Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by my colleague, Senator Udall, and would require State liaisons for States that do not have district offices in them to be located within the States they represent. This is a commonsense amendment. There are 10 States that will not have district offices in them. As currently contemplated, they are operated out of district offices in adjacent States. The substitute amendment would require the Postal Service to designate at least one employee to be a State liaison, and this amendment I am offering says that person must be located within the State they represent. I ask all my colleagues to support this. I don't see any basis for objection to it.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I wish to speak about the life of George Cowan who died last Friday in Los Alamos at the age of 92. From 1949 through 1988, he distinguished himself at the Los Alamos National Laboratory where he was a scientist--a nuclear chemist--and a senior administrator. In 1984, he was instrumental in founding The Santa Fe Institute which has achieved great recognition for its work in complexity and self- organizing systems. A Founding Director of the Los Alamos National Bank, he was one of the several leaders in that community who labored to bring banking to a town that was considered ``temporary'' and not deserving of its own bank. In 1963, LANB was chartered and has grown to be one of the leading financial institutions in New Mexico. At his death, George was still serving on the Board of Directors. George's interests and contributions are too numerous to detail in these brief comments, but I will mention his passion to understand the keys to the early development of children. He believed there were great benefits society could reap by giving more attention to successful models of early childhood education. George's life and work were invaluable to our Nation and to my home State of New Mexico. I was proud to count him as a friend, and prouder still that he considered me one. I join the many others who will miss him.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is to advise you that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a business meeting on Thursday, April 26, 2012, immediately preceding the full committee hearing beginning at 9:30 a.m., in room SD 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the Business Meeting is to consider the nominations of Adam Sieminski, to be administrator of the Energy Information Administration, Marcilynn Burke to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Anthony Clark to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and John Norris to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224 7571 or Allison Seyferth at (202) 224 4905.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, April 19, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the impacts of sea level rise on domestic energy and water infrastructure. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510 6150, or by email to Meagan_Ginsaenergy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Kevin Rennert at 202 224 7826, Kelly Kryc at 202 224 0537 or Meagan Gins at 202 224 0883.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, April 26, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on weather related electrical outages. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510 6150, or by email to Meagan_Gins@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Leon Lowery at 202 224 2209, or Meagan Gins at 202 224 0883.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 28, 2012, in room 418 of the Senate Russell Office Building, beginning at 9:45 a.m.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs' Subcommittee on Economic Policy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 28, 2012, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Retirement (In) Security: Examining the Retirement Savings Deficit.''

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on March 28, 2012, at 3 p.m., in room SD 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on March 28, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Hearing on the Special Counsel's Report on the Prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens.''

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 28, 2012, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``The Science and Standards of Forensics.''

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 28, 2012, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``High Stakes and Hard Choices: U.S. Policy on Iran.''

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Managment, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 28, 2012, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Assessing Efforts to Combat Waste and Fraud in Federal Programs.''

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 28, 2012, at 2 p.m.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 28, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 28, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, a week or so ago I came to the floor to talk about the general issues of gasoline prices and domestic energy production. I believe it is important for us to use accurate facts as we are talking about our energy challenges and we work on energy policy issues. Only by using actual facts can we identify policies that will hopefully bring down the price of gasoline at the pump. So I would like to focus on a particular aspect of our domestic production; that is, production on federally owned land. This is something which has been the subject of a lot of political discussion, both out on the Presidential campaign trail and to some extent in the Senate. Let me first comment with respect to the price of gasoline and the impact of domestic production on the price of gasoline. This chart, which I put up before, ``U.S. oil production and gasoline prices during the period 1990 through 2011,'' I think, makes the point very well. That point is that the price of oil is set on the world market. What we produce domestically does not have a significant effect on that market. So the red line on the chart represents increases and decreases in domestic production of oil and the blue line represents the price of gasoline. Clearly, there is not a lot of correlation between those two. It is worth looking again at this chart