing the slaughter of innocents means taking hard political action. nowhere is this truer than in syria where president bashar assad's regime continues its brutal assault against the syrian people with increasing ferocity. the slaughter of innocent men, women and children is being killed out by syria's national army and loyal paramilitaries a

as a result of state policy and the terror continues to escalate every day that assad's crimes go unpunished. the regime has action sem rated attacks against civilians by incripple nationally drobl barbaric barrels bombs on mosques, schools, and bakeries, systematically detaining and killing thousands of people including hundreds of children and starving entire neighborhoods to death. it's over five months ago that john kerry wrote that -- quote -- "the world must act quickly"-- unquote to stop -- quote -- "a war of starvation"-- unquote being waged by assad's region against huge portions of the populations. yet the world did nothing and hundreds have died of starvation and thousands in those five months. eventually the international community responded by passing resolution 2139 through the u.n.

security council was ordered the regime to promptly >> lou unhindered humanitarian access and threatened further consequences for noncompliance. this was two months ago. and yet again the world did nothing to back the resolution. in fact, the u.n. humanitarian coordinator, valerie amos, reports that the war of starvation has worsened since its passing. the number of syrians cut off from aid has grown since january by over 1 million people. the syrian government continues to prevent supplies of food from entering opposition-held areas in direct contravention of the u.n. resolution. and it is using u.s.-provided humanitarian aid as leverage in its war against the people. meanwhile, iran sends 30,000 tons of food supplies to assad's

regime while children starve throughout syria, the government is at least well fed. although 800,000 people have not been slaughtered in mere months, as was the case in rwanda, over the course of three ear years of conflict in syria, we have witnessed 9 million people forced from their homes with 2 1/2 million refugees escaping the violence in neighboring countries. an estimated 150,000 people dead with casualties escalating dai daily. regardless of the scale or slope, one fact is clear -- the world is watching genocide in slow motion. but it seems that regardless of how many innocent men, women and children die in syria, the world's conscience will not be tricked. what is happening in syria should be an affront to our conscience and it should be a call to action.

each day the media floods our newspapers and television screens with some gruesome and horrific evidence of assad's war crimes. we cannot claim ignorance, as we have in the past, and yet we do nothing. it is as if watching all the suffering and simply feeling bad about it has become an adequate moral response. conventional wisdom tells us that this is because the american public is war weary. we're scarred by our experience in afghanistan and iraq and, thus, unwilling to get involved in another conflict in the middle east. this sentiment is reinforced by the president, who prides himself on having opposed the war in iraq and getting america out of the region as quickly as possible, regardless of the ramifications. he has emphasized the need to -- quote -- "contain" the conflict in syria, calling it a civil war

and neglecting the dangerous spillover effects we are already witnessing, including the destabilization of all of syria' syria's neighbors, the growth of an al qaeda safe haven in eastern syria and western iraq. following the president's lead, the american public i has largey applauded his restraint and opposed greater u.s. involvement in syria. but in so doing, we have again failed the legacy of rwanda -- stopping the slaughter in syria 6 will requirwill require diffil action. but it's not only profoundly in our national interest to act but also our moral obligation to do so. in his remarks on sunday, president obama said that we should be reminded of -- quote -- "our obligations to our fellow man." and as president, he is the one who should be showing to the american people why it is so

vital to our national interest to carry out our moral obligations to our fellow man. our policies should be determined by the realities of the moment, not by today's isolationism dictated by the past. the war in afghanistan -- the wars in afghanistan and iraq has nothing to do with how we carry out our responsibilities today. and let there be no mistake, we have a responsibility to stop genocide when we see it happening, as in syria. "never again" should mean something. whether or not we are paralyzed by war weariness. of course we'd all like to see the slaughter of syria's innocent men, women and children be stopped by diplomacy and through nonviolent means. we all want an end to the violence and we all want to believe that a political solution is possible. but there are only two ways to end the violence.

one is for all parties to put down their weapons, something that president bashar assad and his iranian partners are clearly unwilling to do, as they believe a military solution is possible. so that leaves us with only one other option -- to neutralize the party dedicated to the slaughter of innocents and force it to put down their guns. there are options to achieve this goal that fall far short of putting boots on the ground. we do not need to concede and allow genocide to continue or to go to war to prevent it. there are steps inbetween that the united states, along with our international partners, can take to stand by our international commitments and guarantees of protection. president assad has already shown that u.n. resolutions mean nothing to him and he has no intention of negotiating his departure through the geneva

