Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I was unable to cast a vote on the motion to table the Cornyn amendment No. 1251 to S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. I missed the vote today because I joined my family at my daughter's high school graduation ceremony. Had I been present, I would have voted to table the Cornyn amendment. We all agree that we need to do what is necessary to secure our border, but I would have voted to table the amendment for several reasons. One of the cornerstones of this legislation is bringing the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants out of the shadows by creating a fair, tough and accountable path to citizenship. Delaying this pathway by several years would be a disservice to our economy, our safety, and our identity as a Nation of immigrants. This amendment could delay or even prevent undocumented immigrants from starting on the path to citizenship, and cost taxpayers up to $25 billion. It is important to commit more resources and build on the progress we have already made on the border, and that is exactly what the bill already does. In the underlying bill, the Department of Homeland Security must submit two border security strategies to Congress within 180 days after enactment, one for achieving effective control of the entire southern border and another plan specifically for improving fencing on the border. The bill will immediately appropriate a total of $4.5 billion for these two plans to be implemented.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I come to the floor today to ask my colleagues to join us in supporting the historic comprehensive immigration bill that is before us today. We worked hard on the Judiciary Committee to craft a strong bipartisan bill that bolsters our economy, secures our borders and promotes opportunity for both businesses and families. I thank all of those involved in the original bill--Senators Schumer, McCain, Durbin, Graham, Menendez, Rubio, Bennet and Flake. I thank the members of the Judiciary Committee who all had a hand in changes to the bill. And I specifically want to thank Senator Hatch who worked with me on the I-Squared--Immigration Innovation--bill. The bill on the floor today contains many of the provisions from I-Squared that encourage more American innovation. As you know, we passed this comprehensive immigration bill out of committee on a bipartisan vote of 13 to 5 and I am hopeful we can build that same kind of broad-based support on the Senate floor. This is not going to be simple. It is not going to be easy. But the most important thing--the reason I am optimistic we can get something done--is the fact that we are all coming at this from the same basic starting point: Democrats and Republicans, Senators from border States and Senators from inland States, we can all agree on this: Our current immigration system is broken. And changes must be made. The question now is how those changes should come about, and that is why we are having this debate--to find that common ground and pass a bill that is ultimately stronger because it reflects the needs and priorities of both parties and all regions of the country. Passing comprehensive immigration reform will be a vital step forward for our country. It will be vital to our immigrant communities, who have been separated their families for too long. It will be vital to our security. And its will be vital to our economy, to strengthening our workforce, addressing our long-term fiscal challenges and promoting innovation. There are many strong and compelling arguments for immigration reform, but let me begin with the economic impact on our businesses and major industries. Minnesota is a big agriculture State, just like the State of Wisconsin, Madam President, and I can't tell you how many farmers and agricultural businesses I have heard from who tell me they rely on migrant workers and other immigrants to keep their operations going. I have heard it from high-tech startups, too, as well as big technology companies like 3M, St. Jude and Medtronic. I have heard it from the homebuilders and the construction companies, even hospitals and health care providers. These businesses represent a vast range of industries and interests. But when it comes to immigration reform, they all agree: It is critical to their operations, and it is a vital engine for growth and innovation. In fact, history shows that immigrants have helped America lead the world in innovation and entrepreneurship for generations: More than 30 percent of U.S. Nobel Laureates were born in other countries. Ninety of the Fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants, and 200 were started by immigrants or their children, including 3M, Medtronic, and Hormel in Minnesota. Workers, inventors, scientists and researchers from around the world have built America. And in an increasingly global economy, they are a big part of keeping our country competitive today. If we want to continue to be a country that thinks, invents and exports to the world, then we can not afford to shut out the world's talent. It doesn't make sense to educate tomorrow's inventors and then send them back home, so they can start the next Google in India or France. That's why I introduced the I-Squared Act with Senator Hatch to make much needed reforms to allow our companies to bring in the engineers and scientists they need to compete on the world stage. One of the things that bill would do is increase fees on employment- based green cards, so that we can also reinvest in or own homegrown innovation pipeline by funding more science, technology, engineering and math initiatives in our schools. In my State the unemployment rate is at 5.4 percent. We actually have job openings for engineers, we have job openings for welders, and we want those jobs to be filled from kids who go to the University of Minnesota. We want those jobs filled by kids who get a degree at a tech school in Minnesota. But right now we have openings and we have to do a combination of things. We have to be educating our own kids and making sure if there is a doctor coming from another country who is willing to study at the University of Minnesota or in Rochester, MN, and then wants to do his or her residency right in America in an underserved area in a place such as inner-city Minneapolis or a place such as Deep River Falls, MN, we let them do that residency or internship there instead of sending them packing to their own country. Much of the legislation that was in the I-Squared bill, as I mentioned, is included right here in the bill we are considering. The health care leaders' provision I mentioned originally, called the Conrad 30 bill, something I worked on with Senator Heitkamp and Senator Moran and others--that is also in this bill. Here's something else that's just good sense: Bringing the roughly 11 million undocumented workers out of the shadows. Immigrants who are ``off the grid'' can not demand fair pay or benefits, and there are those who seek to take advantage of that. It's a bad thing for the American workers whose wages are undercut. And it's a bad thing for the American families whose undocumented relatives are being exploited. In addition to the economic implications, having millions of undocumented people living in our country poses a serious threat to both our national security and public safety. This bill takes the only rational and feasible approach to bringing these people out of the shadows, by creating a fair, tough and accountable path to citizenship for those who have entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas. It's not an easy path. You have to pay fines, stay employed, pass a background check, go to the back of the line, learn English and wait at least 13 years to become a citizen. And if you have committed a felony or three misdemeanors, you're not eligible. You have to go back to your home country. Keep in mind, none of these steps towards citizenship would even begin until we had done what is necessary to secure our borders. This bill immediately appropriates $4.5 billion towards adding more border patrol agents, more fencing, and more technologies like aerial surveillance to prevent illegal crossings over the southern border. That is money that is being committed today, not a promise for future spending or something dependent on future Congresses. That money will be spent to make our border more secure. I think it is important to recognize that these new efforts would come on top of all the progress we have already made in recent years. Some estimates show that net illegal migration over the Mexican border is actually negative--meaning more people are going back or being sent back to Mexico than are coming here illegally. We have seen a sea change over the last few years and much of it, of course, is because of enforcement efforts going on, many funded by this Congress. But preventing illegal immigration isn't just about stopping people at the border. It's also about removing the incentive for people to come here illegally in the first place. The way we do that is by requiring employers to start using the E- Verify system, so they can check whether or not a person is authorized to work in this country. And to ensure the smoothest possible transition, we do it over a 5-year phase-in period based on the size and type of the company. So smaller companies, farmers--those who find it harder to use the system, they will go later. I believe our compromise on the workplace enforcement issue is a good one, and it's reflective of the bi-partisan, balanced approach that this bill takes overall, on so many other complex issues. The economic and security arguments for reform are compelling. But we know there is so much more to this. This is about maintaining America's role as a beacon for hope and justice in the world, particularly for those seeking refuge and asylum. This is something we know a lot about in Minnesota, where we have always opened our arms to people fleeing violence in their home countries. Minnesota is home to the largest Somali population in North America and the second largest Hmong population in the United States. We actually have the first Hmong woman legislator, Mee Moua. We are better off because of the incredible diversity and entrepreneurial spirit these people have brought to our state. We are proud of the work these people have done. We know and we believe we are better off because of the incredible diversity and entrepreneurial spirit these people have brought to our State from other countries. Just as we have granted asylum to people fleeing violence in other countries, we must also look after those fleeing violence here at home. That is why I feel so strongly about the need to ensure immigrant victims of domestic violence are not forced to suffer in silence. The bill we are considering includes two amendments I introduced in the Judiciary Committee that would protect immigrants who are victims of domestic violence and elder abuse. No person who is being abused should be forced to live in fear because they are worried they will lose their immigration status if they speak up. Children should not be forced to live in fear either. So we need to change our laws to ensure that families are not being torn apart by a system that is not only inefficient and expensive, but cruel: 64,500 immigrant parents were separated from their citizen children during the first 6 months of 2010 as a result of deportation. So this bill is about protecting families. It is also about building families. If I can say one thing about the domestic abuse issue, I cannot tell you how many cases we had when I was prosecutor where in fact the case would come into the office and the victim would be an immigrant. The perpetrator, we would have found, was threatening to get her deported or get her mother deported, if she was illegal, or get her sister deported or a family member deported if she reported it to the police. This bill fixes a lot of that by the way it handles the U visa program as well as other amendments I included, and it makes it easier to prosecute these perpetrators. As I mentioned, this bill is also about building families. Minnesota leads the country in international adoptions, and I've seen the incredible joy an adopted child from another country can bring to a new mom or dad. That's why I have introduced with Senators Coats and