because I think it makes the point that as U.S. production has increased from 2009 to the present, oil prices have also increased. So increased production has not resulted in lower prices, and it cannot, because the price of oil is set on the world market and the price of gas is, in effect, pegged to the price of oil. Increased domestic production, while important for our country--and it is important for many reasons--does not bring us lower gas prices. Our policy approach must be to find ways to use less oil and be less dependent on the volatility we see in the world oil markets. We know how to do that. We know how to decrease our vulnerability to those world oil markets and we have made some, in my view, enlightened policy steps to accomplish that. We got a good start in the 2007 Energy bill. It was a bipartisan bill, and that bill requires the use of more biofuels; that is, homegrown energy which is not traded on a world market. We require the use of those biofuels in transportation. We require that vehicles of all sizes be more fuel efficient. We have seen dramatic results from that, and we have hopes for even greater results in the future. This next chart shows the real progress we have made in reducing our reliance on imported oil. It was about 60 percent in 2005; it is now down closer to 45 percent in 2011. The Energy Information Administration projects that this progress will continue and their projection is that under current law, if we do nothing else, imports should drop to around 38 percent of our oil consumption by 2020. I, for one, hope we are able to do some other things and bring that dependency on foreign oil down even more. One way to continue that improvement is to support the expansion of our renewable fuels industry and support efficient vehicle production. In the context of our debate about energy tax policy, we must use some of our limited taxpayer resources to encourage a diverse supply of both energy and fuel. Promoting homegrown advanced biofuels and highly efficient alternative vehicles needs to remain a priority for our country. Yesterday we had a hearing in the Finance Committee's Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure, the purpose of which was to explore how the exploration of a number of tax incentives directed at advanced biofuels and at energy efficiency and at renewable energy has affected those industries. I hope very much that we can find a way to work together to keep those incentives in place and continue to make progress in developing these alternative ways to meet our energy needs. Unfortunately, there are those involved in these discussions who persist in focusing almost entirely on how to increase domestic production instead of on any other policy that could help us to use less oil. While we know domestic production will not significantly impact gasoline prices, at the very least when we discuss domestic production, I think it is important to get the facts right. There is an ongoing misunderstanding or misstatement of the facts about the production of oil on federally owned land. Let me address that for a bit. One of the Republican candidates stated last week in the context of gasoline prices that ``[p] roduction on government lands has gone down under Obama.'' Indeed, he went on to suggest--without any basis I could determine--that increasing domestic production of oil would reduce the price of oil by $1.13 a gallon. How he came up with that number I have no idea, but it is important that we all work from the same facts. Here are the facts: It is undisputed that overall domestic production of oil has increased, not decreased, over the last 3 years. We are showing a chart that makes that point. This chart shows that during the 3 years of 2006, 2007, and 2008--the last 3 years of the Bush administration--we produced 1.78 billion barrels of oil. During the first 3 years of the Obama administration--2009, 2010, and 2011--we produced 2 billion barrels of oil. One of the witnesses we had in a recent hearing in the Energy Committee was James Burkhard, a managing director of IHS/Cambridge Energy Research Associates, and he described our situation in this country as the ``great revival'' of U.S. oil production. Over the last 3 years, the U.S. increase in oil production was far greater than that in any other country in the world. The United States is now the third largest oil producer in the world after Russia and Saudi Arabia. This trend is also true for the subset of domestic oil production which we would define as federally owned resources; that is, oil production on Federal land. This chart I think illustrates that very well. Production on federally owned land is higher in every year of the Obama administration than it was in the previous administration. Between 2006 and 2008, as I said before, we had a total of 1.78 billion barrels of oil produced on Federal land. Between 2009 and 2011, the total is over 2 billion barrels being produced on Federal land. Secretary Salazar testified to the Energy Committee recently that oil production from the Federal Outer Continental Shelf increased by 30 percent between 2008 and 2010. Offshore production decreased somewhat between 2010 and 2011 because of the BP disaster in the gulf, but it still remained higher than it was in 2008, and that production, of course, is increasing substantially again in 2012. The Energy Information Administration suggests that clearly the decrease experienced in 2011 in offshore production was due to the Deepwater Horizon disaster. It projects that domestic oil production will increase over the next 10 years, in part due to ongoing development in the Gulf of Mexico. The projection is that it will increase by over 1 million barrels per day as compared to 2010. Annual oil production onshore on Federal lands has increased by over 8 million barrels between 2008 and 2011 and is now over 111 million barrels. Oil production has always fluctuated a bit from year to year on Federal lands and on private lands. There is no doubt that will continue to be the case. The important point here is that we need to put to rest once and for all the claim that the Obama administration is causing a reduction in production of federally owned resources. That simply is not the fact. We should also be aware that the industry has access to a great deal of productive Federal acreage that it has not yet developed. This chart is instructive. This