process. it is clear that military pressure is the only lever that will convince assad that a political solution is in his favor. we must be ready to prove to assad that not achieving a diplomatic solution will cost his regime dearly. and there are meaningful actions we can take to help in syria that will not require us to re-run the war in iraq. it is not a question of options or capabilities. it is a question of will. there's a famous quote that states, "all tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain sile silent." as we sit back and place our hopes on negotiations and meaningless guarantees of protection, we watch as hundreds of innocent men, women and children are brutally slaughtered every day, very invigorated al qaeda affiliates operate with more freedom than

ever before, terrorist groups loyal to iran proliferate and threaten our allies, and the region descends into chaos and turmoil that will inevitably reverberate back here in the united states of america. this is the price we will pay for choosing to remain disengaged and the consequences to u.s. national interest will be felt. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the reuters story entitled "assad says fighting largely over by the end of the year," a statement by the former russian prime minister, assad strengths and allies and unlike yanukovych he has practically no internal enemies. he has a consolidated cleanse team, et cetera. i also ask unanimous consent that the statement entitled "has ballah confident in assad: west resigned to syria stalemate" be

included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: and assad's -- i won't include it in the record but there's an interesting article, "syria's assad secure, will seek reelection," that statement by the hezbollah leader. and to show i think the really incredible, incredible naivete, there's an article in "the washington post" by secretary entitled "kerry: u.s. strike in syria wouldn't be devastating." the secretary of state says, "it would not have had a devastating impact by which he had to recalculate because it wasn't going to last that long, kerry told the foreign relations committee. here we are going to have one or two days to degrade and send a message. we came up with a better solution." we came up with a better solution? we came up with a better

solution. the president of the united states said that if bashar assad crossed the red line and used chemical weapons, we would act. he announced that we would act. our allies knew we were going to act. then he took a walk with his national security advisor and said he was going to go to congress. meanwhile, senator kerry, in a bizarre, incredible act, issued a statement that any attack on syria would be -- quote -- "incredibly small." that's -- that's -- it's remarkable. and finally, i say -- and i see my colleagues here -- our consciences should be shocked but they're not. we get kind of immune to day after day after day of these various reports of the slaughter that's going on. look at -- look at the situation in syria three years ago and look at it today.

150,000 dead, millions displac displaced, entry of jihadist fighters from all over the wor world, the continued brutal bombing with -- with barrel bombs, which slaughter innocent men, women and children, and our secretary of state says, well, it wouldn't have been much if we would have struck them anyway. this is a shameful chapter in american history, i say to my colleagues. histor -- historians and future generations will judge them harshly and future generations and younger generations may have to pay the price for our inaction and our neglect of our basic human values. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. manchin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: madam president, i want to thank my good friend,

senator pat toomey from pennsylvania. i'm from west virginia. we're working together on this vital issue to make sure our kids remain safe in every single school across this country. i am a father of three, a grandfather of eight and there is nothing more important to me than protecting my children and grandchildren. the bill senator toomey and i are working on is just common sense. our bill makes sure that all employees who work with our students pass a background check to make sure they have no criminal records or an abusive history. that includes everyone from principals, teachers, secretaries, cafeteria workers and janitors, anybody that has contact with our schoolkids. this is a real problem that demands our attention and demands it now. since january 1, 130 teachers across america have been arrested for sexual misconduct. at this rate, that is more than one teacher per day who will sexually assault a student.

as a parent, grandparent and a representative of the great state of west virginia inaction is unacceptable. there are four million teachers and school staff throughout the united states and there are millions of additional workers who have direct access to students, including bus drivers, cafeteria workers and janitors. and yet, there is no -- i repeat -- there is no national background check policy in place for people who work directly with our kids every day. even worse, not all states require checks of child abuse in neglect registries or section offender registry checks. a report by the government accountability office found that five states -- five states don't even require background checks at all for applicants seeking employment in our school system. in addition, not all states use state and federal sources of criminal data like a state law enforcement data base or the f.b.i.'s interstate identification index.

our bill would simply require mandatory background checks of state criminal registry, state child abuse and neglect registries and f.b.i. fingerprint check and a check of the national sex offender registry for existing and prospective employees. madam president, every child deserves to have at least one place where they feel safe and harm cannot enter their life. for many of our kids these days, that place is at school, not always in the home. this is truly just a commonsense bill that aims to help protect our kids from sexual assault, predators or any individuals who inappropriately behave in our schools. madam president, this is a piece of legislation that is long overdue. it is not an unfunded mandate. i know there are some people that will say that. the reason i'm saying it is not an unfunded mandate is because the people that want the employment have to pay. they have to pay for the background check if they want in

