day with general speeches, and in about an hour will turn to debate on a bill to expand hunting and fishing on federal lands. amendment negotiations are underway off the floor. no votes have been scheduled in the senate so far. and now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. be exalted, o god, above the highest heavens, for we look to you each day for our protection and peace.

fulfill your purposes by using our senators as agents of your grace. lord, surround them with your favor, as their habes bring honor to you. deliver them from the traps set by their enemies. give them hearts filled with confidence in your prevailing providence, sustaining them with your unfailing faithfulness and love. we pray in your great name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the

pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, i just by chance last night was reading a book, and it had a page in there -- a speech that was given by john mccain, our fellow senator. what senator mccain talked about was some of his experiences in the prison camp in vietnam, where a man by the name of mike christian had spent an inordinate amount of time sewing on the inside of the

pajama-like outfit they gave him had wear. he put a flag inside his jacket, his shirt. and this jacket was discovered -- the flag was discovered by the prison officials, and he was beaten really very, very much. he was beaten severely. and of course they ripped that out of his coat. we take for granted our saluting the flag. we come in here and we do it every morning, we stand and do t and i a i'm not so sure we shout think a little more when we salute the flag. i'm going to bring that from home, and i'm going to put it in the congress copping for ive to sigh -- in the "congressional record" for everybody to see, what people who have been -- for

example, senator mccain was in prison for five and a half queers. -- for five and a half years. as we know, on many different occasions he was tortured. so when john mccain salutes the flag and when mike christian, a fellow pilot, he was actually a navigator on the airplane -- when fellow airmen salute the flag, it means a lot. so i'll put that in the record tomorrow. i read that last night late. i thought, you know, when we salute that flag, we should think about it more thain than m sure we do all the time. mr. president, i would note that following my remarks and those of the republican leader, the senate will be in a period of morning business for an hour. the majority will control the first 30 minutes, the republicans will control the final 30 minutes.

following that morning business, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 2363, the bipartisan sportsmen's act, postcloture. senate will recess from 12:30 to 2 fiv:15 today. the ask that the majority leader control the time from 2:15 to 3:15. and the republicans control the time from 3:15 to 4:15. the presiding officer: there objection? without objection. mr. reid: it is no secret that the senate as of late has been beset by partisan rancor and obstruction. one republican filibuster and then another and then another and still other filibusters. that's why the legislation that is before us today represents a rare opportunity for the senate, a chance for this body to complete work on a bill that enjoys broad, bipartisan support. senator kay hagan's sportsmen's bill is popular with democrats

and republicans around the country and for good reason. 40 million americans who hunt and fish stand to benefit. thithis combines some 20 bills important to the sport sportsmes industry. mr. president, in nevada over 200,000 people hunt and fish every year. it is good for tourism. people come to nevada to hunt for game, antelope, elk, bighorn mountain sheep, big horn desert sheep, mr. president. we have wonderful fishing. we don't have a lot of lakes and rivers, but what we have is really terrific. flag fishmen come from around the country to fish in nevada.

to nevada, it is a $1 billion industry. i was talking to my friend, the senator from colorado, senator bennet, and senator bennet said today that in colorado it's a $4 billion industry. i would bet even as a heavily populated state like new jersey, i bet there is a lot of hunting and fishing that goes on there that's good for the industry. senator hagan's bill foster's hunting and fishing. because of her efforts, her bill is sponsored by 25 republicans and 19 democrats. this legislation also enjoys the support of more than 50 national sportsmen and conservation groups all over this country. as benjamin disraleli said, "the

secret of success is to be ready when your opportunity comes." this bill is ready. the opportunity is now. now is the time to consider and pass this legislation. our success in moving this legislation will depend on the cooperation of all senators putting aside political games and disputes over amendments in order to pass a bill that will benefit millions of americans. this is a bill that is as much a republican bill as it is a democratic bill. so why should this bill be killed for procedural reasons? a bill that they worked on for many, many years. so i'm hopeful that through bipartisan support we can get this bill over the finish line, as we were able to do with the child care and development block grant earlier this year and the workforce and innovation act just a few weeks ago. i ask my colleagues to respect the hard work of those who put

this measure before us and allow this measure to pass and quickly.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: just for the information of my friend from vermont, we had anticipated after my remarks going to the comments of senator alexander and senator corker in connection with the life of senator howard baker, and so i'd like to ask consent at this point that the senator from tennessee follow my remarks on senator baker. the president pro tempore: reserving the right to object -- and i shall not, of course, because as i told the president in vermont last week, i had the privilege of serving with more than ten leaders in both parties

since i've been here. it is impossible to find a finer leader than howard baker. i considered him a senator's senator and one of the finest people i've ever served with, so of course i will wait. and i'd ask to amend the conseno amend the unanimous consent, that following the remarks of the minority leader, the two senators from tennessee, i then be recognized for my rather,. the presiding officer:ed leader'leader's -- will the lear modify his requests? without objection. mr. mcconnell: first, a few observations about obamacare. it may not have existed in the english language just a few years ago, but in short order it's become a word for broken promises and almost cartoonish inefficiency. it is no wonder why.

you can keep your plan, you can keep your doctor, premiums will go down, the law will create millions of jobs. we knew the promises wouldn't hold up. many of us said so. one even earned the dubious distinction of being declared "the lie of the year." that's why it's so hard to trust so much of what the obama administration claims about obamacare these days. like back in december when administration officials issued another promise, that they'd make sure that any taxpayer-funded obamacare subsidies would go only to enrollees who'd actually qualified for them under the law. we wanted this assurance not only because so many other promises had been broken, we wanted it because eligibility j.f.k. is so important --

verification is so important. middle-class taxpayers are feeling enough pain from this law already. they shouldn't have to subsidize inaccurate or even fraudulent obamacare claims on top of all the rest. so i've helped pass a law that required a nonpartisan watchdog to keep an eye on the procedures that the administration claimed would protect taxpayers to see how they were working and then report back to us, to congress. well, last week that watchdog, the inspector general, issued the first two reports on the issue, and it turns out we were pretty correct to be worried. the inspector general concluded that the administration was only -- was often ineffective at verifying such basic details about obamacare enrollees, as their citizen status, their income, their social security number, and whether or not they

were even eligible -- eligible -- to purchase obamacare in the first place. the administration, the inspector general reported, didn't even follow its own eligibility verification procedures in many cases. anthe inspector general also discovered nearly 3 million inconsistences in the information obamacare enrollees provided in their applications. nearly 90% of which couldn't even be resolved because the necessary software -- the necessary software wasn't even operational. it's completely ridiculous. and the administration is still struggling just to get a handle on the problem. computer systems that should have been ready to go last october have not been built yet. it iit is the kind of thing urda expect to see in a lesley nielsen movie, not in life. worse still, administration officials are indicating that they're going to keep chugging

