Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Virginia for his well-thought-out argument and the evidence he put out here for the Presiding Officer, a former law professor who believes in evidence. I think it is important that we look at the facts. I wish to back up some of the facts to why this workload argument doesn't make sense, even when it is put out clearly for the women nominees and it wasn't put out recently for the male nominees. But here are the facts: When George W. Bush was President, the Senate confirmed his nominees to fill four empty seats on the DC Circuit. That was not long ago. Under President Obama, there have been four vacancies on the court. There were four under Bush and four under Obama. The difference? All of President Bush's nominees were confirmed by the Senate. It is important to note that one of President Obama's nominees--as was pointed out by my colleague from Virginia--was confirmed by the Senate. I guess that means one guy is confirmed and then these three seats are still open for which women have been put forward. Some people apparently think there is a problem with the numbers, but let's look at the actual numbers. These same people have supported having more judges on another court that actually has fewer pending cases. The reason we use that standard-- pending cases--is those are the active cases. They are not the pro forma orders which are issued quickly. These are the actual cases before the court for which they have to make difficult decisions. The DC Circuit has 8 active judges, 6 partially retired senior judges, and 1,479 pending cases. The Tenth Circuit has 10 active judges, 10 senior judges, and 1,341 pending active cases. So the Tenth Circuit--to which my colleagues have confirmed multiple nominees--has more judges but fewer pending cases per judge. Why does the Tenth Circuit have more judges with fewer cases per judge than the DC Circuit? I believe the answer is quite simple: Earlier this year, the Senate confirmed two judges to fill the empty seats on the Tenth Circuit, and the Senate should do the same with the DC Circuit by taking these three well-qualified nominees and confirming them. I see the Senator from Washington has arrived and I know she has a few remarks about this as well. As I pointed out to the Presiding Officer, this is just the beginning. We are going to continue to fight for these three women judges.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I also thank the Senators who are gathered here today for their stalwart support. Senator Merkley, whom Senator Murkowski mentioned, from the day he got to the Senate and actually before when he was in Oregon, has been working on this issue; and also Senator Collins for working with Senator Kirk and the leadership and the courage she has shown on nearly every issue that has come before this Chamber; and then Senator Murkowski. I love that she can talk about Alaska's sense of independence and their belief that you treat people well and you don't discriminate against them, and the picture of her in her neighborhood with all the diversity. I think a lot of people in other States don't expect that of Alaska but anyone who has visited there sees it firsthand. Senator Portman's amendment is a good amendment. The Presiding Officer is the other senator from Ohio. I was going through my Twitter feed while watching the election coverage last night and came across a tweet from Senator Portman's son Will, who is in college. The tweet talked about his dad's vote on ENDA, and it said: Way to go, Dad. So I urge my colleagues or anyone who wants to get a tweet from their own kids or nieces, nephews, or grandkids--who seem to understand a little more quickly than some of our Members here how important it is to treat people fairly--that they too, if they vote with us, can get a tweet from some young person which says: Way to go, Senator. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today in support of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, also known as ENDA. For my State it has been quite a year for equality. Last November we were the first State in the country to defeat a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality. Up to that point those amendments had passed. Then, just a few months later, earlier this year, Minnesota became the 12th State to allow full marriage equality--the 12th State in the country. I am proud to represent our State. It has been a true civil rights pioneer. We can go back to the days of Hubert Humphrey, who once stood on this floor, and to his speech to the 1948 Democratic convention where he talked about standing for the people of this country, standing for people with disabilities, standing for the most vulnerable. That is the history of our State. Before striking down the amendment banning marriage equality, Minnesota was one of the very first States to ban discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity. That happened back in 1993. I would say that 20 years later it is time for the rest of the country to catch up. That is not to say the country hasn't made great strides towards fairness and equality. I am proud of our progress. Through the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act we have made it a Federal crime to assault someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. It wasn't that long ago we were debating the Matthew Shepard bill on this floor. The Presiding Officer had not yet arrived here in the Senate, but I remember we had that debate several times through many years. We came close so many times and finally were able to pass it. That bill was about hate crimes and assault. The fact that we have now reached this level where we are talking about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is truly a tribute to change in this country--the people of this country pushing for change. Since the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, our gay and lesbian servicemembers who serve this Nation with honor and distinction can serve openly. That is something else that happened in this Chamber, something else someone