the system. and i know that there's a part in this piece of legislation that says that if a person has been an offender, that they have to be raoeblted for five -- rehabilitated for five years and be clean, have a clean record for five years before they can get in the system. i think that's just common sense. i would like for all my colleagues, if they would, to please consider this legislation. and again, i appreciate the hard work of my colleague, senator pat toomey. at this time i would like to yield time to mr. toomey. mr. toomey: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: thank you, madam president. i want to thank my colleague from west virginia, senator manchin, for his terrific efforts on this legislation. i also want to thank our other cosponsors, senator mcconnell and senator inhofe, for their support as well. the tragic story that inspired this bill has a connection to my state of pennsylvania and senator manchin's state of west

virginia. so it made it kind of a natural, natural for us to work together on this. it's a terrible story indeed, madam president. i just want to summarize it because it goes to the heart of why i'm here this morning. the story begins in delaware county, pennsylvania, where one of the schoolteachers was found to have molested several boys and raped one. prosecutors decided there was not enough evidence to actually press charges, but the school knew what had happened so they dismissed the teacher for this outrageous behavior. shockingly and so disturbingly, the school also helped this teacher to get a new job so that they could just pass him along and let him become someone else's problem. it happened that the new job was in west virginia, and the school even went so far as to send a letter of recommendation for this monster to get that job in west virginia, which he did get

and became a teacher, then a school principal, and while there he raped and murdered a 12-year-old boy named jeremy bell in west virginia. justice finally eventually caught up with that teacher. he's now in jail. he's serving a life sentence for that murder. but for jeremy bell, of course, the justice came way too late. jeremy bell's father decided he would not rest until he had done everything he possibly could to minimize the chance that any other child or parent would ever experience a similar tragedy. roy bell is the name of jeremy's dad. he worked with congress to create protections for children to ensure that they would not be victimized at school. and the house of representatives responded. in october of last year the house unanimously passed the protecting students against sexual and violent predators act. unfortunately, there too -- they too were too late.

jeremy's dad passed away a few days before the vote. but it passed the house, passed unanimously in the house. and now here we are in the senate with a chance to pass the same bill so that it can become law. it's a bipartisan bill. it's a bill that i introduced with senator manchin. it's a bill that has other cosponsors. and i know there's some folks who say, well, let's wait. we need more time. madam president, i say we've had enough waiting. we've waited too long. let me explain why we shouldn't wait another day. i'll start with two numbers. the first number, madam president, is 130. senator manchin mentioned this number. since january 1 of this year, 130 teachers have been arrested across america for sexual misconduct with children. that's more than one teacher every day. and these are the ones who have been caught. how many more are happening? the stories are just absolutely

heartbreaking. a teacher's aide who undressed and sexually assaulted a mentally disabled abtpwaous in his care. a child whose abuse began at age 10 and at age 17 found herself pregnant with a teacher's child. a special education kindergarten girl forced to go shirtless in a class. these things are just, it's just unbelievable. but every day that we delay, we delay rooting out one of these predators. the other number i want to share with you, madam president, is the number 73. according to the g.a.o., the general accounting government accountability office, the average pedestrian fire molests -- pedophile molests 73 children over the course of a lifetime. these predators are very devious, clever and smart. what they do is they go where the potential victims are.

where are there potential victims for a pedophile? what better place than a school. they go from school to school, school district to school district, and every day that we delay, we increase the risk that a predator is moving on to the next of his 73 victims. what can we do, madam president? here's what our bill does. our bill, the protecting students from sexual and violent predators act, is an important first step. it would require mandatory background checks for existing and prospective employees and then require that the checks be periodically repeated, the timing of which would be left to the discretion of the states. there are five states that do not require checks at all. it would -- the bill would also check to make sure all employees or contractors who have unsupervised contact with the children would be subject to this background check. not just teachers. coaches, school bus drivers, anybody who has unsupervised contact with the kids. there are 12 states that don't require that now. and we'd require a more thorough

background check, for instance, in pennsylvania there is a background check requirement but if you've lived in the state for more than two years, it does not require a background check on the federal criminal data base, and we know these people move across state lines. a fourth and really important piece is that our bill forbids what has sadly developed its own name: passing the trash. this idea, this practice unfortunately of actually recommending the predator to another job in another school or another state so as to get rid of the problem and let him become someone else's. it's so disturbing, it's hard to imagine that anyone would do this, but we know it happens. we know it happens. and a given state doesn't have the power to prevent some school district in another state from doing exactly this, as happened in the case of jeremy bell. there's a list of folks that under our legislation a school simply would not be able to hire. that would be anyone ever convicted of any violent or

sexual crime against a child. i think that makes a lot of sense. and there are certain felonies that would preclude a person from being hired. homicide, child abuse or neglect, rape or sexual assault and a few others. in addition, a person who was convicted within the last five years of a felony, physical sexuality -- assault or battery. the enforcement mechanism we have is withholding the funds of the sea which would be inducements to the states for adoption this requirement. this passed the house unanimously. there was not a single objection in the house. it has bipartisan support here in the senate. the child -- various child advocacy groups are fully in support. the national children's alliance, the children's defense fund, the national center for missing and exploited children,