Landrieu a set of amendments to improve our system for international adoptions, so that more children can find a loving home here in the United States. This bill is vital to our economy and to our national security, but most importantly it is vital to maintaining America's remarkable heritage as a nation of immigrants. I am myself here because of Slovenian and Swiss immigrants. My grandpa on my dad's side worked 1,500 feet underground in the iron-ore mines of Ely, MN. His family came to northern Minnesota in search of work, and the iron ore mines and forests of northern Minnesota seemed the closest thing to home in Slovenia. My grandpa never graduated from high school, but he saved money in a coffee can so my dad could go to college. My dad earned a journalism degree from the University of Minnesota and was a newspaper reporter and long-time columnist for the Star Tribune. My mom was a teacher and she taught second grade until she was 70 years old. Her parents came from Switzerland to Milwaukee where my great grandma ran a cheese shop. The Depression was hard on their family and out of work for several years, my grandpa made and sold miniature Swiss chalets made out of little pieces of wood. So I stand here today on the shoulders of immigrants, the granddaughter and great-granddaughter of iron ore miners and cheese- makers and craftsmen, the daughter of a teacher and newspaper man . . . and the first woman elected to the Senate from the State of Minnesota. It could not have been possible in a country that didn't believe in hard work, fair play and the promise of opportunity. It could not have been possible in a country that didn't open its arms to the risk- takers, pilgrims and pioneers of the world. So this is a very special and enduring part of the American story. And we need to be sure it continues for future generations in a way that is fair, efficient and legal. Passing this bill is important to our economy. It is important to our global competitiveness. It is important to our national security. And it is important millions of families throughout the U.S. who want to come here and live that dream my grandparents and great grandparents lived. It's too important for us not to act. To my colleagues, join us in passing this bill. Let's get it done. I yield the floor. Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise in support of this very important bill. First, I wish to thank Senator Stabenow for her leadership, as well as the Senator from Mississippi. It was a true bipartisan effort. As I heard her list all the names of these wonderful staff people who worked on this bill, I also wish to mention my staff director Adam Durand. The other thing I wish to mention is this wouldn't have happened without Senator Stabenow, with her ever optimistic view, never giving up on this bill. It has been 354 days since the Senate passed its last farm bill--I have been counting it down--and this is long overdue. This got done in record speed because we had gone through all of these issues, 70- something amendments, last time, and this time we were able to get the farm bill through the Agriculture Committee in record time--in 3 hours. Now it is on the floor, and I predict we will have strong bipartisan support. You ask why. First of all, last year our country experienced the worst drought since 1956, costing the country tens of billions of dollars. In Minnesota 74 counties were eligible for disaster relief due to drought. This year the late spring and wet conditions have prevented many farmers in my State from even getting their crop into the ground. Dairy farmers have been especially hurt because of the alfalfa shortage because of the rot because of the water. We can't do anything about the weather, but we can make sure our country has a steady food supply and that we are not dependent on foreign food. How do we do that? By having a smart, fiscally sound farm bill. I can tell you what we have is a bill that literally saves the taxpayers $24 billion in 10 years over the last farm bill. That is why it makes no sense for me to play a game of green light-red light and at the end of the year we are going to extend the last farm bill that is even more expensive, when we have a very smart farm bill here. It matters in my State. My State is No. 1 in turkeys, sweet corn, green peas, and oats, No. 2 in spring wheat, No. 3 in hogs and soybeans, and No. 4 four in corn. But it is more than the crops and the sugar beets and the wheat. We don't just raise livestock. We don't just produce crops. We also produce the foods--milk at Land O'Lakes, the turkey at Jennie-O, the animal feed at Cargill, the Spam at Hormel. When we look at this farm bill, we have to understand it involves not just our farmers--in fact, that is the smaller percentage of the farm bill than, say, the nutrition program--but it also involves our entire economy and how that all goes together from energy on down. What I like about this farm bill is it does connect these dots and makes sure we have a strong economy across the board, starting with our farmers, also including strong conservation efforts. I see the Senator from North Dakota Ms. Heitkamp. She and I, along with Senator Hoeven, worked very hard to make sure there were strong provisions in this bill for the conservation efforts, which include our retention of water with floodings in the Fargo-Moorhead area, also making sure we had strong efforts for agriculture research, something everyone in our country cares about as we move forward. We streamlined the conservation program from 23 to 13 programs. The bill funds the energy title programs, which this last extension did not do, and it also does a lot with ag research. I also had some of my amendments included which help beginning farmers and ranchers; that includes reducing the cost of crop insurance for beginning farmers by 10 percent. The second amendment helps beginning farmers access land for grazing. These are just a few of the things in this bill. We are excited about this bill. I would just end by saying, as Senator Stabenow did, that this is a call for action. The Senate has gotten its act together. We were able to work out a bipartisan compromise in the committee. We are able to get a strong vote on the floor. Now it is time for Speaker Boehner to call up the House bill so then we can work out the differences--as we should--in regular order, in conference committee. Our farmers deserve nothing less, the kids who depend on these school nutrition programs deserve nothing less, and the conservation efforts in our country, those who hunt, those who fish, those who enjoy the outdoors, deserve nothing less. It is time to get this bill done. We will vote on it tonight and then it goes over to the House. I would like to get this bill out of the House by the time we are ready to head into August, where we talk to a lot of our farmers and they have a few words to say every time we speak to them. I think the House would like to hear good things for a change. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I was absent for the vote on an amendment to S. 954 on Monday, June 3, 2013. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of amendment No. 987. Alfalfa growers face unique risk management challenges and the amendment would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop improved crop insurance policies for this crop. I have been closely monitoring reports of widespread loss of alfalfa in Minnesota this spring. Following last year's drought, this loss of alfalfa is particularly troubling for cattle and dairy producers. I am working closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Minnesota farmers to remove barriers for planting forages and also to expand opportunities for grazing livestock on conservation program acres. I will continue to push for immediate relief for Minnesota agriculture producers.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today in support of the nomination of Sri Srinivasan to the D.C. Circuit Court. Mr. Srinivasan is an exemplary nominee to the Federal bench, and I am here to encourage my colleagues to confirm him without delay. Sri Srinivasan is currently the Principal Deputy Solicitor General at the Department of Justice and was previously a partner at the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers LLP. Born in India, Mr. Srinivasan grew up in Lawrence, KS, and earned his B.A., with honors and distinction, his M.B.A, and his J.D., Order of the Coif, all from Stanford University. After completing law school, Mr. Srinivasan served as a clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and then for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Srinivasan has extensive Federal appellate court experience representing pro bono clients, private sector clients, and, in his current post, the U.S. government. Over the course of his 17-year legal career, Mr. Srinivasan has argued an impressive 24 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and 9 cases in the Federal courts of appeal. His arguments before the Supreme Court include a wide range of subject matters ranging from the First Amendment, criminal procedure, and foreign sovereign immunity to banking, immigration, and Native American law. If confirmed, Mr. Srinivasan will be the first Asian American in history to serve on the D.C. Circuit, and the first South Asian American to serve as a Federal circuit judge, which is a very significant milestone. The non-partisan American Bar Association committee that reviews every Federal judicial nominee gave Mr. Srinivasan its highest possible rating. And a group of solicitors general and principal deputy solicitors general of the United States wrote a letter saying that ``Sri has first-rate intellect, an open-minded approach to the law, a strong work ethic, and an unimpeachable character.'' In addition to his professional accomplishments, Mr. Srinivasan has dedicated substantial time to teaching, mentoring and pro bono representation. His achievements as a public servant and a private attorney are outstanding, and if confirmed, I have no doubt that he will serve as a committed and distinguished member of the Federal bench. Mr. Srinivasan has received considerable praise from all parts of the legal community including former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. In an interview with The New Yorker last year, Ms. O'Connor said she remembers Sri, ``as a very skilled, intellectually gifted clerk.'' She went on to say that Mr. Srinivasan deserves a smooth ride to confirmation. She said, ``he's not anybody who's been politically active, he's been very serious in his work habit, and people have had an ample opportunity to see his work.'' With a strong vote of confidence from Sandra Day O'Connor, an esteemed former Supreme Court Justice, Mr. Srinivasan has garnered the one of greatest endorsements any nominee to the Federal bench can receive in my view. Not only is Mr. Srinivasan remarkably credentialed and widely supported, he is nominated to serve on one of the most important courts in the Nation, a court that currently has four of its eleven judgeships vacant. The D.C. Circuit is widely regarded as the second-most important court in the United States, behind only the U.S. Supreme Court, because of the complexity and significance of the cases it decides. The court has significant responsibility in deciding cases regarding the balance of powers of the branches of government and actions by Federal agencies that affect our health, safety, and industry. With the court's current vacancies, the D.C. Circuit caseload per active judge has increased 50 percent from 2005, when the Senate confirmed a nominee to fill the eleventh seat on the D.C. Circuit bench. Vacancies on this court should only be filled by the best and the brightest legal minds in the country--those who have demonstrated the most sophisticated legal and analytical skills, those who have committed their careers to justice, and those who personify professional excellence and impeccable character. Based on his impressive qualifications and stature in the legal community, it is clear that Mr. Srinivasan embodies those ideals. I strongly support his nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I came here today first of all to talk about the farm bill. I am a member of the Agriculture Committee. We are very proud of this bill. It is a strong bill. As Senator