ahead with their deeply flawed verification practices even after everything the government's own watchdog uncovered. many individuals enrolled with the current flawed enrollment process will automatically be enrolled for the same taxpayer subsidies next year. they're defiant -- defiant -- in the face of all this. well, this is precisely the kind of flippant attitude that's so infuriating many of our constituents. many predicted these problems would be the outcome of giving government such expansive power over a huge segment of our economy. of course you're going to have massive inefficiency and probable fraud and migraines for middle-class families that already have enough to deal with. of course you're going to have all this. it seems inevitable. that is why republicans say we need to start over with actual health care reform, reform that

can increase the access to care without resort to go this government centric approach. obamacare is built upon the lazy idea that we can build upon an outcome into existence, we can tell a hulking federal bureaucracy to bureaucracy -- bureaucratize health care into being. life doesn't work that way. reality intervenes, just as we've been seeing in washington the past few years, pain that will continue until democrats join with us to enact a serious bipartisan solution which dispenses with the failed policies of this administration. and yet, that's exactly the opposite of what we've seen from our friends on the other side so far. instead of working with us to solve massive problems like the ones the inspector general

identified, democrats here in washington are simply hiding from the issue altogether. they're trying to change the subject, even hinting at it prompts the democratic majority to shut down the legislative process altogether. they canceled committee markups, they blocked votes and amendments. they won't allow the senate to consider numerous bipartisan house-passed bills that would address some of obamacare's most glaring problems, even when a bipartisan group proposes a plan to address a flaw in the law that's reducing incomes for working families, they reject it. instead they schedule show votes designed to inflame one group or another. as for the president, he's traveling around the country this week to give campaign speeches, not working with congress to help middle-class families struggling under the weight of his policies. the democratic plans seems to be double down on the mess they created and hope americans can be distracted enough to forget about it come november.

if that's the plan, it's not going to work. middle-class americans know who has been standing by their side through this entire obamacare fiasco, who has been against them serving as a shield for the president and the hard left. it is not too late for democrats in washington to work with republicans to address the massive problem they created and if they truly care about the millions they hurt already with this law, it's time to do just that. now, mr. president, i want to pivot to another matter. the senators from tennessee and i had an opportunity a week ago today to attend the funeral of senator howard baker who led the senate republicans for eight years and was a truly wonderful american. actually it was just an honor to attend his funeral down in huntsville, tennessee, a town of

1,248 souls that senator baker often referred to as the senator of the known universe. it was a wonderful tribute and it carried a lot of lessons about the work we do here. senator corker was there too, and i'm sure he felt the same way. just before the funeral, he note that had senator baker was the kind of person who seemed to evoke wisdom in everything he did. i was glad to hear the two men got to spend some time together a few months before senator baker passed away. anyway, the real highlight of the funeral for me was the magnificent, absolutely magnificent eulogy by senator alexander. it captured not only the closeness of their friendship but also the qualities that made senator baker such an important figure. this morning i'd like to take just a moment to thank senator alexander for those thoughtful

words and at this point insert his eulogy into the record. i ask consent that that be done. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i'd like to share some of his observations about senator baker because, as i said, i think they're important, timely lessons about the purpose and potential of our service here. one of the things that stands out in all the tributes to senator baker, including senator alexander's, is the way in which he embodied the rare trait of taking himself lightly even as he took his duties seriously. i'll give you an example. one of the time-honored traditions around here is for new senators to labor over their maiden speeches as if pericles himself was standing in judgment from the presiding officer's chair. senator baker was no exception. his maiden speech was long,

thoughtful, and dense. so much so that when he asked his father-in-law, then-senate republican leader everett dirksen for his reaction, dirksen said in his remarks, "howard, howard, perhaps you should occasionally enjoy the luxury of an unexpressed thought." it was the kind of comment that might have stung a lesser senator, but as senator alexander pointed out in mentioning that last week, baker was a quick learner. about a week or so later, howard rose again, this time to challenge one of his democratic colleagues to a game of tennis. the senator in question had just taken a swipe at the vigor of his republican colleagues, particularly the new ones, and senator baker decided to rise to the challenge, tongue formerly

in cheek. it was a star performance. the senator that baker challenged even interrupted him at one point to suggest that it was one of the best maiden speeches that has ever been delivered in this chamber. evidently he had missed baker's actual maiden speech, but senator baker's legendary ability to adapt was now firmly established and it set the tone for a two-decade run in which he'd be called upon to deploy his many other talents and skills to defuse tensions, resolve conflicts, repair trust, build consensus, and, frankly, just to put people at ease. because sometimes in this business there's nothing more important than just that. to just keep the bearings oiled. we've all been recently reminded of how senator baker put his own ambitions aside to help rebuild

the reagan white house after iran-contra. it was a great testament to his values and to his feel for priorities. what senator alexander reminded us last week was that his former political rivals -- baker and reagan -- started every day in the white house together just telling each other a little story. they had no problem putting their past disputes behind them and building a close working friendship based on mutual respect, common purpose, love of country, and of course good humor. they were adults, busy about serious business, and they conducted that business with dignity and with grace. the larger point here is that while people talk a lot about the importance of having political skill in washington these days, the importance of

temperament can't be overstated. the way that senator baker conducted himself here and in the white house is he -- is eloquent testimony of that. it's not that he was laid back, as senator alexander put it, behind baker's pleasant demeanor was a restless ambition that would propel him to the heights of american politics and government for 40 years. but he could subordinate that ambition when he felt the moment or the country needed him to. he was persistent about achieving a result but never insisted that his way was the only way to do it. it's a quality that required an ability to listen. in baker's case that meant being an eloquent listener, a trait that senator alexander put above all the others in baker's formidable arsenal.

here's how senator baker himself once put it. it's a difference between hearing and understanding what people say. you don't have to agree but you have to hear what they've got to say. and if you do, the chances are much better you'll be able to translate that into a useful position and even useful leadership. and senator alexander pointed out howard baker had courage. he helped round up the votes to ratify the panama canal treaty, even though he must have known it wouldn't help him much in a republican primary for president, to put it mildly. and when the integrity of our politics was at stake, he didn't hesitate to take on a president of his own party in a very public way, an impulse that one hopes lawmakers in both parties could muster today if the integrity of our system called for it again. but perhaps most importantly of all, howard baker was grounded.