shows total federally owned acres leased for oil and gas development as of 2011. We can see there are 74 million acres that are currently under lease. This is Federal land currently under lease, both onshore and offshore. The striking thing about this chart is that roughly 25 percent of this is actually being produced-- producing oil and gas at this time. There are many reasons for that. I am not accusing anyone of not diligently pursuing this; I am just saying there is a lot of land under lease, a lot of area under lease that is available for production, and I assume the companies that have leased it are aggressively pursuing that production. This final chart I wish to share with my colleagues covers the number of acres offered to industry for lease on the Outer Continental Shelf, all of which were in the resource-rich central and western Gulf of Mexico and the number of those acres actually leased. As we can see from this chart, the blue area is the area that was offered for lease but not purchased and the red is the area that was actually leased. The administration, of course, has announced they will have another lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico--in the central and western gulf--and this will cover 38 million initial acres. So there is a very substantial amount of land being offered for release. It is useful to keep in mind that federally owned oil production today is about 37 percent of our total domestic production. Many of our oil resources are located on private lands or State lands and resources from all of these areas are important in meeting our energy needs. We need to produce domestic oil and produce it responsibly. There are a lot of good national security and economic reasons for that. I have always supported doing that. But to suggest that some change in policy regarding domestic production is going to change the price of gasoline at the pump is disingenuous. In order to move toward policies that will work to moderate the impact of gasoline prices in the future, I think it is important we be honest with our constituents and ourselves about what the factors are that influence that price. We enacted some policies in 2007 that have been helpful. I hope we can build on that work at a time and on an issue of such great importance to the future of our country. I hope we can work together and stick to the same facts. If we do that, I believe we can develop and enact policies that can provide real help in the long run to our constituents who are suffering from high gas prices. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chair. Cloture Motion

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for his courtesy. Let me talk a little about the second and the third goals I outlined earlier. The second goal of the affordable care act is to improve the quality of care. There is not a lot of discussion about that, but that is a main thrust of this legislation. A strong, well-trained health care workforce is essential if we are going to have quality health care in this country. Many provisions of the bill will strengthen the health care workforce. One obvious question is, What is the need we are trying to address? Let me point out that 25 percent of the counties in the United States are designated as health care professional shortage areas. In my State, 32 of the 33 counties are designated as health care professional shortage areas. We are absolutely last. New Mexico is absolutely last in all States with regard to both access to health care and the utilization of preventive medicine. The affordable care act contains key provisions to improve access and delivery of health care services to these areas. We train a great many additional physicians, nurses, pediatric specialists, and other health care providers. There is a major push to improve the quality of care by focusing on outcomes and effectiveness of medical treatments. All this is very positive and should have been done many years ago in this country. I am glad we are finally doing it as part of this health care reform legislation. The third and final goal of the legislation, as I mentioned earlier, is to begin to rein in costs and eliminate waste and inefficiency. Experts agree there is a tremendous amount of waste and inefficiency in our health care system. Anyone who has gone to a hospital can see that. Estimates indicate that as much as one-third of medical care does not, in fact, improve anyone's health. I think this bears repeating. A full one-third of all dollars spent on health care in this country does not contribute to the overall health of the population. We are trying to deal with that in a variety of ways in this legislation, to get more cost-effective treatment and to get more efficiency in our health care system. The law provides for savings by stopping investments in so-called Cadillac insurance plans. Second, there is new transparency and accountability for insurers to justify premium increases. Third, the law requires that insurers spend at least 80 percent of the premiums they collect on actually providing medical care rather than on CEO salaries and shareholder profits and administrative costs. Fourth, the affordable care act increases competition and price transparency through these health insurance exchanges we established. Fifth, the law establishes an independent body to recommend policies to Congress to help Medicare lower costs while providing better care. I can go into quite a discussion of the advisory board we established to try to control growth in the cost of Medicare. I think it is a very meritorious provision and one about which a great deal of bad information has been provided. In conclusion, the facts demonstrate clearly to me that these reforms will move us forward toward more affordable health care, with greater choice for American families. We will see less waste. We will see less inefficiency in our health care system. We will see higher quality of care. We will start to bring rising health care costs under control. These are worthy goals. They are the goals of this health care reform legislation. I look forward to seeing them achieved in the coming months and years. Again, I thank my colleague for his courtesy in allowing me to continue longer than was planned. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, since this is the 2-year anniversary of the passage of the health care reform law, the affordable care act, and since the Supreme Court, of course, is meeting across the street hearing various arguments attacking the legislation--they heard arguments this morning; they are going to hear arguments again tomorrow morning; and they are going to hear arguments again Wednesday morning-- I believe it is a crucial time to remind all Americans why this law was needed, why it still is needed, and how it will benefit families across this country. In my view, there is considerable confusion about what the health care reform legislation will accomplish. And I am not surprised. The opponents of the legislation have worked hard in the last couple of years trying to confuse many Americans into thinking the bill contains all kinds of nefarious provisions. The Kaiser Family Foundation did a poll, however, that demonstrated when Americans are asked about the actual provisions that are contained in the law, there is strong bipartisan support for those reforms. So I wish to take a little time to straighten out what the provisions in the law are and how I see them impacting on our health care system. Health care reform was needed when it was enacted 2 years ago for two important reasons. First, before reform--and even today--one in six Americans was uninsured. That number was growing, is still growing. In my home State of New Mexico, the situation was even worse. We had more than one in five people in my State uninsured. That is the second highest rate of any State in the Nation. The large majority of the uninsured are working people. They have low incomes. They cannot afford to pay the very high cost of health insurance. The second important reason we enacted health care reform was that the cost of health care was continuing to grow at an unreasonable rate. As you can see on this chart I have in the Chamber--this is based on data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary--they estimate that national health expenditures per capita increased from 5 percent of gross domestic product in 1960 to 18 percent in 2010. So absent any intervention, this figure was projected to exceed 40 percent by 2080. The affordable care act significantly improves the situation. It does not solve all the problems in our health care system, but it substantially improves the situation. Due to the affordable care act, over the next 10 years, the rate of uninsured will be reduced by more than half. That is according to the Congressional Budget Office estimate. Low-income families will be able to afford health insurance, so they will not have to worry about going broke because they get sick. The rest of America will not see their insurance premiums rise to absorb the cost of expensive hospital care when the uninsured have nowhere else to turn. With full implementation of this law, Americans will get higher quality health care while at the same time we begin to rein in the growing costs of health care. The law does so while protecting key parts of the health care system, such as Medicare. It extends the solvency of Medicare from 2017--prior to the enactment of this legislation--to 2024. Despite claims to the contrary, these reforms are fiscally responsible. They decrease Federal health care spending by well over $1 trillion over the next two decades. Stated simply, the law protects the aspects of our health care system that are working well and fixes many of those aspects that are broken, and it does so in a fiscally responsible way. It achieves this through provisions that are intended to support three main goals. Let me go through those briefly. The first of those goals is to expand coverage and ensure health insurance is affordable. The second of those goals is to improve the quality of health care. The third is to begin reining in the rapidly rising costs of health care and create efficiencies in our health care system. Let me start with this coverage expansion under the affordable care act. Under the law people who need health care can get health insurance coverage. There is financial assistance to those who cannot afford it. According to the Congressional Budget Office's most recent projections, 93 percent of Americans will have affordable health insurance coverage by 2016 with full implementation of this act. That is 30 million more Americans who will be covered who are currently uninsured. Some of these provisions have already taken effect and have had a significant impact. For example, young adults up to the age of 26 can now receive health insurance coverage under their parents' insurance regardless of their marital or school or employment situation. Since the implementation of this provision, 2.5 million uninsured young people across the country have gained health insurance coverage. This includes over 21,000 young people in my home State of New Mexico. In addition, 20,000 seniors in my State who are in the so-called coverage gap for prescription drugs under Medicare are now saving on their prescription drugs because that so-called doughnut hole is decreasing in size as a result of this legislation. This is already benefiting 3.6 million seniors nationwide. Children with preexisting conditions are no longer able to be discriminated against, and adults with preexisting conditions who cannot get insurance have the option for coverage in a high-risk pool. With full implementation of the law, those adults will be in the same circumstance as children with preexisting conditions in that they will not be able to be discriminated against. What is more, the major coverage provisions are still to come. They begin in 2014. Medicaid will be expanded to cover more low-income Americans, those whose incomes go up to 133 percent of the Federal poverty level. This is a critical provision since experts tell us the expansion of Medicaid coverage is the most cost-effective way to provide insurance to low-income uninsured individuals and families. Seventeen percent of the nonelderly population nationwide benefit from the Medicaid expansion and the tax credits in this legislation. In New Mexico, as well as the States of Texas and Louisiana and California, which have high rates of uninsured, the estimate is that 36 percent to 40 percent of residents could benefit. Lower and middle-class income families will be eligible for health insurance tax credits to help purchase health insurance. While most Americans will still get health insurance through their employers, those who