prosecutor associations, the association of prosecuting attorneys, the pennsylvania district attorneys association, both fully endorse this legislation. teachers groups, the american federation of teachers, the pennsylvania school boards association; i forget how many former teachers in the house, i think it was 19 or so, all of whom vote ford this bill in the house. and i'm willing to venture that the overwhelming majority of the american people would support this effort to keep our kids as safe as we can. i would also stress there is nothing radical about these proposals. in the senate, we just passed a very, very similar background check requirement in the child care development block grant legislation where we insist on very, very, almost identical background checks for employees of day cares. that makes perfect sense to me. it's a good step. it is very likely to help protect children in our day cares. but why in the world would we protect the kids in day care and

not provide comparable protection for kids who have gone on to later grades? so, madam president, this is a bipartisan commonsense bill. it has passed the house unanimously. this is our opportunity to pass it in the senate and send it to the president for his signature. i think it's a moral imperative that we do this to protect these kids t. didn't come soon enough for jeremy bell, and sadly every day we learn that there are more victims. but now is a time that we can act. so, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the help committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 1596 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president, i object. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa.

mr. harkin: madam president, i certainly favor the goals of this legislation, and the senators would remember we passed a child-care bill that included many of the same background checks for child-care employees. those provisions were negotiated between democrats and republicans on our committee to address issues that were raised about the implementation of any federally prescribed background checks for child-care settings. we would like to undertake a similar context in the k-12 process to ensure any concerns be they raised by either side be addressed. that's what the committee process is for. what the senator from pennsylvania is asking for in his bill will have an impact on nearly every public school in this country and every employee. not just teachers. not just teachers that might have unsupervised access to children. that requires us to do some due diligence. so i don't want anyone to

misunderstand me. i'm twoeulg work with the senator from -- i'm willing to work with the senator from pennsylvania and others on this legislation, but i do believe we need to take a closer look at it, talking with relevant stakeholder states, school districts, employees about the bill and perhaps some unintended y we were able to do that in the child care bill. i believe we'll be able to achieve similar success with the senator from pennsylvania's legislation. and i am ready and willing to engage with the senator and his staff and his office in that process. i yield the floor. mr. alexander: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: madam president, i support the senator from iowa and his request that this bill go to the committee. we do a lot of talking in the republican caucus about the importance of taking important legislation at least to committee, if not to the floor, so it can be amended and

considered, and this is certainly important legislation. all of us would agree on that. the senator from pennsylvania, the senator from west virginia deserve a lot of credit for bringing this terrible story to our attention and proposing that we address it. and i think that we -- i think that we should. but the way we do that here, when we do it appropriately, is that we take it to the committee and we see if it -- and see if anyone has a better idea. my own idea, which would be my second reason for hoping that it goes to the committee, is that i think it poses an important question to the senate about whether we want to constitute yourselves as a national school board, bu because that is in fat what we would be dpog w doing ie pass this law. there are in our country 100,000

elementary and secondary schools. they all have a principal. a. they all have they all have . and that principal is in charge of those employees in that school. and what this bill is about is what kind of criminal background check should a school employee have? well, what is the principal supposed to do? does the principal not have any accountability about this? can the principal just say, oh, that's the job of a united states senator; i don't have to worry about that? there are 14,000 local school boards in west virginia and tennessee and iowa and pennsylvania and all of our other states. what is the responsibility of the local school board when it comes to the question of the qualifications of a teacher, when it comes to the questions of the health and safety of the students? idoes the local school board sa, well, i don't have to worry about that too much because the united states senate will define

for us what the safety ought to be in our local public schools? there are 50 governors, madam president. i used to be one of them. so did the distinguished senator from west virginia. i got pretty tired of people flying to washington and thinking they're the only ones that had any sense of responsibility for the public school students of tennessee. in fact, i felt like that the more washington intruded into making decisions that we should be maying fobe making for our se less responsibility we felt for those decisions and the less effect -- for ourselves, the less responsibility we felt for those decisions and the less effective we did our jobs. i remember a bill called the gun-free schools act. it wrenches our heart every time

we see those. the congress said, we'll fix it. and the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional because they said it exceeded the commerce clause, that in effect it wasn't washington's job; it was the job of somebody else. and, madam president, i would submit that the safety in our schools is the job of the parents in those schools, of the principal in that school, of the community that supports that school, of the local school board, of the supporting organizations, of the governor and the legislature, and if they can pretend that they can kick that responsibility up to washington, why, i think that's wrong. i think that's not our constitutional framework in the united states. we give those responsibilities locally. now, the senator from iowa and i have a terrific relationship and ideological differences on many occasions, and i've spent the whole morning debating with him about whether his proposal for