he had an important job to do, and he did it well. but he also kept a healthy distance from his work. there's a photograph from president reagan's inaugural in january 1981 that illustrates the point. just behind the new president, you can spot the speaker of the house, tip o'neill, and the new vice president george bush, and then right there between them is a man holding up a camera to capture the moment. it's the new senate majority leader standing there like an ordinary spectator with a really good seat. it was howard baker. senator alexander summed up baker's groundedness this way: "howard baker" senator alexander said, "never stopped sounding like where he grew up. senator baker was a fixture here for decades, but huntsville was

always home. and perhaps that's also why senator baker took his stewardship of the senate so very seriously. he knew he wasn't going to be around forever, and that meant he had a duty to make the senate work and to preserve it as a place where disputes and disagreements are sifted and sorted out and where stable, durable solutions are slowly but surely achieved. it it's how he earned the nickname the great consul educator. when dan quayle was senator here, he tiewfd say there's -- was senator here, he used to say there's howard baker and then there's the rest of us. over the past week we've been reminded of why that was. and i want to thank senator alexander for helping us remember why his friend and mentor meant so much to this country and this institution. may the memory of howard henry

baker inspire us to be our best selves and even better senators. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the majority controlling the first 30 and the republicans controlling the second 30. the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. i believe it's correct that senator corker and i, before morning business begins, have a few minutes to reflect on senator baker. the presiding officer: that understanding is correct. mr. alexander: that is correct? the presiding officer: the senate is under morning business right now, but the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. alexander: mr. president, i ask consent that before morning business begins, that senator corker and i be

permitted to reflect on senator baker. well, i don't see why it should count against it. mr. president, i ask consent that we have a few minutes to speak about senator baker before morning business begins. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, reserving the right to object, i am not going to object because we have an understanding. but i would like to have a similar amount of time to reflect on senator alan dixon who passed away over the weekend after the senators from tennessee have paid homage to senator baker. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate the courtesy of the senator from illinois. i want to thank senator mcconnell from kentucky for his remarks. one other thing i said at the funeral for senator baker was that senator baker had an eye for talent. and i remember in 1969, when i was a young aide in the nixon

white house, senator baker came to me and said, "you might want to get to know that smart young legislative assistant for senator marlow cooke, and that young legislative assistant was mitch mcconnell." and so i did get to know him. i want to thank senator mcconnell for coming to the funeral and i want to thank senator reid, our majority leader, for being there as well. they were there at the front of that small church in huntsville, tennessee. and the vice president came. set there, met ive, showed his respect both to former senator baker and his wife, former senator nancy kassebaum baker, and we tennesseans appreciated that courtesy by the vice president, the majority leader, and the minority leader very much. there were a number of others there. a governor was there. senator corker and i, of course, were there. former senators torch son thomp,

senator frist, senator bennet johnson were also there. our former governors, win field dunn and don sundquist, former senator bill brock was there. it was a small church but, along with former vice president al gore and the current vice president and the majority leader as well as the minority leader, it had real respect for the former majority leader of the senate. i will not try to repeat what i said at the funeral. it was privilege for me to be asked by the family to speak. but i did want to make two comments briefly, one personal and one about the senate. the personal one was -- and i said there that i had tried to follow the rule in lamar alexander's little plaid back

that when invited to speak at a funeral, remember to mention the deceased more often than yourself and to talk more about baker and my relationship with him. i waited until the end of my remarks to try to do that. no one had more influence on my life than howard baker. came here with him in 167. senators dealt main i.ly with one know, not through staff members. i came back in 1977 when suddenly he was elected republican leader on his third try by one vote, and i worked in the office that's now the republican leader's office for three months, helping him find a permanent chief of staff until i went back to tennessee. and throughout my entire public life and private life, no one has had more effect on me by virtue of his effort to

encourage me as well as many other younger people who are working there way up in a have a right-of-ways, but as an example for how to -- for how to do things. my advice to younger people who want to know how to become involved in politics is find someone whom you respect and admire and volunteer to go to wrorworkfor them and do anythinl they ask you to do. i had the great privilege of working with the best. now, as far -- and just to give one small example of how closely intertwined our times have become, i have the same office he had in the dirksen office building. i have the sphai same phone nume had. if he open this desk, you'll see the names baker, fred thorchtion and my neigh.

i thought a remarkably effective presentation at the funeral was by martha ann fairchild, minister of a small presbyterian church in huntsville. she told a story about light bulbs and senator baker. he was on the session of that church. that's the governing body. he was an elder, and he insisted on coming to the meetings. and she said at one of the meetings the session -- the elders and there probably aren't -- i don't know how many members there are of that church, maybe 70, maybe 100 -- they fell into a discussion about new light bulbs and it was pretty contentious and eventually they re-coved it because senator baker insisted that they discuss it all the way through to the end. and should i talked with him later. he said, i could have pulled out my checkbook and written a check for the new light bull, but i thought it was more important that the he would verse a full

and long discussion, so they all could be comfortable with the decision that they made. that story about light bulbs is how howard baker saw the united states senate, as a forum for extended discussion where you have the patience to allow everyone to pretty well have their say in the hopes that you come to a conclusion that most of us are comfortable with and, therefore, the country is comfortable with it. he understood you only govern a complex country such as ours by consensus. and whether it was light bulbs or an eight-week debate on the panama canal where there were 200 contentious amendments and reservations and arguments, you have that discussion all the way through to the end. it is said that these days are much more contentious than the days of howard baker. there are some things different today that make that sort of discussion more difficult. but we shouldn't kid ourselves.

those weren't easy days either. those were the days when vietnam veterans came home with americans sphitting on them. those were the days of watergate. those were the days of social security going bankrupt and an eight-week contentious debate on the panama canal. those were the days of the equal rights amendment. those were difficult days, too. and senator baker and senator byrd on the democratic side were able, generally speaking, for the senate to take up those big issues, have an extended discussion all the way to the end and come to a result. most of us, mr. president, in this body have the same principles. they all belong to what we call the american character. they include such principles as equal opportunity, liberty, e pluribus unum and most of our conflicts are about resolving those principles. if you're talking about

imgrairks you have a debate between rule of law and equal opportunity sometimes. so how do we put those together and how do we come to a conclusion? howard baker saw the way to do that. as bringing to the floor a subject, hopefully with bipartisan support, and talking it all the way through the end until we were comfortable with the decision. and his aid in that was, as senator mcconnell said, being an eloquent listener. that's why he was admired by members of both parties. one poll in the 1980's, he was considered to be the most admired senator by democrats and by republicans. that's why dan quayle said, there's howard baker and then there's the rest of us senators. so i think the memory of howard baker, the lesson for him is that without assigning any blame to the republican side or the democratic side, we don't need a change of rules to make this

place function; we need a change of behavior. and howard baker's behavior is a pretty good example. whether it was the panama canal, whether it was fixing social security, whether it was reagan's tax cuts, or whether it was resolving whenl and ho wheto buy new light bulbs in the presbyterian church in hunt huntsville, tennessee. i would like to place in the record the remarks of the pastor of the first presbyterian church of huntsville, tennessee, as well as two other documents, one by arthur b.kuldehouse srn, president reagan's counsel, and who howard baker said to cull have a house that in the president truly did not know about the diversion of iran arms sales proceeds, he was to help,

if he did not truly, truly know. then an article by keel hunt about senator baker and finally the order of the funeral service of worship at the baker ceremony. i thank the senate for this time and i yield the floor. to my colleague from tennessee. the presiding officer: without objection, the items will be printed in the record. the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: mr. president, i'd like to join our distinguished mitch mcconnell in seconding the comments about the presentation in the senior senator from tennessee made at the howard baker made. you know, it is a great privilege for us to serve in this body, and while times are tough relative to our ability, our willingness to solve some of

the major problems, many of the major problems of our nation today, and sometimes there are comments made about serving in the senate. what i say to people back home is that if any of us ever forget what a privilege it is to serve, we should go home. and that privilege allows us to meet people and to be in conversation with people like howard baker that affect us and calls us to be better people. they also allow us, lamar, to witness what took place last week. i'll have to say that i've seen you on many occasions say and do things that i thought were impressive. i don't think i've ever seen anything that measures up to what was said in that small presbyterian church last week. i think all of us were touched. i will say that you had a lot of good material to work with and