Chambliss just pointed out, it enjoys broad bipartisan support. Of particular importance to the State of Minnesota is the safety net that is in the bill; the focus on ag research, which the Presiding Officer from the State of Wisconsin, with her great universities, knows is very important; and the work we have done with dairy in trying to improve the dairy program. The dairy farmers have been the hardest hit in our State of any of the agricultural groups. I have done some new things for new and beginning farmers. Then, of course, there is the Sugar Program--something that has been a topic today, as some of our colleagues are trying to strip the Sugar Program out of the bill. I would argue that this is 30,000 jobs in the Red River Valley of Minnesota and North Dakota. American sugar is actually much less expensive than you see in the price on the global marketplace. The Sugar Program works. It works for workers, it works for America, and we need to continue it. The Budget I would like to turn to the focus of my remarks today, which is, first of all, on the budget. I thank Senator Murray for her leadership on the Budget Committee and for all her hard work in advancing a smart, balanced budget to meet our country's fiscal challenges. This is not the first time I have come to the Senate floor in the last year or in the last several years to stress the critical need for Democrats and Republicans to come together and focus on smart solutions to reducing our debt. I think it is a good sign that both the House and the Senate have passed budgets and that the President introduced his budget last month. I see this time as a real opportunity to come together to work through this budget process and get a deal done. That is why we must take the next step in the process, which is to move forward under regular order and have the House and Senate conference on a budget deal. For years we have been hearing from our colleagues across the aisle about how the Senate did not have a budget. Well, the Senate passed a budget, and all we want to do is to move this into conference committee so that the House and the Senate can work together so that we can get a budget for this country. There is growing bipartisan support for going to conference and starting the conversation so that we can come to an agreement on a long-term budget. Last night Senators McCain and Collins came to the floor and talked about how we need to return to regular order in the Senate, and regular order means going to conference to come to a budget deal. Doing so will allow us to stop lurching from crisis to crisis and address our fiscal challenges in an open, bipartisan way. I believe this is what folks outside of Washington, especially the people I talk to in Minnesota, want; for us to put politics aside for the good of the country and come together on a budget deal that reduces our deficit in a balanced way but also lays a foundation for sustained economic growth. In the past 2 years Congress has made some progress in reducing the deficit. We have already achieved $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction, with a goal of a $4 trillion reduction in 10 years within our grasp. Last week the Congressional Budget Office reported that deficit will fall to $642 billion this year, $200 billion less than what the CBO projected just 3 months ago. The better numbers reflect good news in housing and larger than expected increases in tax revenue. But I believe that resting on those numbers would be a mistake. If we are to get closer to reaching a new deficit agreement, it is only going to happen if we work in a bipartisan way through regular order to get a deal done. Along with addressing our fiscal challenges, working through the budget process and coming to agreement will create a stronger, more resilient framework for economic renewal. We certainly see how we got a major bill done through the Judiciary Committee last night when we were able to get the immigration bill done. There is no reason a conference committee should not be at work right now taking the Senate budget that we have heard for years needs to be done and paring it up with the House budget and coming together. In the bigger picture, this presents an opportunity for us to reinforce our role as a world leader in innovation, entrepreneurship, exporting, education; in other words, that which we have always taken pride in. We want to be a nation that produces, that invents, that exports to the world. Part of that is showing the world we have our fiscal house in order. I believe the Senate proposal is the right blueprint for moving us forward. On the most immediate front, it will allow us to build on the progress we are already seeing in the economy. Last month, the national unemployment rate dropped to 7.5 percent, the lowest level in 4 years. Our housing market is turning around. Consumer spending has picked up in the first months of the year as has private business investment. The unemployment rate in my State of Minnesota is at 5.4 percent. But even with this progress, our economy remains vulnerable to headwinds. We should keep this good economic momentum going but only if we are willing to find common ground on a budget plan that also moves our economy forward. We need to take a balanced approach to deficit reduction. You do not have to take my word for it. Nearly every commission that has offered ideas for reducing our debt has stressed the importance of balance. This includes the original Bowles-Simpson plan, the Rivlin-Domenici plan, and even the revised Bowles-Simpson plan, which calls for another $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction, one-quarter of which would come from new revenue totaling $600 billion. We do not just need a balanced budget; we need a budget that is in balance. I believe the Senate's budget achieves that goal. It includes an equal mix of responsible spending cuts and new revenue from closing loopholes and ending wasteful spending in the Tax Code. Our budget builds on the $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction we have already achieved in the last 2 years, with an additional $975 billion in targeted cuts and $975 billion in new revenue, surpassing the bipartisan goal of $4 trillion. Just this morning I was at the Joint Economic Committee--I am the Senate chair of that committee--where Chairman Bernanke testified. He warned us about the negative impact--that cuts solely focused in the short term can negatively impact economic growth. He noted that policies such as sequestration are creating headwinds against short- term economic growth and that Congress needs to take a broader, long- term view toward our debt and deficit. That is what this conference committee is about. That is what regular order is about. We have a Senate budget. We have a House budget. We have that opportunity to bring those budgets together in a conference committee. Some of the most important points in the Senate budget include the fact that it replaces the sequester with smart targeted cuts while also making critical investment in areas such as education, workforce training, and infrastructure. It produces savings in Medicare and Medicaid by eliminating waste and fraud, promoting efficiency, and emphasizing cost alignment. Our budget also recognizes there is a massive amount of spending that takes place through the Tax Code, to the tune of over $1 trillion per year in tax expenditures. The Senate budget eliminates wasteful tax loopholes and subsidies. All told, the Senate budget cuts the deficit by approximately $2 trillion. This continues us on a downward path where our debt-to-GDP ratio will be about 70 percent by 2023. Getting the Federal budget on a sustainable path will only promote growth and stability. The American people want us to get this done. They want us to compromise. They want us to work together to get the economy on the right track. I urge my colleagues to support moving to conference so we can begin the work of finding solutions to a very important matter. Gas Prices I wish to speak briefly on one other topic that is an important economic issue for families and businesses in Minnesota; that is, the recent spike in gas prices. We do have some good things in the farm bill that will help us, including the promotion of energy and biofuels, but I came to discuss the recent spike in gas prices in Minnesota, a problem that is disrupting commerce and hurting consumers, small businesses, and farmers across the State and throughout our region. In Minnesota, the average gas price is $4.25, 40 cents higher than 1 week ago and over 80 cents more than only 1 month ago. In fact, a few days ago it was the highest in the country, higher than Honolulu. It happened all of a sudden, in literally a 2-week period. That is a significant increase which puts family budgets under severe pressure. I am focused on immediate relief. I am taking actions now so we can avoid similar gas price spikes in the future. With Memorial Day around the corner and the start of the summer driving season upon us, this kind of price spike is simply outrageous. To cut back on costs, some families are already putting off family trips and scaling back vacations. I have already heard from families who have canceled or scaled back their plans. But there are some things people cannot put off, such as driving to work, such as going to the doctor's office. More money to fill the tank means less money for food, housing, and everything else families need. Families in Minnesota cannot afford an 80-cent spike in the price of a gallon of gas, neither can business owners who need to ship their goods to market or farmers who rely on diesel fuel to keep their equipment running. We know what is causing the price increase--supply shortages resulting from the simultaneous closing of several oil refineries in the Midwest. We also know what is not causing the price increase. The price of crude oil has not moved. We are about $96 a barrel, similar to where prices were 1 month ago. In fact, the national trend in gas prices, which tracks the price of crude, has not moved much either. OPEC has not been jacking up their prices. We did not have a hurricane or even a blizzard that would affect supplies or prices. The increase has not been caused by a pipeline rupture or geopolitical threats. Rather, the price spike has resulted largely from the combination of a number of refineries going offline for scheduled and unscheduled maintenance which serve the upper Midwest to prepare for the summer fuel blend. I understand that refineries need to adjust their blends and occasionally perform upgrades to protect worker safety and repair equipment. But scheduled routine maintenance should not be an excuse for major gasoline shortages and price spikes. Three refineries in Indiana, Illinois, and Flint Hills, MN, currently are shut down for maintenance or upgrade. A fourth refinery in Wisconsin is currently offline as they turn their productions over to summer fuel blend. A fifth refinery in St. Paul Park, MN, remained down longer than expected, but I understand that refinery is again operational. The result of all these closures is Minnesota and other parts of the Upper Midwest simply did not have enough refined gasoline to make it to the market right now. In this day when we have a surplus of fuel, when we are drilling record amounts in North Dakota, when we do not see a huge increase in the price of oil, this just should not be happening. That is why last Thursday I called on the Department of Energy to thoroughly review the timing of scheduled maintenance operations and to take action to address future supply problems that are preventable. I have also spoken with the Department of Energy about ways to resolve the issue quickly and prevent disruptions down the road. I am working with DOE and industry partners on legislation that addresses known scheduled closures of refineries for maintenance. Having improved information could serve as an early warning system to protect consumers from production problems within the refinery industry. With more transparency and more lead time, fuel retailers will have the opportunity to purchase fuel at prices that better reflect the underlying cost of crude oil and better reflect supply and demand across the country. I also believe refineries should give immediate notification of any unplanned outages. I am working to address this as well. I am also working with the Secretary of Energy to look at the potential for additional refined fuel storage capacity in our region. Minnesota has less storage capacity for refined products than other parts of the country, making us more vulnerable to the kinds of refinery outages we have experienced this year, both planned and unplanned. If we had additional storage in place, we could better ensure fair and consistent prices for our consumers. This week I talked to all of the major oil companies that own these refineries. It looks as though additional shipments from another pipeline are helping to increase supplies. This should provide some relief. Petroleum markets in Minnesota have reported the spot prices in the wholesale markets were down by 30 cents, but that drop has not yet reached our consumers. I believe we need an all-of-the-above plan to get serious about building a new energy agenda for America. This, of course, means less dependence on foreign oil, more domestic production of oil as we are seeing in North Dakota, natural gas, and, of course, biofuels. It also means tougher vehicle efficiency standards that help cars to go farther on a tank of gas. But my focus is on our immediate problem. We need to get refineries up and running and get gas prices down so we can all we begin to enjoy this summer. I look forward to continuing to work with the Department of Energy and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address the recent and unnecessary spike in gas prices and prevent this from happening again. I yield the floor.