early childhood education was a proposal to, in effect, create a national school board for early childhood education. he was making basically the same argument that's being made here. he was saying, if we're going to give money from washington for early childhood education, we have a responsibility to define how it's spent. and as a result of that, among the proposals was the extent of what the teachers' salaries should be. so if we can define what criminal background checks ought to be in maryville, tennessee, public schools, we can define what the teachers' salaries ought to be. if we can decide what the safety ought to be, we can decide what the maximum class size out to be, we can decide what the length of the school day ought to be and what kind of vision screenings should be. whether the children are fed

well is important as well. are we going to kick that up to the united states senate and say, you set the levels for that. physical activity -- the senator has been a champion for physical activity his whole career. i think that's the job of the community. professional development for staff. if we can decide about criminal background checks, we can decide about that as well. how about academic standards and curricula? there is in the state of tennessee and many other states a near rebellion over the so-called common core standards. they're about higher standards for children who need to learn more. the problem with them is washington got involved, and people in our state and many states don't like national school boards and washington control of public schools. so i think we should stop and think about this. i would prefer to see the

government in washington act as an enabler of states and local school boards rather than a mandator. i would like to see us take this teaterrific focus that the senar from west virginia has put on the importance of background checks and make it easier for states and local school boards to search a local registry, a fingerprint-based f.b.i. criminal history, a search of national sex offender registry. 46 states already have some form of this. are twee say that we know better than they -- are we to say that we know better than they? if we are, what does at that say about our entire structure of public education? and whether we might just say to the local school boards, disband, we don't need you to make decisions about the safety of the school; we'll do it in washington. we don't need you to decide

about standards and curriculum; keewe'll do that we're. i think we should take this and take it to the committee and make it easier and more important for local school boards and principals -- all 100,000 principals, all 14,000 school beard beards, all 50 ste legislatures, and put the spotlight where it ought to be. if you want a gun-free school zone, put the spotlight on the school and the community around it. if you want to have a criminal background check so you keep predators out of schools, put the spotlight on the principal, the school board and the community around it. that's the way to effectively do it. that's the way to respect our federal system of government and our constitutional framework. and, madam president, that's the way to avoid creating a national

school board. so i look forward to working with the senator from iowa, the senator from west virginia and pennsylvania. this is an important idea. i'd like to see it become law, but i'd like for our government in washington to be more of an enabler of local school districts, of principals, than a mandator from washington. thank you. mr. toomey: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: needless to say, i am extremely disappointed that we find ourselves here at this impasse with nothing accomplished, and who knows how long it will take to get something accomplished. i would point out that the senate -- i think it was just last week -- voted for nearly identical background check language in the child-care development block grant. we voted for this. this was the language that was vetted by this committee. you know, if it is vital to keep kidsive ikids safe in a day carh

i think -- why isn't it just as vital to keep kids for the rest of the day, or their older siblings safe? i don't think we need to go through the committee to do that. this is the 16th background check bill that's been naffed in the house or senat that's been introduced in the house or senate since 2009. the committees had five years to afnlgt the committees had five amongsts that they could have taken up this bill at any time and marked it up and moved it through the process. they didn't do this. as far as, you know, using the committee process, generally i'm a fan of going through the committee. but let's not pretend that that's the way we normally operate around here. there are 27 bills that have received floor consideration without going through committee at all, seven under the jurisdiction of this committee. last congress there were 42 bills that received floor votes without going through committee. let's be candid. in just the last week or s so ad

looking forward another week or two, we've got more legislation that is under the jurisdiction of this committee -- whether it is paycheck fairness or minimum-wage bill, that' those e under the jurisdiction of this committee. they're political-statement bills. it's more important to get bills that are political statements to the senate floor than it is legislation that could actually be signed to protect kids from violent predators? this seems to be a very, very misordering of priorities to me, madam president, and to my colleague, for whom i have a great deal of respect and generally find myself in agreement with but on this issue, i have to disagree with the senior senator from tennessee, this is not a mandate on the states. our enforcement mechanism -- if a state chooses not to develop the background checks that we have put into this bill, then we would withhold the esea funding.

that's not insignificant, but it leaves it up to the state to decide. if you want to take federal money, we think kids ought to be safe in the school. if you disagree with the background checks, okay, then you don't have to take this funding. and the supreme court, by the way, has agreed that this does not represent coercion; it does not amount to coercion when it is on the scale. the second point i would make in this regard, part of this legislation, i think, absolutely requires federal legislation. as i mentioned briefly in my comments earlier, the fact that this -- this all originated from a case where a school in one state sent a letter of recommendation to a school in another state for one of these monsters to be hired. i don't know how the school, frankly, in the state where this person ended up could have prevented that from happening. but federal legislation can prevent that. and i think it should. i think it should. so, madam president, i'm deeply disappointed that we're not able to move on this today.