that you were describing a man that probably has had more effect on -- in a positive way on tennessee politics and in many ways national politics like howard baker. he was an inspiration to all of us. when we were around him, his graciousness and humility caused all of us, i think, to be much better people. his encouragement, especially when dealing with tough issues, his encouragement, his calls, i think calls to all of us to want to strive even harder to be better senators and better people. so i certainly cannot give the comments without eloquence that you gave last week and certainly the ones you just gave. i know that you and he were very, very close. and he impacted you more than any person outside your immediate family. but he had an impact on all of

us. he had an impact on this nation. and i'll just -- i just feel it is a great privilege and honor to stand with you today to acknowledge his greatness as a person, his greatness as a senator, many times we see presentations, as people talk about someone's life, and a lot of times that is embellished. i will say in this case none of it was. it was all about the man, both serving here in the senate but also serving in that small church in huntsville, tennessee, that he was so loyal to. so i just want to yo thank you r the opportunity to serve with you. i know that each of us strives to carry out those characteristics that howard baker so wisely showed us. and i do agree with you that the united states senate would be a much better place if all of us

could embody those characteristics most of the tiesm so wittime. so, with that, mr. president, i yield the floor, thank the senior senator for his leadership and his comments. and i want to thank our distinguished minority leader. during a time of great busyness in his own personal life, for taking the time to be a part of something that i think it was meaningful to him also. i yield the floor. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i have been moved by the comments of the senators regarding senator baker. the story that the senior senator from tennessee told of the light bulbs is -- it those of us who knew senator baker

could well understand that, a man who brought senators together from both parties. i'll tell two very quick stories. one, he was referencing one leadership race by one vote. he had called a good friend of his who was at home on official business and said, i know the press says i'm going to lose this race, but i know you're voting for me. can you come back and vote? and that senator did. that senator was the then-senior senator from vermont, robert stafford. and he flew back, got to the caucus to vote for his friend howard baker, the first one by one vote. all the rest by acclamation. i know this because both bob stafford and howard baker told me that story.

and they also were two of the finest senators i ever served with. both people tried to work things out. my other story was, we were going to be in session until midnight one night, a tightly contested matter. senator ted stevens and i and a few others went to see howard baker who was majority leader to talk about the issue that was dividing things. we said we think we have a solution. we've all been talking, we can work it out but it's going to take some time with the drafting. can you just recess. don't stay until midnight. all it's going to do is exacerbate tempers. come back in the morning, we'll have it all worked out. we'll get this done. senator baker knew that we're all senators in both parties who kept their word. he said of course. we recessed. as the senator from tennessee

knows, we have cloakrooms here in the back of this chamber. if we have late-night votes, most of us are hanging around the cloakrooms between votes. at that time they had beautiful stained glass windows in the alcoves. we recessed, went home. an hour or so after we went home a bomb went off out here in the corridor. we came in here the next morning, this place looked like a war zone, shards of glass from those windows and both cloakrooms were embedded in the walls. the door to where the distinguished republican deputy leader has his office now was blown in, the fan, window was ruined. paintings out here were shredded. some of the marble busts of

former vice presidents were damaged. you could smell the gun powder or the explosive when you came to work. i mention this because the former leadership was if we could get together and work things out, he preferred we do that, and he would encourage, both republicans and democrats. and because he could rely on those of us, again both republicans and democrats, we would keep our word, he agreed to that. and we knew he'd keep his word. i know how many lives of senators were saved that night because of that, how many would have been terribly injured. and then of course our staffs who worked often long after we've gone. how many people? how many people could have been harmed if it hadn't been for the fact that the senate was a different place, and i believe a

better place. but i say this not so much to tell historical stories, but i say this out of my great respect for howard baker. somebody calculated the other day that i served with 18% of all the senators since the beginning of this country. i put my tiny handful of the best, howard baker is in there hands down. a wonderful, wonderful man. he was a senator's senator. he believed in the senate. he believed what a privilege it was to serve here. he believed that the senate could be the conscience of the nation. and so i appreciate the tributes. my dear friend, the senior senator from tennessee, who i knew as governor and cabinet member, we've always had a good

personal relationship, i listened to his tales of howard baker; quite a picture, as his colleague from tennessee. i thanked him for doing that and i thanked him for adding to the history of the u.s. senate by doing it. mr. president, if i might on another matter, and i would ask consent that the distinguished senior senator from illinois be recognized once i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, everyone knows the old adage that a picture is worth a thousand words. i have been an avid photographer since i was a child. i have a strong sense of that. so i thought i'd provide a few examples today because sometimes words aren't enough. i've often spoken about the horrific toll on civilians from land mines.

these tiny exploa sirvetion about the size -- explosives, about the size of a hockey puck or can of soup can kill a child or blow legs or arms off an adult. and they're triggered by the victim. unlike a gun that a soldier aims, a gun that aims at the target. land mines wait for the victims. oftentimes they wait long after the war is over, long after the soldiers have packed up and left land mines wait for their victims. it could be hours, days, weeks, often years; but however long it is after they are scattered beneath a layer of sand or dirt they explode when an unsuspecting person whether a combatant or an innocent civilian steps on it or triggers it with a plow or wheelbarrow or

bicycle. and that person's life is changed forever. in many countries where there are few doctors, land mine victims bleed to death. those who survive with a leg or both legs gone are the lucky ones. this girl is an example of who i'm talking about. we don't know her nationality, but the picture tells a lot. she's learning to walk on artificial legs. her life has been made immeasureably harder because of a land mine that probably costs less than $2. i have a granddaughter not much older than that. these photographs tell a similar story. none of these people are

combatants. each are facing lives of pain and sometimes in their communities stigmatization because of weapons that are designed, planned, created to be indiscriminate, not to go after armies. to go after civilians. the leahy war victims fund has helped some of them, as this photograph taken in vietnam shows. i'm proud of the leahy war victims fund. my wife march -- marcel and i have traveled all over the world to see where it might help. i wish, mr. president, that there was no need for it, because there would be no land mines. over the years, at least as people around the world became aware of the land mine problem, they took action. the united states senate was the

first legislative body in the world to ban exports of antipersonnel land mines. i'm proud of writing that amendment. other countries soon followed our example. i get calls from parliamentarians in other countries saying we passed the leahy anti-land mine amendment. it's filled me with pride. but then others who really pout, like canada's former foreign minister lloyd exworthy. they put together an international treaty that outlawed the weapons in 161 countries who joined that treaty. i regret the united states, of all the nato countries, is the only one that's not joined it, even though the u.s. military has not used anti-personnel

mines for 22 years, despite two long wars. on june 27, though, the obama administration finally took a step. it's an incremental step but it's a significant one to put the united states on the path to join the treaty. although the u.s. has not produced or purchased anti-personnel mines since the 1990's, the white house announces as a matter of official policy it will no longer produce or otherwise acquire anti-personnel mines. nor will the pentagon replenish its stockpile of mines as they become obsolete. our closest allies and many others around the world welcome this step, something they did years before. they welcome it even though it falls far short of what supporters of the treaty are calling for. but they did see it as a first step. but one senior member of the

house of representatives immediately accused president obama of ignoring u.s. military commanders, some of whom have defended the use of land mines, just as the military defended poison gas a century ago, when nations moved to ban it. this member of the house said the president -- quote -- "owes our military an explanation for ignoring that advice. this decision represents an expensive solution in search of a nonexistent problem." another member of our body, of the senate, called the announcement a brazen attempt by the president to circumvent the constitutional responsibility of the senate to provide advice and consent to international treaties that bind the united states. while these are strong words, they make great sound bites for the press.