predicted would never happen. Just this year, the Supreme Court took a major step towards marriage equality by striking down key parts of the Defense of Marriage Act. But there is more to be done in our Nation's pursuit of equality. The rest of DOMA needs to be eliminated, and that is why I am a cosponsor of S. 1236, the Respect for Marriage Act. Federal benefits need to be guaranteed for domestic partners of Federal employees in States that haven't yet adopted marriage equality, as my State of Minnesota has, and that is why I am a cosponsor of S. 1529, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2013. As we discuss policies affecting LGBT Americans, we also need better data. We need to better understand the disparities people experience because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. That is why I am working to strengthen our data collection in these areas. And, of course, we need to pass ENDA--the topic before us today. The bill before the Senate would be a major step forward for equality. I urge my colleagues to support the Employment Non- Discrimination Act because protections against discrimination in the workplace need to be extended to all Americans, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation. Americans have many different views on sexual orientation and gender identity, but I think we can all agree every person deserves to be treated with dignity in the workplace. In 29 States across the country it is still legal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation. In 29 States it is still legal to fire someone because they are gay, and currently there is no Federal law prohibiting this from happening. That is why we need ENDA and why I am a proud cosponsor of this bill. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act will provide basic and necessary protections against workplace discrimination--protections just like the ones we have had in place in Minnesota since 1993. ENDA will allow all Americans to earn a living without fear that who they are or whom they love will cost them their job. The law is not intended to give anyone any special treatment. It simply extends Federal employment discrimination protections such as the ones currently provided based on race or religion, and applies those now to sexual orientation and gender identity. The American people are coming together behind this measure. More than two-thirds of people in this country, Democrats and Republicans alike, support a Federal law protecting LGBT individuals from discrimination in the workplace. The bill has the support of over 200 civil rights, religious, labor, and women's organizations. It upholds and protects religious liberty by exempting houses of worship and religiously affiliated organizations. Companies and businesses big and small know that discrimination in the workplace hurts their bottom line. That is why, as the Senate chair of the Joint Economic Committee, I released a fact sheet on the economic consequences of workplace discrimination. It is easy to see why businesses are on the side of equality. A majority of the top 50 Fortune 500 companies say prodiversity policies increase profitability. We have certainly seen that in Minnesota, where General Mills, a major company, came out this last year as a company--and their CEO-- against the constitutional amendment that would have banned marriage equality. The CEO of St. Jude's--St. Jude, the company--did the same. The Carlson company--Radisson Hotels--did the same. You could go through a list of a number of large businesses in our States that say no to discrimination and yes to equality. Why did they do that? I think many of them felt it was the morally right thing to do. But the other reason they did it is because it was good for business. One poll found that 63 percent of small businesses support greater legal protections for LGBT workers. Workplace discrimination, as we know, diminishes workforce morale, lowers productivity, and increases costs due to employee turnover. In our State we want to attract the best workers. If you cut off a whole bunch of workers and tell them this isn't really a good place to be because we won't let you get married or we are going to discriminate against you, it ends up hurting that State. The same is true as we look at the global economy. It is true of the world. We want to be a country that welcomes people of all races to our country. We want to be a country that welcomes people of all religions. We want to be a country that welcomes people of different sexual orientations. That cannot be a barrier to entry in our country. That is another reason, as we look at why this bill is so important-- why it is important to business, why it is important to our economy-- that we need to get this bill passed. When you treat people fairly and you focus on keeping and getting the best people, it is good for the bottom line. The diverse coalition coming together in support of this bill reminds me of the people who came together in our State to defeat that divisive marriage amendment and to enact marriage equality. By bringing together civil rights organizations, religious groups, businesses, and Americans from across the Nation--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--we sent a clear message: Support fairness, support equality. I hope my Senate colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation, just as 61 of us did on the vote on Monday evening. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, this afternoon the 2013 farm bill conference committee will finally convene for the first time, bringing us one step closer to finishing the farm bill. I know the Presiding Officer, being from Wisconsin, understands how important this is to our country's future, and certainly the farmers, businesses, and families in Minnesota understand how important this bill is. We have waited a long time to go to this conference committee. The Senate has passed two farm bills now that continue the strong policies of the last farm bill but in fact reduce the debt by $24 billion over the farm bill that is currently in place. I am part of the group that negotiated the details of the bill to help finish the process which started over 2 years ago. Before I go on about the details of the Senate bill, I thank Chairman Stabenow for her incredible leadership and perseverance in getting us to this point that has been so long awaited. Under Chairman Stabenow's leadership, the Senate Agriculture Committee put together a farm bill that strengthens the safety net for our Nation's farmers and ranchers, reforms and streamlines our agriculture, conservation, and nutrition programs while still keeping them strong, and, as I mentioned, reduces $24 billion from the Nation's debt. Throughout the process we faced unprecedented challenges and delay. We had the lack of a dance partner over in the House, but then of course we had the traditional issues--regional disputes about how certain crops and commodities should be handled, a few partisan issues here and there, but somehow we were able to come together to the point where the Senate bill was supported by 68 Senators, including 18 Republicans. I believe this is a testament to the open process we had, the endless amendments we voted on on the floor, as well as the strong committee that was brought together to work on this bill. No matter where I go in my State--and I am sure the Presiding Officer has seen this in Wisconsin--I am always reminded of the critical role agriculture plays in our economy. Minnesota is No. 1 in turkeys-- something we think of a lot as we head into the Thanksgiving season. We are No. 1 in sweet corn, green peas, and oats, and No. 2 in hogs. I don't think people would think about that with our State, but we have surpassed some other States. But we are No. 2 in hogs and spring wheat, and No. 3 in soybeans, and No. 4 in corn. But we don't just grow the crops and raise the livestock. We are also home to a number of major agricultural companies which have kept our economy strong, and is one of the reasons our unemployment rate is down to 5.1 percent in Minnesota. These companies include Hormel, Cargill, General Mills, coops such as CHS, and Land o' Lakes. That is why one of the first things I did when I came to the Senate was ask to be on the Agriculture Committee. I am honored to serve on this conference committee and to team up with my friend and House colleague, Representative Collin Peterson, who will be leading the Democratic side in the House, as well as Congressman Tim Wells who represents the southern part of our State. The expiration of the current farm bill on September 30 is hurting our agricultural economy and is creating a huge amount of uncertainty for our farmers and for our consumers. Last week I visited with Minnesotans from across the State who want Congress to pass a farm bill. I was in Kiester, MN, where I got to ride in a combine and see the good work of our farmers as they harvested the corn. I have to say that sitting in the combine after the 3 weeks of the shutdown was actually quite rewarding, as I saw firsthand you could actually get results very quickly in a combine, which I hope will happen in Congress as we move ahead. From farmers in Redwood County to the Red River Valley to volunteers at a food bank in Minneapolis, where we also had a joint event with hunger groups, conservation groups, including Pheasants Forever, which is based in Minnesota, and the Farm Bureau and the Farmers Union, we all came together to say we had to get this done. I journeyed up to the Moorhead area and joined Senator Hoeven in Fargo. We like to call it Moorhead-Fargo in Minnesota instead of Fargo- Moorhead--two towns divided by a river but joined by many common interests. We met there with farmers about the importance of sugar beets and about the importance of a strong farm bill for that region of the country. Through my week I quickly heard--as I am sure the Presiding Officer did in Wisconsin--that the people of this country are sick and tired of gridlock politics, they are sick and tired of people standing in opposite corners of the boxing ring and throwing punches. They are sick and tired of the red-light, green-light game that has been played with policy. It is time to come together and get this done. I am convinced if there is any silver lining or hope that came out of the chaos of last month, it is that the American people saw firsthand why we need change and why we need to work together. That is why in fact Senator Hoeven and I came together across the river, to make a very strong statement that we thought we had to get this bill done. As a member of the conference committee, I know that if we don't pass a new farm bill, farmers will not be able to sign up for crop insurance, something that is so central to this new bill and is part of the $24 billion in debt reduction. They won't be able to sign up for a conservation program at a time when we need more conservation, when we see a decline in our pheasant population, where we have seen the signs that we need to have strong conservation programs. We would also see a skyrocketing of dairy prices as we would be going back to the farm bill that was passed in 1949. As I like to say at home, we don't want to party like it is 1949, and we certainly don't want to farm like it is 1949. The failure to come together and resolve the differences between the two bills now would likely result in either 1949 prices or some kind of extension. And guess what. Ask the farmers and ranchers about that in South Dakota who just saw a decimation of their cattle because of the sudden cold weather and blizzard they experienced in South Dakota. This current bill that is in place does nothing to provide a safety net for them that used to be in place but isn't in place because of the fact we haven't passed a permanent farm bill. It does nothing, if we simply extended it, about energy programs or about changes we need to see in the milk program or about reforms or the streamlining of our conservation programs. We simply cannot afford to do that again. Finally, it does nothing to reduce the debt if we simply extend the current program. Farmers and ranchers do not want another