i hope we will be able to soon. i think my colleague from west virginia had a point that he wanted to make, so i will yield the floor. mr. manchin: madam president, i just want to thank first of all my colleague from pennsylvania, senator toomey. i also want to thank the senator from tennessee, whom i also have the greatest regard for. and also the senator from iowa. but you can tell this is very serious and very personal to both of us. our states were affected. but every state has been affected. all we have asked for -- i am not in favor of a national school board, no way, shape, or form. i believe in states' rights, but i believe with that certain starnts d standards have tstande

have done that on a national level. there are five problems to every child in america. first is every child should have a loving, caring adult in their life. that's not always the biological parents or family. it could be you, it could be something next door, it could be an extended family member. every child shoul should have ae place in their life. unfortunately, it's not always the home. it might be the school. every child should have a healthy start, a healthy start -- nutrition. that's mostly given at the schools. for many children across america, their breakfast and lunch comes from the school. every child should be taught to have a livable skill, a livable skill. again, that's in the school. we depend upon that. and the fifth thing, which is the hardest to teach, is is that every child should grow to be a loving, caring adult and be able to give back. that's set by us. we set the standards for that. a child will emulate what they

see. and if they love it and respect it, they'll do it. for us to say that we don't believe that raising to a federal standard the well-being and safety of every child in the school system guaranteeing that the person that's going to be teaching them, nurturing them, taking them to school, feeding them has a clean background check, is not a child molester, is the least we can dovment that'-- is theleast we can do. i hope it will get the attention it needs. i am very disappointed that we can't move it forward. that precedent has been set and it's been articulated by the senator from pennsylvania. i hope both the ranking members and chairman of the help committee would reconsider and take another look at it. thank you, madam chair. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i'm in support of moving it back to committee, moving it back to the floor. i'll make my argument in committee. i may win, i may lose.

but, you know, i've thought about that gun-free school zone act for more than 20 years, and i thought about it from the point of view of a parent and as a governor. and i said in the health, education, and labor, pension committee -- it has conservative republicans on one side and liberal democrats on the other. and i spend most of my day trying to argue my liberal democratic friends out of their good ideas that they want to impose on every local school district in america. there is a moral imperative to have an academic standard. there is a moral imperative to have physical education. there is a moral imperative to have breakfast. there is a moral imperative to help a disabled child. there is a moral imperative to do all of these things. we all feel that. but just because we spend 8% of the money up here doesn't mean we should substitute our judgment for the local school board and the principal who is accountable to that community for the safety of each child. we ought to think about that

before we start assuming these responsibilities here. because if we pass this law and lead people to think that we've solved the problem and another problem happens, then who's accountable for that? the local principal? the local school board? the governor? no. maybe it's the united states senate because we took it upon ourselves to say we're the ones who are going to say to the parents, we've kept your child safe. we should enable parents. we should enable schools. we should enable local school districts to create safe schools, effective schools with high standards, give parents choices of schools with good teachers. but we shouldn't mandate it from washington. that's my, that's my argument. i would like for that to be considered here when we think about the extent to which we ought to say to a local school board that we're going to define for you what a criminal background check is for the

people you hire in your school. so i'll pledge to work it as rapidly as senator harkin can move it through the committee. i'll make my argument and we will come to a conclusion. i appreciate the senator from pennsylvania and west virginia putting a focus on such an important issue, and i look forward to a speedy conclusion to the debate and a passage of an appropriate bill. i just hope it enables instead of mandates. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: madam president, one year ago i rose to speak in this chamber. i rose with a heart heavy with mourning and yet filled with gratitude because one year ago cowards set off bombs in our

pwhrofpbd marathon trying -- beloved boston marathon but boston responded with courage. today i rise to commemorate the anniversary of the boston marathon bombing and to celebrate the strength and character of the people of boston. one year ago terror knocked on boston's door. it was not just the momentary terror of smoke and sound, but the terror of uncertainty and speculation, the terror of siege and lockdown. such terrors can break a people's spirit. they seek to do no less. but boston was fearless. our first responders, our protectors and investigators, our heroes, our citizen heroes, our families, our friends, and our neighbors, we did not waiver. in that moment when all the world had its eyes upon us, we responded with a pride of

defiance, not a fear. scripture says be brave, be strong. let all that you do be done with love. in the last year we have seen what bravery and strength and love can do. friends and family, classmates and teachers have come together to keep alive the memories of chris cal campbell, lu ling zha and sean callierd and to celebrate their lives and promise they will live on in our hearts. prosecutors have ensured justice impartial and fair but with righteous conviction and an unwavering sense of purpose. healers and neighbors, friends and family have restored life and energy to those who thought it lost, and in doing so have felt their own spirits lift. inventors and doctors have returned a ballroom dancer back to the dance floor and helped