but it sometimes happens with sound bites, the truth lies elsewhere. over the years the white house has consulted closely with the pentagon, including about this decision, and the policy just announced simply makes official what has been an informal fact for at least 17 years to three presidential administrations. it also ignores the fact the u.s. has neither joined the treaty nor has the president sent it to the senate for ratification. having not joined it or sent it to the senate, the president has obviously not circumvented the senate's advice and consent role. it ignores that every one of our nato allies and most of our coalition partners renounced anti-personnel mines as have dozens of countries that could ever dream of having a powerful modern army like we do. countries that look at the united states as the most powerful nation on earth, but

they felt they could get rid of their land mines. and the naysayers' argument is simple. it goes like this, the united states is no longer causing the misery captured in these photographs so why should we join the treaty? does that mean they also oppose the rights of persons with disabilities, like the crippled in this photograph? or do they oppose the chemical weapons treaty and every other treaty dealing with international relations that the united states has joined since the time of george washington. does the fact that we're not causing a problem, that we do not use land mines or chemical weapons absolve us from having the responsibility to be part of an international treaty to stop it? of course not. the world looks to the united states for leadership, and we ought to show leadership. if the u.s. accepted that argument in 1992, if the u.s.

had accepted the argument now being made in 1992, this body would never have voted for my amendment to ban the export on land mines. they voted 100-0, the most conservative and most liberal members, they voted to ban the u.s. exports of anti-personnel mines. our mines weren't causing the problem around the world at that time, but i suppose those in the house who criticize president obama today would say the entire senate was wrong 22 years ago. those 100 democrats and republicans who voted back then to ban u.s. exports of antipersonnel mines understood that while the u.s. may not have been causing the problem, we have to be part of the solution. the same holds true today. in 1996, president clinton called on the pentagon to develop alternatives to antipersonnel mines, whether

they are technological or doctrinal alternatives. he was commander in chief, but the pentagon largely ignored him. but now 18 years later it needs to be done. not at some unspecified time in the future, but in a reasonable deadline, because it can be done. i'm not so naive to think a treaty will prevent every last person on earth from using land mines. i visited too many land minefields in parts of the world to think that. but, people use them. they pay a price for using them. bashar assad used poison gas which violates all treaties, but look at the political price he paid. are those who oppose the land mine treaties so dismissive of the benefits of outlawing and stigmatizing a weapon like i.e.d.'s that pose a danger to

our own troops if we go to another country or our humanitarian people. look at the troops that were sent to bosnia recently after flooding because the land mines that are there, we knew before the flooding where they were, but now we don't know where they were. our people over there are putting their lives in danger to help clear them off. so ra so rather than oppose a treaty, why not support the mine-breaching technology that need to protect themselves. mr. president, i always come abouback to the photographs. i've met many people like these. they're -- they may not be americans. but what happened to them happens to thousands of others like them each year. you know, the united states can help to stop that. that's a moral issue.

let's speak to our basic morality and do it. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. -- the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: madam president, yesterday at 6:00 p.m. on capitol hill there was a gathering at a nearby restaurant known as the monocle. it was a gathering of former staffers ostaffers of united sts senator alan dixon of illinois. they picked the monocle because he would have picked it. it was his favorite place on capitol hill, and it was a sad day because senator dixon had passed away sunday morning in fairview hate heights, illinois. his staff gathered at the

monocle the next day which would have been his birthday to toast him and pay tribute to a great boss, a great friend, and a great senator from the state of illinois. senator dixon passed away in his sleep in the early hours on sunday morning. his son jeff had dropped him off at hope and threfs with his wife jodie when he passed away. so instead of celebrate ago birthday on monday, we had a day of remembrance of an extraordinary public servant for the state of illinois. laialan dixon used to be known n political circles as "al the pal." and he loved it. it really described him. for him friendship and loyalty were everything. and it showed in his life, and i think it was a great part of his success. he was a person who gloried in

representing illinois. he never harbored any national ambitions. being a senator from illinois was his goal in life. he reached it, and he performed so well as senator that he is fondly remembered by many of us who served with him in the house and in the senate. he represented an old-school style of politics. he believed in his heart that people of good will could find common ground if they just worked at it. he knew how to make this government work and how to make this senate work and work for the state of illinois. in his memoir which he published last year, he wrote, "generally speaking, my political career was built on good will and accommodation." he was known by senators on both sides of the aisle as a friendly, helpful, articulate, and effective colleague.

he was a down state guy in our state. he grew up in bellville in st. clean air county, not too faraway from my hometown of st. louis. he grew up across the river in the great city of st. louis. alan served in world war ii in the u.s. navy air corps. after the war he went off to the university of illinois where they had a special arrangement for vets to earn a behalf lore's degree, went a short time to the university of illinois law school. then he transferred to washington university law school where he graduated second in his class. in 1948 at the age of 21, a neighbor said lain, i've been watching you, and i think you ought to consider running for police madge i state. alan hadn't even graduated from

law school. so he ran and he won. two years later after getting out of law school and passing the bar, both in mo and in illinois, he was elected to the illinois house of representatives, the youngest member ever elected to the illinois general s. ssembly. his starting stahlry: $3,000. he went on to become one of the most successful vote getters in the state of illinois. he won 29 consecutive bids for public office for state representative, state senator, secretary of state, and state treasurer. during one of those races he carried all 102 counties in illinois, all 30 townships in cook county and all 50 wards. that's a record i don't think anybody will ever break. when he he served in springfield, illinois, he pointed with pride to his passage of a constitutional change in illinois to finally

modernize our judiciary. he remembered his days as police magistrate and he thought our system of justice had to be brought into the 20th century. alan dixon of bellville, illinois, led that effort. he got it done. he was effective. people trusted him and they respected him. he led an unpopular fight against loyalty oaths during the mccarthy era and he helped create the illinois community college system. in 1908 the people of illinois chose alan dixon to represent them here in the united states senate. he teamed up with his old friend a couple years later who joined him in the illinois general assembly, his seatmat seatmate,n named paul simon. dixon and then-congressman paul simon, then to be senator simon, were colleagues and business partners. there was paul simon who might