Mrs. KLOBUCHAR

Mrs. KLOBUCHAR. I am also pleased to hear this discussion to clarify how the additional funding for the Great Lakes is to be interpreted and applied. I want to ensure the entire Great Lakes system functions effectively, and that means properly dredging the harbors in Minnesota so ships carrying iron ore, coal, limestone, and other commodities can fully load their vessels. It is critical that high-use ports like Duluth and Two Harbors in Minnesota get dredged, but for ships to carry goods at full capacity, it is also vital that their trading partners throughout the Great Lakes system are fully dredged. This agreement will go a long way toward increasing the efficiency of shipping across the Great Lakes system, which will strengthen the economic standing of our agriculture, mining, manufacturing and other industries on which the Great Lakes region depends. I would like to thank Chairman Boxer and Senator Vitter, for their work to address our concerns, and I would especially like to acknowledge the leadership of Senator Levin on this issue and Great Lakes matters across the board.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I come to the floor today to speak on the importance of passing the Water Resources Development Act or, as we know it around Washington, the WRDA bill. In my State they know it as a bill that is good for our harbors, rivers, and the flood protection we need in the Fargo-Moorhead area or, as I like to call it in Minnesota, the Moorhead-Fargo area. The bill advances a critical front to protect the Red River of the north to Moorhead, MN, and Fargo, ND. I visited this region twice over the last year, and I have been back literally every year I have been in the Senate because of flood threats--these years more than ever. This is literally an every-year occurrence now to the point where people have major sandbag operations filled with volunteers, seniors, and people from the prisons. Everyone is working together, but there must be a better way to do this. Just because we do it so well in North Dakota and Minnesota and have such an incredible spirit of voluntarism doesn't mean there is going to be one year where the flood is too great or that we should continue on this path when, in fact, we have the opportunity to have long-term flood protection. The river has been above major flood stage 6 out of the last 8 years. In 2009, the year of the record flood, the river rose to more than 40 feet. I will remind the Presiding Officer of the Grand Forks flood and what happened there. It was literally just about an hour away from Fargo. So we were that close to that happening in Fargo and Moorhead. In Minnesota and North Dakota, the Red River doesn't divide us, it unites us. It is in that spirit of solidarity that we drive our efforts to help the Red River Basin. This year we were fortunate that the flooding was not nearly as severe as it had been projected. A week before the crest went down, it was projected to be the second biggest flood in history with the late snow. In 2009 and 2010 homes and farms with ring dikes around them looked like small islands floating in the floodwaters. If anyone thinks this lasts for a day or week, it literally lasts for months. Entire towns create ring dikes, and they can only get out of them with boats. That is what is happening near the Canadian border in Minnesota and North Dakota. The town of Georgetown, MN, is threatened every time the Red River rises and the Buffalo River overflows. The volunteer who was working at the emergency center--I went up to him and said: It is so nice that you are making lunches for people. He said he lost his entire home. I said: And you are here? He said: Yes, this is the only thing I could think of to do to help other people who had the same bad experience as me. That is the spirit of voluntarism in our States. I think we can do better. The annual threat of flooding in the Fargo- Moorhead area underscores the need for permanent flood protection. We know about the devastating impact of floods. The flood diversion project, which is authorized in the WRDA bill, is critical to safety and economic development. I have enjoyed working with Congressman Peterson on flood diversion efforts, including retention, which he cares a lot about, and we did get some funding for that. I was able to get funding in the farm bill today to help with that. I have also worked with Senator Hoeven, Senator Heitkamp, and Senator Franken on this long-term project to have actual permanent solutions to our flooding project in Fargo and Moorhead. We have a problem, and the WRDA bill is the beginning of a solution. Also included in this bill is a Roseau River project, which is at a critical point. The WRDA bill helps address flood protection for Roseau, MN. Roseau has recovered from a flood in 2002 that caused widespread damage, but the area needs flood protection to reduce the flood stages in the city. The next phase of the plan will include a diversion channel, a restriction structure, and two storage areas designed to remove the city from the regular 100-year regulatory floodplain and reduce future flood damages by nearly 86 percent. The WRDA bill also advances our Nation's water infrastructure, which is something the Presiding Officer knows a little bit about in Massachusetts. It is clear that our 21st-century economy demands 21st- century infrastructure, and we cannot afford to sit back any longer and allow it to crumble. No place knows this better than Minnesota. I lived six blocks from that 35W bridge, which is an eight-lane highway. One day, in the middle of a summer day, the bridge fell down in the middle of the Mississippi River. As I said that day, a bridge just shouldn't fall down in the middle of America, but it did. We are seeing the same crumbling infrastructure and problems with many of our ports across the country. Failure to take action will have consequences no one likes. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, inefficiencies in infrastructure are estimated to drive up the cost of doing business by an estimated $430 billion, and that is just in this decade. The civil engineers' 2013 report card gives our Nation's infrastructure an overall D-plus grade. As someone who has taught students before, I think the Presiding Officer knows that is not a good grade. Our inland waterways infrastructure, which includes our locks and dams on the Mississippi River, gets a D-minus, and our ports received a C grade. We cannot be satisfied with those grades. When people hear ``ports'' they think of places such as Massachusetts, South Carolina, Florida, and California. But, in fact, the Great Lakes--including Lake Superior, which we are so proud of in Minnesota--have very significant ports. In fact, when I first came to the Senate, I was assigned to the Commerce Committee and somehow found myself on the oceans subcommittee. I remember sitting at my first meeting thinking: What am I doing here? I am on the oceans subcommittee. I wrote a note to the Senator from New Jersey, Frank Lautenberg, that said: I am the only Senator on the subcommittee who doesn't have an ocean. I kept the note he wrote back to me. The note said: It is easy, next year just come back and ask for one. Well, in fact, I found out since then that the oceans subcommittee included the Great Lakes so it gave me a platform to advocate for our Great Lakes. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, which is so important to our ocean-bordering States, also includes the Great Lakes. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund collects $700 million each year more than it spends on dredging. In other words, it collects $700 million more each year than it spends on dredging and maintenance. Meanwhile, our ports and navigation channels wait for basic maintenance. We need to correct this disparity and ensure the funds are spent to address the needs of the shippers and ensure that the Great Lakes system does not fall into further disrepair. I was just up at the Port of Duluth-Superior to highlight the need for dredging and maintenance on the Great Lakes. The Port of Duluth- Superior is ranked among the top 20 ports in the U.S. by cargo tonnage. It sees 40 million short tons of cargo and nearly 1,000 vessel visits every year. I think people would be surprised by that since Minnesota has lakes. In fact, we have 1 of the top 20 ports in the country. We have 11,500 jobs that are dependent on cargo shipments in and out of the port. The port is critical to the economy of northeastern Minnesota where my dad was born and my grandpa worked as an iron ore miner. Guess what. That is how they got the iron ore out of Minnesota and out to the world. It is critical that high-use ports like Duluth and Two Harbors get dredged so they can support the ships. It is vital that their trading partners throughout the Great Lakes system receive maintenance as well. Both Duluth and Two Harbors, MN, ports are considered deep-water ports, so they come into a classification which has tended to get the funding, but, in fact, the entire Great Lakes navigation system is in trouble. The backlog of sediment due to insufficient dredging is more than 18 million cubic yards and estimated at $200 million. When ships on the Great Lakes have to ``light load''--having to reduce the amount of cargo they carry because channels are not deep enough--our economy suffers. At first some people might think: What does light loading mean? At the end of 2012, the light loading to navigate the Soo Locks on the St. Mary's River between Lake Superior and Lake Huron meant 10,000 tons of cargo could not be transported on the final voyage. Think of it. These are American goods that our workers produced, and we want them to make more of it. Yet we literally cannot put them on the ships because we have not maintained our ports the way we are supposed to. The ships that are coming in cannot take the goods. They have to wait until the winter is done. That is what happened this year and has been happening many years. We are an export economy. America's way forward is to make goods again, invent, and export to the world. Well, that is not going to happen if we cannot get our goods to market. That is why I have been working so closely with Senators from across the Great Lakes to address this backlog. We have been able to make some progress. I cosponsored an amendment with Senator Levin to direct the Secretary of the Army Corps to manage the Great Lakes navigation system as an interconnected system. This would ensure that maintenance and dredging is done throughout the system. There is much more to do. I will continue to work with Senator Levin, Senator Stabenow, and other Great Lakes Senators on this bill. The WRDA bill will go a long way toward increasing the efficiency of the shipping across the Great Lakes system, thereby