extension like the one we saw last year that left out the programs I just mentioned, the livestock disaster program, any significant deficit reduction. I believe the Senate bill lays a strong foundation for a conference agreement that can be supported on a bipartisan basis and signed into law by the President. To put it more directly, over the weekend I got a call from Greg Schwarz, who works with the Minnesota corn growers. He was hard at work, bringing in the harvest. He actually was calling me while driving his combine. His words offer some perspective, as they were passed on to me, about where we have been and where we need to go. He said: We have been working on this farm bill for over 2 years now, and we just want to get it done. Farmers are working around the clock on this year's harvest, and if you don't hear from us, it is not because we don't care, it's because we have work to do. Greg is right. Members of the farm bill conference committee have work to do as well. I believe that Washington should strive to be more like the farmers and ranchers that we represent who work and hope they get the job done. They can't leave a bunch of corn or soybeans in the field just because they get sick of it or they don't like their neighbor. They have to finish the job. If it starts getting cold or if it is raining, they have to bring that harvest in before there is a blizzard. That is what they do, and that is what we need to do. We have a time deadline here, an important reason we need to get moving on this bill. I would like to highlight some areas of the Senate bill that I believe need to be preserved as part of the final agreement as near as possible to the way they are right now. I recognize there will be some compromise, but I think whatever compromise needs to be worked out should be closer to the bipartisan Senate bill that, as we know, had the support of 18 Senate Republicans, including Senators in my part of the country such as Senator Grassley and Senator Hoeven. I know that important differences need to be worked out, especially in the areas of nutrition. I think we can do that. But, again, given what we are seeing in terms of the cuts over on the House side, we have to get them much closer to where we are in the Senate bill, which is something that will keep a safety net not just for our farmers, not just for our conservation and our pheasants and our wildlife, but also for the people of this country. I believe the people who grow our food deserve to know that their livelihoods cannot be swept away in the blink of an eye, either by market failures or by natural disasters. That is why in the Senate farm bill the foundation of the safety net is a strengthened crop insurance program. We made the program work better for underserved commodities and specialty crops. In recognition of the importance of crop insurance, we extended conservation compliance rules to this program to ensure that all producers benefiting from this safety net play by the same set of rules and keep our water clean and soil productive for future generations. This agreement has the support of agriculture, environmental wildlife leaders, including the National Farmers Union and the National Corn Growers Association, as well as the Environmental Defense Fund and Ducks Unlimited. That is quite a crew. In our charge to do more with fewer resources, the Senate bill pulls back on crop insurance subsidies for the wealthiest farmers, while ensuring that everyone can still participate in the program, keeping the risk pool strong. We also eliminated direct payments and further focused commodity title programs on our family farmers by strengthening payment limits on rules that ensure that farmers and not urban millionaires are eligible for farm payments. We continued the successful sugar program, funded the livestock disaster programs, which I mentioned earlier, and put in place a new safety net for dairy producers to address the wild volatility in that market. No one knows that better than those in the State of Wisconsin, the home of a lot of cheese, the home of a lot of cows and a lot of dairy. We streamlined conservation programs from 23 to 13. Specifically, I worked with Collin Peterson to ensure that local communities such as those in the Red River Valley have tools they need to address conservation challenges like flooding. The bill funds energy title programs to extend homegrown renewable energy production. When you look at our reduction in dependence on foreign oil, from 60 to 40 percent in just the last few years--yes, you look at the increased domestic drilling and natural gas; yes, you look at the facts that we finally increased gas mileage standards that made a big difference in this country, but you also look at biofuels which are now 10 percent of our Nation's fuel supply. These bills ensure that we are working to support our farmers and workers in the Midwest and not the oil cartels in the Middle East. That is why I strongly support mandatory funding for the energy titles to help provide incentives for homegrown energy production from the next generation of biofuels to blender pumps. This is a vital industry in States such as mine, supporting thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in economic growth. I appreciate the support of my colleague Senator Franken for this important industry. As many of us understand, we want an ``all of the above'' energy approach that includes oil, includes natural gas, but also includes biofuels. The Senate bill ensures that our energy innovators have the certainty and stability they need to develop the next generation of American energy. The Senate bill also includes a number of initiatives for beginning farmers and ranchers, including two of my provisions. The first provision I produced with Senator Baucus, which would reduce crop insurance costs for beginning farmers by 10 percent. The second provision that I have introduced with Senators Johanns, Baucus, and Hoeven would allow beginning producers to use conservation reserve program acres for grazing without a penalty. I believe that both of these provisions will go