be persuaded tbhuns a blue moon to drink a little glass of wine and there was al dixon who loved that beer. but the two of them were fast friends. i witnessed that friendship over the years. i didn't see the early days when they owned newspapers together. paul was a newspaperman and alan more an investor. but i did witness the political part of that prett of that partp and it was amazing to see. there were moments in their lives when the two could have clashed over their political ambitions but they always, always worked it out and they were always friends and that made a big difference in both of their lives. it was alan dixon as united states senator who came up with an idea that had never been tried before in illinois. he decided to try to get all of the members of the illinois congressional delegation, democrats and republicans, to get together for lunch on a regular basis. well, he had to persuade a few of the old-timers who weren't

really open to the idea. but twais his personality -- but it was his personality that got it done, a tradition that toins this day. in his 12 years in the united states senate, alan dixon didn't forget where he came frvment he remembered growing up in a family of modest means. he remembered those tough summer jobs, and he never forgot the working people that he represented in st. claire county. alan was at the top of his game and in the strongest voice when it came to stand be up for the work being people anded little guy. he fought for affordable housing and lending practices. he de-noinsed wasteful spending and create add procurement czar to oversee spending at the pentagon. one of the things which he's remembered for was deciding to personally as united states senator test a new weapons system. they sent him down to test the

sorgent york gun. he was going to test it and fire it. he soon discovered the gun was a dud. it couldn't shoot straight. he came back and reported it to his colleagues in the united states senate, including senator sam nunn, and they went along with senator dixon and said, we're going to junk this project. it is a waste of taxpayers' money. it was alan dixon who called for oversight of the se s&l industr. in 1992, alan lost his bid for reelection to the senate in a hotly contested three-way primary. it was the political ya upset of the year. it isn't often up here that a united states senator would flews a primary race for reelection. a lot of people were wondering, how would it affect alan dixon? well, election night alisten stood up and gave -- ala alan sd

up and gave the most heart-touching speech. it was repeated over and over that he was a real jevment the words that he had to say even in defeat added to his reputation as a fine, honest, great public servant. the tearful crowd listened as he said he loved every golden moment of his time in politics. his fellow democratic colleagues had elected him unanimously to serve as chief deputy chip whip. after his loss, he was praised on the floor by not only ted kennedy and bob mitchell, but strom thurmond and bob dole as well. in 1995 his public life was resumed when president clinton appointed him to chair the base closure commission known as the defense base realignment and closure commission. it made sense. as a senator, dixon had written the section of the defense

authorization bill that created the brac commissions. here was a man who'd spent his entire here making political friends but took on a job that was bound to test some of those friendships. he accepted that assignment because the president asked and he knew -- dixon knew -- it was right for america. it was the same decision he made when he enlisted to serve in world war i. last october alan published his memoirs, "the gentleman gr illinois." he returned to washington with jodie and members of the family to head on over to his favorite capitol hill restaurant, the monocle. it is about a stone's throw from the dirksen senate office building where he used to have his own meetings in his office. the montana qul wa monocle walle where he joined for bipartisan dinners. alan told his old friend, what

it country needs is more friends on the hill working together afned talking together and working for solutions that will serving the interest of the public. alan was right about that. i hope that someday in his memory we'll see the return of that spirit. this country truly needs to work together. before dixon left the senate, then-senator paul simon praised him with these words. "in generations to come, his children, his grandchildren and his great-grandchildren will look back saned with pride, alan dixon was my father, my grand fairnlg and my great-grandfather, whatever that relationship will be." those words by paul simon about his lifelong political friend and colleague alan dixon ring true today as we reflect not only on his service but also has a pen.

i lost a pell when alan dixon passed away. my wife and i want to stndz our condolences to alan's wife of 60 year, ied jodie. people don't realize what spouses put up with because of our public lives. she put up with it for many, many years. o, there were good times but i'm sure there were tough times, too. she was his rock. to alan and jodie's three children, to their families, to the grandchildren and the great-grandchildren, you can be proud of alan dixon. he was truly the gentleman from illinois. madam president, i'd like to make a comment on a different topic at this point, separate and "part" in the record -- separate and apart in the record with unanimous consent. spheb. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: this last weekend in chicago was memorable.

memorable for the wrong reasons. this last weekend in chicago gun violence took the lives of 14 people and wounded 82. i am a honored to represent illinois. i am especiallied honored to represent a great city like chicago. but i'm heartbroken to think about what happened this past weekend. mayor emanuel anticipated the 4th of july weekend would be a challenge and they dispatched hundreds, hundreds, of police to the streets of chicago in an effort avert this violence. i wouldn't say they failed, but i would say that the tragedy that followed tells us that we have a lot of work to do. i'm sure mayor emanuel, all of the elected officials in chicago, superintendent mccarthy, are looking over

what happened this past weekend trying to think of what they can do to bring peace to the city and end the violence which has taken so many lives. they'll be working overtime, and a lot of people will point the finger of blame and say they could have done more. i think the mayor would acknowledge he could have done more. but let me add, we all could have done more. it isn't just the city's responsibility. -- that this gun violence has occurred. it isn't just the city of chicago's misfortune that these lives were lost and that gun violence continues to plague us. it is a responsibility that goes far beyond the city of chicago. it is a responsibility that is visited on this chamber of the united states senate. how can we ignore gun violence in america wherever it occurs? in chicago, in washington, d.c., across this country.

what are we doing as members of the united states senate? what efforts are we making to make america a safer place to live? we've run away from it, madam president. we ran away from our responsibility when it comes to an honest, conscientious discussion about gun control. some people are frightened of this issue. they think when you get near the second amendment, it's the third rail of politics and that there are gun lobby groups out there just waiting to pounce on any member who comes to the floor of this senate and talks about changing our gun laws. well, that's been the case for a long, long time. and yet, the american people, when you ask them the basics, get it. they understand that you can protect our second amendment rights to own and use firearms legally and responsibly and still put reasonable limits to keep guns out of the hands of people who will misuse them.

is there anyone who believes that it's an infringement of constitutional rights to say that no one who has been convict ed of a felony should be allowed to purchase a firearm in america? that makes sense. this weekend in chicago, convicted felons were out on the street with firearms, firing away. we should do everything in our power to stop that from occurring. and after all of the senseless tragedies which we have seen over the last several years in connecticut, in so many different places, even in the state of illinois, is there anyone who argues with the premise that people who are so mentally unstable that they cannot accept the responsibility of a firearm should not be allowed to buy a firearm? two things: convicted felons,

mentally unstable people, should not be allowed to purchase firearms in america, period. we had that vote, a bipartisan vote. joe manchin of west virginia -- no liberal. joe's a real conservative and pro-gun. he joined up with pat toomey, senator toomey of pennsylvania, about as conservative a republican as you can find. and the two of them brought manchin-toomey to the floor and said let us do background checks to make sure that convicted felons and people who are mentally unstable cannot purchase a firearm. it failed. it failed because it face add filibuster which we couldn't break. a majority of the senators voted for it, but that wasn't enough. we needed 60. we didn't have it. we lost a hand full of democrats and we attracted only a few republicans to support us. well, to me, that's not the end of the debate. it's time for us to revisit that issue. it's time for us to have another