do not can purchase health insurance through the health insurance exchanges. These will be virtual insurance shopping malls in each State that will offer an easy-to-understand menu of options with which to compare insurance plans. So we will have informed and empowered consumers who can choose the plan that is right for them and their family. The intent of the health insurance exchange is to level the playing field, increase competition among insurers, and thereby keep rates competitive. Contrary to much of the rhetoric we have heard, States will not shoulder the fiscal burden of this coverage expansion. Limiting costs to States was a priority when we drafted this health care reform legislation. In fact, the Federal Government commits to assume 100 percent of the cost of the Medicaid expansion for newly eligible individuals during the first 3 years, beginning in 2014. Federal contributions are going to phase down after that slightly over the following years, so that by 2020 the Federal Government will be responsible for 90 percent of the cost of those newly covered individuals. For example, my State of New Mexico is expected to receive $4.5 billion in 2014, 2015, and 2016, as we expand coverage to more enrollees. This will allow access to Medicaid for about 180,000 newly eligible New Mexicans. Let me refer to this chart that is beside me. This shows the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of the expansion impact on State spending on Medicaid. As we can see, contrary to a lot of the statements that are made on the Senate floor and elsewhere, this increase is less than 3 percent. This is additional spending on expansion. It is a small fraction, 2.8 percent, of State Medicaid spending. This is for the period 2014 through 2022. While reform expands Medicaid, it also makes it possible for some current Medicaid enrollees to become eligible to participate in the health insurance exchanges and brings them into the private market. According to the Urban Institute analysis, the net effect of enactment of the affordable care act on State budgets, in the worst case scenario, will see States realizing net budgetary savings of at least $40 billion during the period 2014 to 2019. It is possible those gains could be as high as $131 billion. With respect to affordability--and I know my colleague who was just on the floor was talking about affordability--the impact on New Mexico families is a good example. On average, families in my State will see a decrease in insurance premiums, perhaps as much as 60 percent. In addition, two-thirds of New Mexicans could potentially qualify for subsidies or Medicaid, and nearly one-quarter could qualify for near full subsidies or Medicaid.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I see a colleague who wishes to speak. Therefore, I will ask unanimous consent that the balance of my statement be printed in the Record as if read.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, my colleague has said I could proceed for a few more minutes. Let me just----

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, March 29, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on current and near-term future price expectations and trends for motor gasoline and other refined petroleum fuels. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510 6150, or by email to Allison_Seyferth@energy.senate .gov. For further information, please contact Hannah Breul at (202) 224 4756 or Allison Seyferth at (202) 224 4905.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in tribute to Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, who has just become the longest serving woman in Congress, and to applaud the pioneering role that she has played in the evolution of the Senate. Things have certainly changed since 1986, when Senator Mikulski was elected to the Senate. When Senator Mikulski joined the Senate as the first Democratic woman elected in her right as opposed to filling the term of a spouse, the Senate looked very different. There was only one other woman senator, Nancy Kassebaum, a Republican from Kansas. The Senate had just begun to televise their proceedings the year she was elected. And, obviously, there were no women in leadership positions in the Senate. Senator Mikulski set out to change all that. She became the first woman in the Democratic leadership. She became the first woman to serve on the Appropriations Committee. And then she became the first woman to chair the Senate CJS Appropriations subcommittee. And things certainly have changed. Now, in the 112th Congress, there are 17 women, both Republican and Democrat, in the Senate overall. There are seven women on the Appropriations Committee alone. Five women chair Senate committees. Women have had significant roles in both the Democratic and Republican Senate leadership. While all of these changes were clearly not solely a function of Senator Mikulski's pioneering leadership, she blazed a trail as bright and as wide as anyone could possibly hope for. With her impassioned speeches, her plain spoken delivery, and her commitment to fairness and justice, Senator Mikulski could not be ignored or pigeonholed. She stood up for what she believed in, and she would not allow her voice to be silenced. Senator Mikulski cared deeply about health care issues, and women's health in particular. When she learned that many Federally-funded research protocols did not include women, she led the fight to insure that would never happen again. She established the Office of Women's Health at NIH to ensure women would always have a voice in critical health issues. One of her proudest accomplishments was working to pass the spousal impoverishment law, which changed the rules that forced elderly couples to spend all their assets and give up their home before the Government would help one member of the couple pay for a nursing home. Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't mention Senator Mikulski's efforts on behalf of her beloved State of Maryland. From the crabbers of the Chesapeake Bay to the steelworkers at Sparrows Point to the scientists at Goddard to all the other families all across the State, no one has worked harder to give them a voice on Capitol Hill than Barbara Mikulski. On this historic day, I wish her the best, and I know that as long as she is a United States Senator, she will never stop fighting for what she believes is right.