strengthening the economic standing of our agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and other industries. The bill also makes critical reforms to our Nation's rivers and waterways. The inland waterway system in this country spans 38 States and handles approximately one-half of the inland waterway freight. Farmers and businesses in my State transport soybeans, corn, and other commodities from Minnesota to other terminals in the South. From there, ships are loaded and the commodities are eventually delivered to trading partners. Again, if we want to produce and export to the world, we have to have the transportation system that supports it. With many maintenance and construction projects years overdue, the inland waterways are in dire need of major rehabilitation. The Inland Waterways Trust Fund, which funds these projects, is in steady decline. If we don't make the Inland Waterways Trust Fund sustainable, the industries that are so heavily dependent on the inland waterways will suffer, and this means jobs suffer. I cosponsored the RIVER Act with Senator Casey and Senator Landrieu to help move forward major construction projects on the inland waterway system. That bill is also supported by Senator Lamar Alexander. It is a bipartisan bill, and it includes much needed rehabilitation of the locks and dams along the Mississippi River. This bill includes a number of reforms to the project management process that will ensure that waterway projects are completed on time and minimize cost overruns. I also, by the way, support the amendment to increase the inland waterways user fee. I am a cosponsor of that amendment. Let me emphasize that the users who pay this fee have asked for it. We have a situation where the industries are willing to pay more so we can improve the locks and dams so they can get their goods to market. That is what is going on here. They understand we are having budget issues, and they are willing to pay a higher fee to pay for the changes. Industry partners from farmers to shippers to companies, such as cargo companies in my State, strongly support this user fee increase. The increase was, in fact, their idea. They realized that the government wasn't going to fund these and that they were having trouble doing business, and they have agreed to pay for this increased fee. To me, it is the perennial no-brainer that we get this done. They know this modest change would go a long way to making our Nation's rivers and waterways viable for years to come. While the fee increase will not advance, sadly, in the WRDA bill because it is considered a tax provision, it sends an important message that industry and shippers are at the table and volunteering more to help build the infrastructure our economic future requires. We plan on advancing this part of the river act in another bill--in tax reform or standing on its own--because we think it is so important to be able to fund these improvements to the locks. Finally, in Minnesota, the fishing and boating industries contribute around $4 billion to our State's economy each year. Sometimes I like to tease people and ask them how much money do they think we spend on worms in Minnesota every year. Well, it is literally tens of millions of dollars. People come to our State and buy worms and bait and other forms of fishing tackle because of their importance to our economy. In fact, for last weekend's Minnesota fishing opener, sadly, cold and ice covered many lakes, but people were still out there looking for that empty hole where there wasn't ice so they could put their line into the water. In Minnesota, we also know how important it is to address invasive species problems, especially when they threaten our lakes and rivers. In our State the problem of Asian carp is literally swimming and jumping into our lives. Anyone who hasn't seen the YouTube video should look at it. You can see Asian carp literally jumping out of the water and hitting fishermen in the head. We are very concerned because we have seen problems with them downriver in southern Minnesota. They are coming our way, and we do not want them to ruin our way of life in Minnesota, nor do we want them to hurt our jobs and our $4 billion fishing and gaming industry. I believe we need an ``all-of-the-above'' solution to this challenge that includes research, carp barriers, as well as authority to close the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock. I am very glad the provision was included to allow for greater coordination between Federal agencies when it comes to Asian carp, and this also includes rivers and not just the Great Lakes. So we are continuing to work on this bill when it comes to Asian carp and other invasive species, but I think there are some other good provisions in this bill as well. I wish to commend Senators Boxer and Vitter for their great work to put together this bipartisan legislation. I support its passage, from fighting to protect towns from flooding to critical waterway infrastructure. This legislation is vital to our economy, to our environment, to our cities, and to our towns. I am excited to be a part of it. I hope my colleagues support it and we can get this done. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I thank the former Governor of Virginia. He knows how to balance a budget and how to have a strong budget for the good people of this country. I share his frustration that we are not able to bring this long-awaited budget that we finally passed in the Senate to conference with the House. I hope minds will change and we will be able to get this done. Again, I thank the Senator for his leadership and for a balanced approach on reducing the debt.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Marketplace Fairness Act. I would like to thank Chairman Rockefeller. I would like to thank the two major sponsors of this bill, Senator Durbin and Senator Enzi, who have been working on this for years, and Senator Heitkamp for her longtime knowledge and leadership on this bill, as well as Senator Alexander. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation. It has been very important for years for businesses in Minnesota, both big and small, and across the country, giving them the certainty they need. That is what this bill will do so they can succeed and grow. I am encouraged to see the Senate coming together in a bipartisan way to create a level playing field for our businesses on Main Street to compete. That is all they want to do. They just want an even playing field to compete. The bipartisan support for the Marketplace Fairness Act is a reminder that when we put politics aside we can get things done, something the Presiding Officer from the State of West Virginia knows about very much. During the budget debate, 75 Senators came together and we succeeded in passing an amendment that I cosponsored to the budget resolution that helped outline the broad support for a very simple idea: that all businesses need to play by the same set of rules. When I go around my own State, as I know Chairman Rockefeller does in his, I hear from small locally owned retailers, and competitive issues are raised all the time. We have small businesses--this gives a sense of what we are talking about--places such as the Uffda Gift Shop in Red Wing, MN. I hope all of you will visit there. I have been there and did Christmas shopping there. There is Mary's Morsels, which is a bakery in Eveleth, MN, on the Iron Range, northern Minnesota, where my dad grew up; Sleepy Eye Floral--I suggest all of you go to Sleepy Eye, MN, at some point in your life. You can then go and buy some flowers at Sleepy Eye Floral. You will find big support for this legislation, the Marketplace Fairness Act. In my time in the Senate I have been committed to a competitive agenda that promotes long-term economic growth. Part of that agenda includes not only bringing our debt down in a balanced way, promoting exports, making sure that our workforce is trained for the jobs of today, but it also means an even playing field and making sure that all businesses can compete. That is what America has been built on. I know our businesses in Minnesota want that level playing field. It is time we give it to them. That is exactly what this bill does. It allows brick-and-mortar retailers the ability to compete against out-of-State Internet retailers. States are currently unable to require out-of-State or online-only retailers to collect sales tax. It puts local mom-and-pop shops at a significant disadvantage. Not only that but this loophole--by the way, this is not about adding a tax. That is why we have such strong bipartisan support. It is only about allowing those taxes to be collected, something most people support. I have to tell you that because these taxes are not being collected, it creates a loophole that is literally draining billions of dollars in lost revenue from State and local governments at a time when they need it for police officers, they need it for firefighters, and when they need it for our schools. Some $23 billion last year alone was lost because these laws were not being enforced in an even way. My State lost about $394 million in 2011 from out-of-State sales taxes that are legally due but not collected. This lost revenue translated into over 7 percent of Minnesota's general sales tax liability in 2011. In our State, local brick-and-mortar retailers assess sales tax at a rate of 6.875 percent, while their online competitors typically assess no sales tax. That is simply not right. When this happens, city and State governments either have to find revenue from other sources, such as raising taxes, or they must cut critical services. Let's also be clear about what the legislation that Senator Heitkamp has so intelligently pointed out--let's be clear about what the legislation does and does not do. It does not create any taxes or increase existing taxes. It simply gives States the ability to enforce their own sales and use tax laws, which reduces the need to raise taxes. It also relieves customers of the legal obligation to report to State tax departments the sales taxes they owe. One of the longstanding principles of tax fairness is that taxpayers who engage in similar economic transactions should face the same tax consequences. Today, that is simply not the case. Minnesota is home to these thriving small businesses, but also to many large businesses that are in retail, such as Target and Best Buy. I have seen with my own eyes people go into Best Buy, spend half an hour with a very eager salesperson who is helping them in any way, looking at dozens of TVs, and then go back outside the store and buy it on the Internet. That is not how things should work. We have to have fairness. That is why this bill is called the Marketplace Fairness Act. This bill has such strong support from business, such strong support in this Chamber. I am very excited about what is going on. We have been having this debate for over 10 years now. It is one of the first things I heard about when I got to the Senate 6 years ago. It is long past time to get this done. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I wish to discuss a very important issue--living well at the end of life. Today is National Healthcare Decisions Day. It is a day dedicated to reminding people to plan for the future, to encourage discussions--no matter how difficult--to let families, friends, and caregivers know your wishes, whatever they may be. This is an incredibly important and pressing issue, but it is one that no one likes to talk about. No one likes to face their own mortality. But we must because we know that more often than not, patients' preferences are not known or adhered to near the end of life. In the absence of clearly defined expectations and wishes, death can be an incredibly scary and confusing time for a patient and their family. Misunderstanding among physicians and family members about a loved one's final wishes can cause significant psychological and emotional hardship. Families may disagree about treatment options and argue about whether their loved one should get more or less treatment, aggressive intervention or palliative care. These disagreements can often result in the patient receiving a different course of treatment than they might have preferred--an undesirable yet easily avoidable outcome. We need to empower patients to express their wishes, to exert their choice, and to clearly define their preferences and expectations, whatever they may be, to those who will be along their side at that difficult time. People often think, ``I'm too young to worry about that.'' Or, ``I have plenty of time to deal with that later.'' But these conversations aren't just important for people who have been diagnosed with terminal illness or individuals approaching old age. In fact, if you wait too long, you may not get the chance. Most diseases don't discriminate and accidents can happen to anyone. The time for us to think about what our wishes might be is before we are in a crisis--when we can think clearly about the consequences of the course we select, consult with our spiritual and moral leaders, and discuss these difficult issues with family and friends. There are many physical, emotional, and spiritual components to these issues, and it takes careful reflection to determine which are most important to you. I am very proud to say that my State has been a leader on this issue. We have a great organization called Honoring Choices Minnesota that provides resources and tools to help people start these difficult conversations with their families. There will be several events in my State today and all across the country highlighting the importance of not only making your preferences known, but ensuring that people who want to can document their wishes through an advanced care directive, physicians order for life sustaining treatment, or other legal mechanism. I encourage my colleagues and all Americans to take time today to think about their families, their wishes, and to begin planning for the future.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I also wanted to welcome the Senator from Nebraska. I am honored to be her mentor. There are three things I wish to say. First, we need a woman rancher in the Senate. I was sitting here thinking about the last famous woman who was a rancher, Sandra Day O'Connor. She grew up on a ranch. Second, she possesses interest in agriculture and the pragmatic, practical economic issues shared by a lot of us in the Midwest. I am looking forward to working with her on those issues. Third, when she speaks about bipartisanship, she means it. She comes from a background where she actually worked to get things done in her State legislature. We need more of this in the Senate. Welcome, Senator Fischer.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank Senator Murray for her great leadership. I also wish to thank Senator Enzi and Senator Durbin on the Marketplace Fairness Act. This is a bill and an amendment that needs to pass. It is incredibly important to small businesses, big businesses, and to people across this country who work for retailers. When I travel around my State, I hear from small, locally owned retailers about the competitive disadvantage they face against online retailers, small businesses such as Creative Kidstuff that sells educational and developmental books for kids and Thrifty White Pharmacy, a full-service, employee-owned drugstore. Right now, States are currently unable to require out-of-State or online-only retailers to collect sales tax and it puts local mom-and- pop stores at a disadvantage. Not only that, but this tax loophole is draining billions of dollars in lost revenues from State and local governments--$23 billion last year alone across the country. In effect, this tax loophole subsidizes some taxpayers at the expense of others and some businesses over others. That is why we call this the Marketplace Fairness Act. I have been committed to a competitive agenda for this country since I got to the Senate, and part of that agenda includes not only encouraging competition and innovation, but it is also about having an even playing field for our businesses. Minnesota alone lost about $394 million in 2011 from out-of-State sales that are legally due but not collected. This lost revenue translates into over 7 percent of Minnesota's general sales tax liability in 2011. That is what we are talking about. This is real money. One of the longstanding principles of tax fairness is that similarly situated taxpayers should be taxed similarly. A bookstore on Grand Avenue in St. Paul has to charge a sales tax, while an online retailer selling that same book hundreds of miles away does not. A consumer buying a T-shirt in downtown Duluth is taxed differently than his friend who is buying that same T-shirt on the Internet. Someone buying a TV at Best Buy--hometown company--in Richfield, MN, is taxed differently than if he buys the same TV online. Our current situation encourages tax avoidance, undermines our tax system, and ultimately creates a competitive disadvantage for brick- and-mortar retailers at a time when we want them to succeed. I am so excited that there is a bipartisan group of Senators supporting this bill. Our momentum is growing. We can see it today on the floor. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of some of the supporters from my State that includes major stores such as Target and Best Buy to the Uffda Shop in Red Wing, MN. I have shopped there and I suggest my colleagues do the same. It also includes Mary's Morsels & Catering and Sleepy Eye Floral & Design, to give my colleagues just a sense of the hundreds of companies that support this in Minnesota.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. If the Senator would like to speak for a minute or so, if he has something he would like to say.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I want to thank the Senators who joined me today as we work to advance a smart, balanced approach for meeting our country's fiscal challenges. The time is ripe for common ground on a budget plan to move the economy forward. While I don't know if we will have that bipartisan plan in the next few days, I think we will get a budget through this Chamber which will pave the way for the kinds of bipartisan negotiations we need to have. We need to keep this country moving, and moving in the direction we need. When I go out there and talk to small companies throughout my State, they want us to get something done. They want to have consistency so we are not playing green light, red light with the Tax Code; that they know exactly where they stand. I think they all acknowledge everyone is going to have to sacrifice a little here. I think they acknowledge we are going to have to do something which makes a difference and not just speak about it anymore. We have not only the opportunity but the responsibility to find common ground on a deficit reduction plan which will help build a stronger, more resilient framework for economic renewal so families and businesses have the certainty they need. I think we know neither party is going to get everything it wishes, but this doesn't mean we can put our heads in the sand and pretend this isn't happening. I truly appreciate my Republican colleagues. When we meet behind closed doors and speak about this, they have a willingness to compromise. I think this is what will happen in the future. However, our job in the next 2 days is to get a fair budget through a balanced budget. This is what Senator Murray's budget is. I have been part of this, and I look forward to working with her and our colleagues in the future to show the American people we can stand tall and do what is right. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I thank Senator Franken for his strong words in support of this amendment. I thank him for being a cosponsor of this amendment. May I ask how much remains on the Joint Economic time?

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I think we have made our case here with the $975 billion in spending cuts that are contained in the budget, and the fact that to date we have made $2.4 trillion in debt reduction, and of that 70 percent or $1.5 trillion has been spending cuts. What we are simply trying to do with this budget is keep this balanced approach to not set an economy--which was literally on its heels a few years ago-- back in the same place. We want to do deficit reduction. We want to give our businesses the kind of consistency and incentive to invest, but not do it in a way which Chairman Bernanke has said would cause a sharp contraction by doing too much too soon at once on the backs of the middle class and seniors. I am very hopeful in the coming months I will be able to find some kind of compromise and agreement with our colleagues. The American people are tired of the gridlock. They want to see people are willing to work together. I truly believe courage is not just standing alone but standing next to someone you don't always agree with for the betterment of this country. Senator Sessions and I have worked very well together on Judiciary matters, and I wish to continue to do this on the budget. Turning to another matter, I spoke about marketplace fairness, and I support that amendment to this bill. I also want to talk about the medical device tax repeal. As I mentioned before, one of my major focuses in the Senate has been on an innovation agenda, the idea we should manufacture items in this country, invent things, and export to the world. This is how we are going to get out of the current situation we are in. I believe we can do it. We need to do it by promoting innovation all across this country. My State has a long history of innovation, bringing the world everything from the pacemaker to the Post-it note. We are home to one of the world's leading medical device companies, Medtronic, started by Earl Bakken in his garage. It is not just the large medical device companies and their employees who keep this industry running, the small- and medium-sized companies and their entrepreneurs are incredibly vital as well. In Minnesota we have over 400 medical device companies employing more than 35,000 people across the State. This thriving technology, the medical technology sector, has been one of the keys to our success and one of the bright spots in America's economy. When you look at the potential for exports, as you see a growing middle class in China and in India, people are finally going to the hospital. They are beginning to receive good health care. We have a great potential here for more jobs in America as long as we do this correctly. The United States is currently the largest net exporter of medical devices in the world, yielding a trade surplus of roughly $5.4 billion a year. Medical device companies are also responsible for creating millions of high-paying, highly skilled American jobs, exactly the kinds of jobs we want in this country. These are the kinds of jobs where every parent sends their kid to high school and says, is he or she going to learn something which will create a job? I am looking at our pages right now, and I can tell you medical device jobs are one of those kinds of jobs. In order to ensure our country remains a world leader in medical device innovation, we need to address the 2.3-percent excise tax on medical devices. As you know, this came out through the Affordable Care Act. At the time I opposed that tax. We negotiated and were able to get it halved from $40 billion to $20 billion in 10 years. It still isn't right because it creates too much of a burden. Medical device manufacturers are not the ones which are going to get multiple new customers, millions of new customers out of the increase in coverage in the health care bill. Pharmaceuticals might. They negotiated something. Think about it. A lot of medical devices are used by people who are older. They tend to have health care coverage with Medicare and other things. This is the issue here is this is not at the right rate, this is not the right tax, and it should be repealed. The tax is a burden on medical device businesses but, most importantly, it is a disincentive for jobs. It stifles innovation, and it makes it more difficult for the next generation of lifesaving devices to make it to the market. I have been fighting to reduce it, repeal it, and to delay it since the first day it was introduced. At the end of last year, I rallied a record number of Democratic Senators behind the effort. While we couldn't get an agreement included in the fiscal cliff negotiations, we had great traction. I think there were 18 or 19 Democratic Senators in strong support. I see Senator Coats from Indiana, as part of the strong support we had on the Republican side for repealing this tax. This is why Senator Hatch and I have filed an amendment to the budget resolution to repeal this tax and help give these businesses and their employees the certainty and stability they need to keep researching, developing, and inventing the next medical breakthrough. Our amendment now has the support of 28 of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. I am hoping we can continue to work in a bipartisan way. I yield 2 minutes to my colleague Senator Franken of Minnesota to speak about this important issue.