vote on the floor of the united states senate. i'm not sure the outcome will be much different. but we owe it to the people of this country to continue this debate. and we owe it as fellow senators, democrats and republicans, to search for solutions. let me tell you another thing that could have helped in chicago and other cities across america. there's a term called straw purchaser. a straw purchaser is someone who will walk into a gun store, present their identification and purchase a firearm because they're legally entitled to purchase it, and then turn around and give it or sell it to someone who could not legally buy that same gun. many times it turns out to be the girlfriend who is sent in to make the purchase. well, it's time to change that law. it's time to send out an all points bulletin to the girlfriends of thugs that they're going to be sent away to prison for a long, long time for

that kind of irresponsible act. straw purchasers with these guns pass them into the community, and when they do we know what happens. innocent people die. that's another provision that we should vote on on the floor of the united states senate. if there are colleagues who want to stand up here and defend the right of straw purchasers to buy guns and turn them over to convicted felons, be my guest. i want to hear that debate. tell me how that's an exercise of your constitutional right. it's not. i have thousands and thousands of people across illinois who own firearms, who store them safely, use them legally, and enjoy their rights under the constitution. but i'm suggesting today is not going to change that at all. but they live in communities where people will misuse these firearms. we have a moral responsibility

in the united states senate to do everything we can to keep firearms out of the hands of people who misuse them. we have a legal and moral responsibility to accept this opportunity in the senate to debate these issues. we can't run away from them any more than we can run away from the violence in our streets. i'm not alone in my feelings on this issue. there are other senators who share them. it is time for us to stand up and speak up. we have a responsibility to the people we represent, to innocent people who are being threatened and killed across america. madam president, what happened in chicago over the 4th of july weekend is a wakeup call, another wakeup call to the united states senate to get about the business of our purpose here, the reason we were elected, to try to make america a better and safer place.

madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. and i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: madam president, i am here today to talk about the helping working families afford child care act, which is a bill that my colleagues, senators shaheen, boxer, gillibrand and i, introduced today. it will update the child and dependent care tax credit to

offer working families more relief from the rising costs of child care. you know, when the child and dependent tax care tax credit was enacted originally, kids were playing with rubix cubes and listening to 8-track tapes. well, as we all know, a lot has changed since then and one of the most important changes our country has seen since that time is the rise of women in the labor force. since the mid-1970's, women's participation in the labor force has increased by 23%. and now most women do work full-time. and in two-thirds of family with dependent children, both parents work outside the home. madam president, over a period of time in which the middle class has been squeezed by an increasing global economy, higher prices for everything from health care to college, and women joining the labor force has helped to ease some of those burdens for families. in fact, federal reserve chair janet yellen has called the

increasing participation of women in the work force -- quote -- "a major factor in sustaining growing family incomes." and a recent study by the center for american progress found that between 1979 and 2012, the u.s. economy grew by almost 11% as a result of women joining the labor force. now, as we look for ways to create jobs and expand growth in the 21st century, it's clear our country's economic success goes hand in hand with that of women and working families. so we've got to make sure that our policies are updated to meet the needs of today's working parents. and one area we really need to take a look at is child care. madam president, the cost of child care has skyrocketed in recent years. full-time child care for just one child can cost families more than $10,000 annually. and for families below the poverty level, those who are

already struggling the most to make ends meet, child care can on the average swallow up a third of what those parents are able to bring home. this is a real problem for far too many hardworking parents and it's a problem for our economy. because when parents are struggling to find reliable, safe, affordable care for their children during the day, it's harder for them to give their all on the job. and even worse, child care is so expensive, some parents, most often mothers, are deciding it's not even worth returning to the work force. madam president, this means that families are being held back from gaining the economic security they are working so hard to achieve. the child and dependent care tax credit was, of course, intended to help parents overcome these barriers. but today the benefit working parents get from the credit is a small fraction of what child care actually costs. and because of how it's structured, the lowest income

working families can't benefit from it at all, meaning they have to bear the full brunt of child care costs on very low wages. so, madam president, it's clear this tax credit is one of the policies we need to bring into the 21st century and that's exactly what we are doing when we introduce the helping working families afford child care act. that legislation will boost the benefit working families can receive for child care costs and it will make the child and dependent care tax credit refundable so those working parents who are struggling the most to make ends meet can better afford the child care they need to work and support their families. if congress passes our bill, working families next year could see a credit of $1,600 for one child or $3,200 for more than one child. that's almost three times the maximum benefit many families are currently eligible to receive.

so our bill would be a real help to hardworking families who are trying to raise their children, pay the bills, save for college and put something away for retirement. and it could help break down one of the biggest barriers mothers face when thinking about reentering the work force. madam president, the need to expand access to affordable child care is something i often talk with my own constituents about in washington state. and during those conversations, what i hear from parents is, i'm so glad you're focused on this. it's a real issue for us. updating this tax credit to reflect the needs of families in today's economy would be a critical step forward in terms of our larger effort to make sure working parents, dads and moms, have a fair shot. madam president, i believe that by putting in place policies to make child care more affordable, by making sure that women get equal pay that they deserve, by raising the minimum wage so

millions of workers have a better shot at lifting themselves out of poverty, and by taking steps to ensure students aren't overwhelmed by debt after they graduate from college, we could break down some very real barriers that are holding our families and our economy back. and there's no reason why we shouldn't start with that right now with the bill that we're introducing today. so i hope all of our colleagues will take a minute, look at this helping working families afford child care act and take this serious. i hope we'll be able to make it easier for moms and dads to afford safe, reliable care for their children while they're at work. i think we can all agree that parents deserve to have that peace of mind. and i believe that if we enact this bill and build on it with other critical policies to help working families, our economy will be much stronger now and over the long term. so i want to thank senators shah heerntion boxer anshah -- senatn boxer, and gillibrand --

shaheen, boxer and gillibrand for their hard work on the part of working families. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 2363, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 384, s. 2363, a bill to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting and for other purposes. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: thank you, madam president. i rise today in support of the bipartisan sportsmen's act.

first i want to thank senator hagan and murkowski for their leadership in gathering support and getting this bill to the floor. nearly half of the senate is cosponsoring this legislation from every corner of our country. it is truly a national bill and it's why over 30 groups, from the national shooting sports foundation to ducks unlimited to the dallas safari club and many others, support this bill. it is an ambitious proposal that includes dozens of smart ideas from both sides of the aisle. it encourages private investment into fish habitat as well as land and wildlife management. this bill supports public shooting ranges so more folks have a place to take their kids to teach them how to responsibly handle a firearm. and it protects some of our best places to hunt, fish and recreate. but make no mistake, the bipartisan sportsmen's act is also a jobs bill, something that we constantly talk about needing more of around here. madam president, in my state of montana, outdoor recreation