children run and play, focus not on what they have lost but on what they can do next. families have rejoiced with graduations and birthdays, with weddings and children, with the sweet hest -- sweetest and most hopeful moments of life. we have found when you are united in community bravery and love can heal the body and restore the spirit. 100 years after the original patriots day of 1775, an orator celebrating the anniversary of the first battles of the revolutionary war told the people of massachusetts that our common liberty is consecrated by a common sorrow. from time to time as a community and as a country, we are reminded of this wisdom through the awful grace of god. our common tragedies and

sufferings unite us as one people and that unity brings with it strength and courage and ultimately renews our commitment to liberty. now with the strength of one boston still with us, we look ahead to justice that has yet to be served, to healing that remains to be done, to a future of achievements, of celebrations and of memories. may god bless those we have lost. may he inspire those who survived to carry forward. may he keep our community united in bravery and strength and love. and may he always watch over the people of boston, of massachusetts, and of the united states of america. thank you, madam president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. murphy: are we in a quorum? woeup we -- the presiding officer: we are. mr. murphy: i'd ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you, madam president. a new announcement today from the secretary of health and human services that 7.5 million people have signed up for private health care exchanges by virtue of the affordable care act. the initial estimates from c.b.o. last fall were that in the best case, about six million people were going to sign up. we have he blown through that enrollment expectation, and still on this floor and in committee hearings as recently as this morning republicans continue to criticize and critique this law with blistering attacks not because they have data on their side, not because they have evidence on their saoeurbgsd -- side, but

because their entire electoral strategy for the fall depends on an assault of the affordable care act. the problem, madam president, is that increasingly day by day, as more information comes out about the life-changing, life-altering success of this law, there just is not the evidence to back up the claim from the republicans that the affordable care act isn't working. in fact, the reason why a new "washington post" poll shows that for the first time more americans support the affordable care act rather than oppose it is because they know that the affordable care act is working. and yet, my good friends, representative paul ryan, says that despite seven million people signing up for the law -- quote -- "the architecture of this law is so fundamentally flawed that i think it is going to collapse under its own weight." one of our own colleagues here said i don't think the seven million enrollment figure means anything. they're cooking the books on

this. conservative columnist charles krauthammer says the 7.1 million enrollment figure was a phony number and all the changes in delays, that must mean that the majority of the law is already on its way out. that's the story that republicans are telling here in washington, but our constituents in democratic states and republican states are telling a very different story. so, madam president, i just want to talk about the numbers for a second because data can be a pretty tricky thing when it gets in the way of your political argument. and as one of our former colleagues from new york said -- and i'm par phrasing -- we're all entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. here they are. this is a percentage in the united states by quarter. this is 2008, essentially the beginning of the recession. as you would expect over the course of the recession, the numbers of insured in this

country rises from 14.5% up to a peak of 18%. guess what happens when it hits the peak? the affordable care act goes into operation. the affordable care act begins to be implemented. and in a very short period of time from the beginning of enrollment until the end of the first period of enrollment being march 31, the number goes from 18% unshourd to 15 -- uninsured to 15.6% uninsured, a remarkable decrease over a very short period of time that can only be explained by the fact that seven million people now have access to private health care insurance and another three million people have access to medicaid and another three million people on top of that have access to insurance on their parents' plan. when you look at what's happened to young people over a similar period of time, you can see the same dynamic playing out. this is the rate of uninsured of

18 to 25-year olds in this country. here they are at 28%. i mean, how on earth in the most affluent, most powerful country in the world did we ever allow for more than a quarter of our young people to be uninsured? but we were at 28.4% and when the affordable care act was passed and the first provision went into effect, it allowed people who were under 26 to stay on their parents' plan. then look, the number starts to move downward. it is a pretty consistent downward slope, moves from 28 to about 24. then the a.c.a. plans start and the number, again, just like in the uninsured data for the population at large drops again from 24 down to 21. 28% at the passage of the law. 21.7% today. and other studies show the same thing. this is survey data from gallop, which is generally the gold

standard on tracking the rate of uninsured in the country. but we also have a rand study that was done. this is a very well-known consulting study, that said from the period of september of last year until mid-march, 9.3 million people who were uninsured became insured. so when republicans say that this data doesn't tell you the true story because these are all people just shifting from one plan to another, that's not true. the rand study tells us that 9.3 million people who were uninsured became insured. the rand study also says that 7.2 million people got access to employer-based insurance that didn't have it previously. and that data doesn't even include the surge of enrollment at the end of march. the rand study only brings us up to about mid-march. and so this is the real story. this is what the numbers and the

data tells us. that people are getting access to insurance for the first time ever, that the affordable care act isn't just shifting people from one insurance plan to another insurance plan. it's actually having a remarkable effect on the number of insured in this country. now i'm not suggesting that this trend line is going to continue along that axis. but, boy, if the next couple years looks anything like the first six months, the affordable care act plans being available to people, we're going to see just a revolution in this country in terms of the number of people who are outside of our health care system. and yet, madam president, this week the 52nd, 53rd, 54th vote to repeal the affordable care act in the house of representatives. you and i sat through probably about 40 of those votes and another one today.