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I wish to thank Senator Murray for her leadership on this budget. This is not an easy thing. We all know this. She actually has been working on this many years. I am very proud of this budget and the work which has been done here, the balanced approach which has been taken. I wish to thank Senator Mikulski, the Senator from Maryland, our fearless leader of the women Senators, who has been there since the beginning and understands these fights in a different way than many of us who are new can't imagine. We will need to continue moving forward for the women of this country and can never step backward, which is where I wish to begin discussing this budget. The budget Senator Murray has proposed is a budget which moves us forward. For a long time, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have been talking about how we need to get $4 trillion in budget reduction and deficit reduction over the next 10 years. We have done $2.4 trillion. It is a start. It is not all we need to do, but it is a start. Of that amount, the $2.4 trillion, 70 percent was in cuts. When we look at the proposals which have been made by Simpson-Bowles, Rivlin-Domenici, the Gang of 6, all the groups which have worked on a very strong bipartisan basis, they have all proposed something like 2 to 1 on spending cuts to revenue. The proposal which has been made on the House side which passed in the House today isn't even close to that. In fact, when we look at Congressman Ryan's budget, there isn't revenue in this budget. He does include some of the past revenues. Even when you do that, that is a 10- to-1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue for this country going forward. It is not the right mix. Yes, we need to balance our budget, but we also need a balance which is budgeted. The last thing we need to do is balance our budget on the backs of women and children. This is why it is important for people. I will return later to speak about some of the economic issues in my State and why it is so important to move forward and have a budget with a balanced mix of spending cuts and revenue. I truly believe we need a deal here. We need to bring this debt down. It is very important to me because I think it will trigger investment. We need to do it in the right way. Today, I am focused on one issue; that is, the effect this budget would have on women and children, the budget proposed in the House versus the budget Senator Murray has put together. It is no coincidence the Senator who is leading us through this budget process is the same Senator who joined me last spring when the Violence Against Women Act was on the floor. We needed to rally all 17 women Senators behind us. At the time people thought it was stuck, it was a gridlock and wasn't going anywhere. Then all the women Senators, Democrats and Republicans, came together. Patty Murray was the leader in this effort. This is why this Senate budget not only maintains but increases critical funding for the Violence Against Women and Family Violence Program. This will give law enforcement better tools for responding to cases of domestic violence and sexual assault, programs which make sure mothers and children have a safe place to go and programs which help victims get back on their feet again. Even more important, this includes programs which save lives. As a former prosecutor, I know firsthand how important the Violence Against Women Act has been. We were very pleased it was reauthorized on such a strong bipartisan basis. It is incredibly important, not just for those individual victims but for entire families and entire communities. Statistics show kids raised in violent homes are 76 times more likely to be perpetrators of these crimes when they grow up. This is why I truly appreciate Senator Murray's work to ensure we have a policy in place, which is something we worked on in the Judiciary Committee. I see Senator Hirono from Hawaii. We worked hard on this, as it is important, but also the funding is in place. We consolidated programs, reduced funding with the Violence Against Women Act and did different things in the last Violence Against Women Act to make it more efficient. This is fully funded in this bill, and it is very important for people to know who care about this. As to health care, something which is very important to our kids, the House budget, as has been noted by Senator Stabenow and others, would slash billions of dollars in basic health care services for children, including prenatal care for expectant moms and vaccinations for kids. Under the House proposal, more than 33,000 women would lose access to maternal and child health care services in Minnesota alone. Meanwhile, another 8,551 children would lose access to lifesaving immunizations. This is only in my State. Sadly, after the devastating flu season we just experienced, with many children dying across this country, how could anyone think it is a good idea to cut funding for vaccination programs? How could that be one of the proposals in this budget. There are so many loopholes we could close, so many tax subsidies we could eliminate. Why would we cut kids' vaccinations? Sadly, this is what happened in the House today. While we are on the subject of health care, I also wish to point out the House budget would cut funding for the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, meaning hundreds of thousands of women would lose access to mammograms, pap smear tests, cervical cancer screening, which is the tip of the iceberg. By repealing the Affordable Care Act, the House budget would threaten preventive care for women across this country. The Ryan budget would eliminate the important reforms to improve patient care, already noted by Senator Mikulski and Senator Stabenow. It would eliminate the important reforms to improve patient care and the delivery system which is included in the health care bill. What is interesting to me is Congressman Ryan does acknowledge the Affordable Care Act has some very good savings in it because he includes those over $700 billion in savings in his budget. This is great, but then he cuts out all those budgets I spoke about which were so important to the American people: to not be banned from health insurance because you have a preexisting condition and to be able to keep kids on their parents' insurance until they are 26 years old. I am looking forward to that with my own daughter. The third thing I mentioned is closing the doughnut hole for our seniors. Those things are all being cut under this budget. We have had this debate too many times already. I wish to be clear; the Senate budget not only protects core funding for preventive services but upholds the Affordable Care Act and its most important provisions for women and children. Let's turn to another front to see how women and children of this country, particularly children, fare and this is education. On the education front, the Senate budget--while still making $975 billion in cuts, $975 billion in spending cuts--still maintains core funding for early education through the Head Start Program. The House budget, when combined with sequestration, would push almost 200,000 low-income children out of the program in 2014. We all know education is one of our best investments. When we look at the global economy and education growing across this country, we are getting real competition from other countries. The last thing we need to do is cut back on education. This is why the Senate proposal includes continued support for elementary and secondary schools through programs such as IDEA, the ladder which provides early intervention in special education services to kids with disabilities. Our budget also makes key investments in improving literacy and increasing the emphasis on STEM, science, technology, engineering, math. This is the future. We want to train our own kids in America, as Senator Sanders is well aware, to ensure they have the skills to be able to compete on the international stage. What does the House budget do? It slashes close to $1.2 trillion of investments in education, skills training, science and technology, R&D, transportation and infrastructure over the next 10 years. Do you know what I think. I think that is being penny wise and pound foolish and not what we should do in the budget for the United States of America. I truly believe we have an amazing opportunity right now. We have seen better unemployment numbers than we have seen in 4 years. The housing market is starting to turn around. People are starting to go back to work. It is not nearly where it should be. The last thing we need to do is go backward. The last people who want to see us go backward are the women of America. I was listening as Senator Stabenow spoke about the health care bill, the Affordable Care Act, and during the Finance Committee there was a debate about whether maternity care should be included in the mandatory benefits. One of our colleagues at the time said: I don't understand why maternity benefits should be included. I never needed them. Without missing a moment, Senator Stabenow looked across the table and said: I bet your mother did. There are a lot of mothers around America right now who are looking at these budgets because these budgets represent values, the future of our kids and the women and men of this country. Let's bring our spending down. Let's get over the $4 trillion figure we are supposed to get out of the debt reduction but do so in a way which doesn't hurt middle-class families and doesn't hurt the families most vulnerable. I know we can do it. We are a great country. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I wish to first thank Senator Murray again for her leadership on the Budget Committee. Day in and day out, month in and month out, she has been working on this budget and she has achieved, along with the committee, a smart, balanced proposal for meeting our country's fiscal challenges. This is not the first time I have come to the Senate floor to talk about the critical need for a balanced approach and to bring down our debt in a balanced way, but this is the first time in a long time I have actually felt optimistic that we are going to get a budget through the Senate and optimistic that there are a lot of stirrings of bipartisanship and compromise. While our budget, as has been pointed out and I will point out, is very different than the House budget, I think there are still grains of compromise there. We have seen this willingness in the Senate, with our Republican colleagues, to talk about bringing the debt down, whether it is the Gang of 6 or the Gang of 8 or whether it is the work of Simpson-Bowles or the work done with the Rivlin-Domenici group. These are all reasonable proposals. We don't agree with everything in them, but they are all reasonable proposals and they contain some balance. The other reason I am optimistic is that we have a great opportunity here. I was reminded of this last week when former Republican Senator Judd Gregg testified before our Joint Economic Committee. He actually paraphrased the Foreign Minister of Australia saying, ``The United States is one debt deal away from leading the entire world out of economic doldrums.'' I couldn't agree more. Look at the economic news we have had in just the last month. We know there is so much work to do, that there are too many people unemployed, and there is too much investment that is not being made. But we also know that we saw the best month for unemployment numbers than we have seen in 4 years. We are seeing a turnaround in the construction market. We are seeing a turnaround in the housing market. I can tell my colleagues that in my State, we have unemployment that is at about 5.6 percent. So we are seeing progress, but we have more to do. The last thing we need to do now is to go