supports tens of thousands of jobs. it's a $6 billion-a-year industry. nationwide, our outdoor economy creates and sustains more than 6 million jobs every single year. despite the economic power of public lands to sustain the rural economy, some folks are talking about closing off the land and privatizing it. we cannot let that happen. instead, we need to pass a bipartisan -- pass the bipartisan sportsmen's act which will strengthen our economy which will create more opportunity for folks to continue recreating in our great outdoors. responsibly enjoying our outdoors is part of our way of life in montana. in the big sky state, we are proud hunters, anglers, sportsmen and women. and that's why it's critical that this bill will open up more of our public lands to every law-abiding american that has a right to access it. in montana alone, nearly 2 million acres of public land is not easily accessible to folks and i'm proud that my

colleagues included the making public lands public provision that i have pushed for for years. these lands were set aside for our parents to enjo to enjoy, ff us to enjoy and ultimately for our children and grandchildren to enjoy. accessing these lands it our birthright and this bill delivers on a centuries-old promise to preserve our outdoor heritage. by passing this bipartisan legislation, we will help ensure future generations get to experience the natural wonders that were passed down to us. last congress, the senate took up a similar package only to see political gamesmanship get in the way. we competent let that happen again. millions of sportsmen and women across this country expect better. the american people deserve better. there is too much in this bill that we agree on to let it fail once again. senators hagan and murkowski have worked diligently for months to craft a bill that has an incredible amount of support

both in the senate but most importantly back home in the states that we all represent. let's pass this bill once and for all. madam president, i yield the floor. madam president, i have six unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i would ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: with that, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted and that i be allowed to speak as if in morning business.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: madam president, americans might have noticed a trend in obamacare headlines over the past two days. there was sunday's political story and it basically had this title -- why liberals are abandoning the obamacare employer mandate. and there was an associated press story entitled senate democrats try to pull focus from obamacare. then on monday, politico published a story called obamacare's next threat, a september surprise, which is about the white house's efforts to prepare democrats to meet september rate hike announcements. madam president, all these stories amount to one thing -- democrats are running scared from obamacare. these three articles are just a few of the many pieces to be published about democrats' efforts to distance themselves from obamacare in preparation for the november election. madam president, it's not surprising that they're worried.

obamacare is democrats and the white house's main legislative achievement, and americans don't like it. they didn't like it in 2010 when the law was passed. they didn't like it when the law was being implemented, and they don't like it now. a quinnipiac poll from last week reported that 55% of americans oppose obamacare. similar numbers of americans opposed it three months earlier. and almost three months before that. in fact, madam president, when you average polling on the health care law from late 2009 until today, you find that the health care law has consistently been opposed by the majority of americans. opposition to the health care law currently averages nearly 14 percentage points higher than support. that's not a good sign for democrats. many democrats who firmly supported the health care law in 2009 and 2010 believed that that law would grow more popular when the american people found out

what was in the bill and how it would benefit them, but the health care law has not gotten more popular. americans found out what was in the bill, and they didn't like it. democrats are realizing that their support for the bill may cost them their seats in november, and so now they are running in the opposite direction. according to monday's political article, the white house knows very well the democrats are finding obamacare to be a big problem in their campaigns. so it has redirected the efforts of its obamacare war room to preparing for the release of rate hikes that are coming in september. the white house and its allies know, and this is a quote from the story, they have been beaten in every previous round of obamacare messaging, nevermore devastatingly than in 2010. the story goes on to say, and they know the results this november could hinge in large part on whether that happens again, so they are trying to avoid or at least get ahead of

any september surprise, end quote. that's from the political story. madam president, let me just say to the white house good luck with that. there's a reason why the white house why -- and its allies have been beaten in every previous round of obamacare messaging. it's because the white house's messaging didn't match up with the reality that it promised americans. the white house can talk all it wants about obamacare supposed benefits, but if americans aren't experiencing those benefits, no amount of talking is going to work. most americans aren't experiencing obamacare benefits. they are experiencing obamacare pain. higher premiums, higher deductibles, the loss of doctors and hospitals, less control and less freedom. like most members of congress, i

have gotten countless letters from constituents telling me about the pain that obamacare is causing them. tom in hurley, south dakota, wrote to me to tell me his premiums have more than doubled and his deductibles have more than quadrupled since the president's health care law was enacted. harvey from mitchell, south dakota, wrote to tell me that his insurance went up 16%, effective april 1 of this year. biggest increase ever, he said. jill from sturgis, south dakota, wrote to tell me she went online to get a health insurance estimate at healthcare.gov and found that the cheapest plan would cost her $366 a month and a $5,000 deductible. are you kidding me, she wrote. that's $9,392 a year i have to pay in every year before it even pays anything, which is roughly 16% of our combined income. i can't afford that and try to save money for retirement at the same time, she says.

madam president, jill's not alone in being -- not being able to afford that. too many americans are in similar situations facing the prospect of huge health care bills and wondering how on earth they're going to pay them. all the talk in the world from the white house isn't going to make people enthusiastic about obamacare if they can't afford their obamacare premiums or have lost access to the doctor or the hospital that they liked. madam president, politico reports that 21 states, 21 states have posted preliminary health insurance premiums for 2013 and that average preliminary premiums went newspaper all 21 states. those proposed increases, several in the double digits, are coming on top of the steep premium hikes many americans faced this year. the white house can attempt to defend these increases as much as it wants, but there really isn't any way to spin huge premium hikes when you promised

people that their premiums not only wouldn't increase but would actually go down. madam president, obamacare is fundamentally broken. this bill was supposed to reduce health care premiums and lower the cost of care while allowing americans to keep the doctors that they liked. instead, it's done the exact opposite. and obamacare isn't just driving up health care premiums. it's also devastateing our already damaged economy. the obamacare 30-hour workweek rule is forcing businesses large and small to reduce employees' hours at a time when many americans are struggling to find full-time work. "usa today" reported yesterday that friday's unemployment report found a sharp rise in the number of part-time workers who prefer full-time jobs. so what you have, madam president, is people who want to work, they want to work full time, but full-time jobs aren't available so they are taking part-time work. why?

one of the reasons they attribute is the obamacare requirement that the workweek be a 30-hour week as opposed to a 40-hour week. so what's happening is employers are hiring employees for less than 30 hours a week so that they won't be stuck with all the requirements and the mandates that come with obamacare. and so it's leading to more part-time jobs when people actually are looking for full-time work in our economy. the law's burdensome mandates and regulations are placing a heavy burden on small businesses and making it impossible for many of them to expand and to hire new employees, and as politico reported, when it comes to the employer mandate, even liberals are admitting that the rule is unnecessary and burdensome. politico notes, and i quote -- the shift among liberal policy experts and advocates has been rampant. a stream of studies and statements have deemed the mandate only moderately useful for getting more people covered

under obamacare, and they, too, have come to see it as clumsy, a regulatory and financial burden that creates as many problems as it solves, end quote. that's from the politico story talking about many of the liberal policy experts who are now turning their back on the employer mandate. and then there is the potential for fraud with the health and human services inspector general's office reporting that the administration is not properly verifying that those receiving subsidies actually qualify for them, and the disastrous web sites have cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. madam president, the list just goes on and on and on. whether they admit it or not, everyone knows that obamacare isn't working. it's time to start over and replace this law with real reforms, reforms that will actually lower costs and improve access to care. republicans have offered soon