a budget presented again by representative paul ryan that would take away insurance from 7 million people who now have it, that would take away medicaid coverage from 3 million more people that have it, that would repeal a law that has provided $9 billion in savings for seniors when they're in the doughnut hole -- $9 billion; that's big number, hard to comprehend -- would return that money to the drug industry, by the way, because that's where it came from. doesn'the way we close the doughnut hole is by asking the drug companies to put up some money to help seniors. but of course irony of all ironies, the iryan budget, while repealing all the provisions that have provided insurance to over 10 million people and discounted health care for millions more, the irony of all ironies is that the ryan bucket would keep in place

-- budget would keep in place the $716 billion in medicare savings that republicans and outside groups have hammered democrats for supporting over the course of the last five years. over and over again we have been told that we are just killing medicare advantage by asking medicare advantage to run their insurance plans for the same costs that medicare charges. and yet despite all of the rhetoric, the republican budget in the house would keep in place all of the medicare cuts that they have been running against outside of this building. madam president, what our constituents know is that despite bumps in the road, the affordable care act works. anyone you reorder one-sixth of the american economy, you are going to have problems, you are going to have people who are

going to be unhappy. but the reality is that we had for decades the most expensive health care system in the world times two compared to any other industrialized nation, and we're gettin$and were getting resultst didn't measure up to what we were getting u rates of infant inmortality. we had to make a change. and 54 votes in the house of representatives to repeal the bill, not a single effort to replace it. that tells you that it's been democrats who have been willing to step up to the plate and do the tough reform mes necessary o make changes that were 100 years overdue and the numbers just don't lie in the end. i get it that republicans think that they can win an election by continuing to hammer away at the

affordable care act, but there are 7.5 million people who now have private health care, there are 3 million people who now have being a ssess to medicaid, there are 3 million more young adults who can stay on their plans. rand, gallup tell us that the number of people without insurance in this country is absolutely plummeting by the day. all of that is evidence that despite the best intentions from our republicans to undermine the law, the a.c.a. works. i'd yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. murphy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut p. mover i ask that wmr. murphy: il off the quorum call. officer without objection. mr. murphy: skilled that brie an windsec, a detailee from governor warner's office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. reed: madam prese

senator from rhode island. mr. reed: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the calling of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. reed madamr. reed: madam presid, it's a been 103 days since the emergency unemployment insurance expired and three days since we sent a bill to the house that would restore these benefits for 2.3 million americans. these benefits are fully paid ford and lift up the entire economy. and that's why the nonpartisan congressional budget office has estimated that failing to renew the benefits for a full year would cost the economy 200,00000 jobs. we recognize our bill is a partial restoration, not a full year, but this restoration that we propose will increase jobs in the economy, as ahe tested for by c.b.o. unfortunately, it thapts house has no intent to take up the

senate-passed amendment to restore these benefits before they leave town for two weeks. that's right. if the house fails to pass what the senate has passed on a bipartisan vote -- and this was a bipartisan, fiscally responsible measure and particularly in the light of the speaker talking about job creation -- they'll be rejecting a portion of those 200,000 new jobs projected by the congressional budget office, which is headed by their own appointee. and so contrary to the criticism that our proposal does not create jobs, doesn't do anything for jobs, it does. and more importantly, it restores benefits to people who are desperately looking for work in a very difficult economy and who need these benefits to keep searching for work, as well as supporting their families. so, the failure to act, in my

view, is not defensive. restoring these benefits is the right thing to do for job seek,and the smart thing to do for our economy. the very modest $300-a-week modest benefit which our bill restores helps workers stay afloat and covers the necessitienecessaryas they sear. that modest benefit gets pouched right back in the economy like the local supermarket or gas station. it is common sense. people will get this, i hope, this benefit, and they will go right along and take care of the daily needs of life. they're not in a position to stash it away, and they are not in a position to do anything. they will try to stay afloat in very difficult financial circumstances. unemployment remains stubbornly high in my state and across the united states. the march employment report, while positive, show that we still have much more to do to strengthen our economic recovery, especially for