backward. We need to go forward, and that is what Senator Murray's budget does in a very balanced way. As I have said many times before, we are talking about balance. I believe the Senate budget achieves the right equilibrium. It includes an equal mix of responsible spending cuts and new revenue from closing loopholes and ending wasteful spending in the Tax Code. Our proposal builds on the $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction we have already received--I don't think every citizen knows that--$2.4 trillion. Let's remember 70 percent of that was spending cuts and the other 30 percent was revenue. That is a balance. It is not exactly the balance we wanted on our side of the aisle, but if we were to adopt the House budget right now, we would be at, if we include the past revenues, 10-to-1 spending cuts to revenue. That is not the balance we are seeing in the other proposals that have been made by these bipartisan groups. How does our budget do this? The additional debt reduction to the $2.4 trillion we have done to get to over $4 trillion in debt reduction--first of all, $975 billion in targeted cuts and $975 billion in revenue. Again, this will help us to surpass the bipartisan goal of $4 trillion and put our debt-to-GDP ratio at about 70 percent. Some of the most important points in the Senate budget include the fact that it replaces sequestration--which is just a hammer--with smart, targeted cuts while also making critical investments in areas such as education, workforce training, and infrastructure. When I get out in our State with our unemployment rate at 5.6 percent, I hear time and time again that there are jobs unfilled, that we need to train workers, that we need our high school kids to be going into trades again, to be going into technology, math, and science. This budget accounts for that. It produces savings in Medicare and Medicaid by eliminating waste and fraud, promoting efficiency, and emphasizing cost alignment. We know a little bit about this in Minnesota, with the Mayo Clinic and the way we deliver health care in a high-quality, low- cost way. One study out of Dartmouth showed that if they simply used in the rest of the hospitals across the country the cost-effective ways of the Mayo Clinic, we could save $50 billion--$50 billion in 5 years with chronically ill patients. That gives a sense of what we are talking about when we talk about high-quality, low-cost care. Our budget also recognizes there is a massive amount of spending that takes place through the Tax Code to the tune of over $1 trillion per year in tax expenditures. I come from a State with a thriving renewable energy sector, and 2 years ago we agreed to let the ethanol tax credit expire at the end of 2011, which saved billions of dollars. In fact, that was $60 billion in 10 years--$60 billion. I do not understand why the oil industry cannot follow ethanol's lead. I am proud of the work they are doing. I have been out to Lewiston. I have seen the drilling in North Dakota. It has helped to increase our own domestic oil production and decrease our dependency on foreign oil. But I do not believe the oil companies still need $40 billion in 10 years. That is a lot of money we could bring in to reduce the debt. We can make other commonsense changes. One I would propose is with the home mortgage deduction, very near and dear to everyone's heart. Cap it at $500,000 in value of a home. If you buy a million-dollar home, great. Then you get it for up to $500,000 in value of the home. That brings in tens of billions of dollars in debt reduction. All told, the proposal that is coming out of Senator Murray's budget reduces the deficit by approximately $2 trillion. If enacted, our debt will continue on a downward path, where our debt-to-GDP ratio will be, as I mentioned, about 70 percent. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that a debt-to-GDP ratio in that range would also result in a 1- percent increase in the size of the economy in that year. We cannot discount the impact that a growing economy can have on deficit reduction. CBO expects GDP growth to be above 3 percent in 3 of the next 4 years. As the economy grows, we will see more revenue, and we will see lower deficits. Former CBO Director Alice Rivlin, who just testified last week at a Joint Economic Committee hearing on the very topic of debts and deficits, said this: The really important thing is to keep the debt from growing faster than the economy. I could not agree more. Deficit reduction must be paired with economic growth. This is where we need to be, and I am optimistic that ultimately--while we have many differences that we are going to hear a lot about today--ultimately, we are going to come together on something that works for America. Unlike the proposal in the House, I will tell you the Senate budget preserves and protects Medicare, ensuring that it is there for our seniors today and strong for our children and grandchildren tomorrow. I firmly believe we can make some reforms to our Social Security safety net, and that those reforms--that money--can go right back into Social Security to keep it solvent. On the Medicare front, there are many things we can do without reducing the benefits for our current seniors, for the people who deserve that help. Look at what we could do. The VA negotiates prescription drug prices and gets much less expensive drug prices for high-quality drugs. Right now, we do not do that with Medicare. By negotiating prescription drug prices under Medicare Part D, you could produce $240 billion in savings over 10 years right there. Why not leverage the power of America's seniors? They have a lot of power. We all agree we need to reduce our debt. But our ultimate goal is not simply a balanced budget; it is a budget that is balanced. Let's look at what goes on with the Ryan budget. Well, the Ryan budget gives millionaires a huge tax cut, drastically lowering their income tax rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent. Last year, the Joint Economic Committee, on which I serve, estimated that a similar plan introduced would have given millionaires an additional $285,000 in tax breaks, while hitting the average middle- class family with a $1,300 tax hike. He also claims his tax cuts for the wealthy, which would cost about $4.5 trillion--and I say that because I believe they would be paid for by the middle class--will not add to the deficit. But Ryan refuses to name one specific loophole or expenditure that his budget would eliminate to pay for the tax cuts. Some experts project that such extreme cuts, as we would see in his budget, would cost jobs. I believe that is true. That is why, as we are seeing this improvement in stabilization of our economy, we need to do things in a balanced way over the long term. We need to send the clear message that we are reducing this debt and get to our goal of $4 trillion in debt reduction in 10 years. But we simply cannot do it by doing it on the backs of the middle class who are still struggling in this country. I urge my colleagues to support this budget proposal. It is time to get it done. I truly see this as a time of opportunities not only in the next 2 days to get the budget done, but also in the next few months as we negotiate with our colleagues across the aisle to get a budget for America. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I now yield 8 minutes to Senator Tester of Montana.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, the Joint Economic Committee has 30 minutes on our side, and I do not know on the Republican side. I think we are about halfway or more into it.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Yes.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, this is a bipartisan amendment. This is about innovation and jobs. The medical device industry is one of our biggest exporters. We have so many opportunities out there with a growing middle class in China and India to export even more, but we cannot have a tax that puts us at a competitive advantage. I think people understand that. This is about manufacturing, high-skilled jobs, millions of jobs in America. I ask my colleagues to vote with Senator Hatch and me to repeal this tax.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I will conclude my remarks by saying this is an opportunity to help our State and local governments, but it is a big opportunity to help the employees and workers of this country who work every day, showing those TVs, making sense of things, explaining how things work, going to work every day, putting those flowers in the vases. They deserve an equal playing field. This amendment does it. I am now going to begin my 30 minutes of Joint Economic Committee time. I am the vice chair of the Joint Economic Committee, which is a joint committee with the House and I am the Senate chair. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes, that Senator Tester be permitted to speak for up to 8 minutes, that Senator Sanders be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes, that I then again be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes, and that Senator Franken be permitted to speak for up to 2 minutes.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for allowing me to go for 3 minutes here before he has the next turn. I appreciate that. I come to the floor as some of our colleagues have done already, and we just heard from the great Senator from New York, to discuss the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the D.C. Circuit Court. Caitlin Halligan is currently the General Counsel at the New York County District Attorney's Office. New York County is just another name for Manhattan, so we are talking about a big county and a big office. In fact, it handles about 100,000 criminal cases each year. Before that, she was Solicitor General of the State of New York for 6 years and the head of the appellate practice at a major law firm. She also clerked on both the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court and has argued five cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. That is a resume. The nonpartisan American Bar Association committee that reviews every Federal judicial nominee gave Halligan its highest possible rating, and over 100 women law professors and deans wrote a letter saying Halligan is exceptionally qualified to serve on the D.C. Circuit. There is no question that she has the experience, ability, and intellect to sit on the Federal bench. It is also important to recognize that she is not an ideological or partisan nominee. Well-known lawyer Carter Phillips, who was assistant to the Solicitor General in the Reagan administration, has said that Halligan is ``one of those extremely smart, thoughtful, measured and effective advocates'' and that she would be a ``first-rate judge.'' Phillips is not the only conservative lawyer to endorse Halligan. For example, Miguel Estrada signed a letter from 21 prominent attorneys which stated that Halligan ``brings reason, insight and judgment to all matters'' and ``would serve with distinction and fairness.'' Given support like that from people such as Miguel Estrada, I don't think it can be said that Halligan is an extreme ideologue or that she is outside the mainstream of legal thought. Her nomination should not and cannot be blocked. This is a great candidate who will make a great judge. As New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said about her, she ``possesses the three qualities important for a nominee: Intelligence, a judicial temperament and personal integrity.'' She must be confirmed without delay. Filibusters are about debating issues. This is an individual. We cannot amend her. We simply have to decide whether she is qualified to be on the bench. There is absolutely no doubt. People may not agree with every single thing she said. I don't think anyone in this Chamber agrees with every single thing that judges have said or that people we put on the Supreme Court have said, but we simply came together and stood up for one principle, that our job is to decide if someone is qualified, if they can do the job, if they can interpret the law. This candidate can do it and she can do it well. If Senators ultimately wish to oppose her nomination, fine, that is their choice. But they should not filibuster an extremely qualified candidate. Let her have an up-or-down vote. I yield the floor.