a long way in building the next generation of farmers who will grow our food supply. Both of these provisions should be included in the final bill. I believe that if we want to recruit a new generation of farmers and ranchers we must take further action to improve the quality of life in our small towns and our rural areas. That is why I worked with Senators Hoeven and Heitkamp, and I led the amendment to provide additional resources for critical priorities in the farm bill, including research--something the Presiding Officer knows something about from the University of Wisconsin--as well as rural development, conservation, and energy. Our provision funds the new nonprofit foundation, the Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research, to leverage private funding with a Federal match to support agricultural research. It provides additional funds to address the $3.2 billion backlog of water and wastewater projects in rural America. You literally cannot go to a region of any State in rural America without hearing about this backlog of rural wastewater and water projects. This amendment that we passed helps with that. It also increases funding for a regional approach to conservation to address a variety of challenges, including the flooding that we saw in the Red River Valley. The provision also added an additional $100 million to the energy title to help farmers, ranchers, and rural businesses produce homegrown energy. I was pleased to get the strong support of our committee for that amendment, and I am pleased it is included in the final Senate bill. In the Senate we also preserve the essential nutrition programs that millions of families and children rely on every day. In recent years, programs such as the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, also known as SNAP, became especially important as hard-working families and seniors were suddenly cashed-strapped but still in need of groceries. One of my predecessors--in fact I have his desk--Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, was an early champion of the food stamp program now known as SNAP. As one of the founders--Humphrey was one of the founders of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota--he understood the importance of a stable government policy for both agricultural producers as well as families struggling to put food on the table. That is why we have always seen this combination of these programs. It makes sense--food comes from farms. Food is a safety net for the people of this country, as are the farm provisions, which are actually a minority of the provisions in this bill. The farm provisions provide a safety net for those who provide food. What we have done with this bill, of course, is reduce some costs and made it more efficient but still kept a strong safety net. For more than 40 years we have linked together food and farm policy in 5-year farm bills. Nearly 72 percent of the SNAP participants are families with children, and more than one quarter of participants are in households with seniors or people with disabilities. This is not the time to make the deep cuts, as proposed in the House bill, to programs that provide important nutritional support for working families, low- income seniors, and people with disabilities with fixed incomes. Yet what we have seen is that those cuts--which we will be discussing--on the House side include 170,000 veterans who would be cut off from food assistance if the House bill were to pass. The Senate bill, on the other hand, makes reforms that were necessary, that bring the debt down by $4 billion, reforms that were necessary. So it is not like there were no reforms to this program in the Senate bill. As I noted, 68 Senators voted for this bipartisan bill, including 18 Republicans. The cuts proposed by the House are in addition to the $11 billion cuts to the program that will go into place this Friday, when the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act supplemental nutrition payments expire. This program is already moving in the right direction. As the economy has improved, nutrition assistance has been further focused on families in areas with the greatest need. In fact, the CBO projects that without any changes to the program, the number of people eligible for nutrition assistance and the cost of nutrition programs will continue to fall as the economy improves. In this way, nutrition programs operate a lot like the farm safety net for agricultural producers. Just as agriculture payments spiked during the 2012 drought, which was the worst since the 1950s, the need for nutrition assistance, for example, similarly increased when our economy was struck with the worst recession since the 1930s. When farmers are blessed with a strong harvest or when workers bring home a paycheck from a new job, we have designed agriculture and nutrition programs to adjust accordingly and be reduced. I believe that instead of trying to find ways to make people ineligible for nutrition assistance, we need to focus on real solutions that put people back to work. This farm bill is an opportunity to do that, as are a number of these efforts--Innovate America, workforce training--and bringing in other things we should be focused on, bringing the tax reform in, bringing the corporate tax rate down and paid for. But if we continue to engage in the brinkmanship as we did in the last month we will never get to the core issue. I believe our country is on the cusp of economic expansion. I believe we have so many opportunities out there when you look at how we are situated with the increase in manufacturing and exports. We need to do work with the immigration bill to help the economy move forward, instead of what we went through last month. I think this farm bill is the first chance to show that, out of this chaos, came something positive. It is a 5-year farm bill. It worked in the past. It brings the debt down by $24 billion. It is a bipartisan bill. Let's show the people of America that we mean business about working across the aisle. I see my colleagues here from Tennessee. I have just about 3 minutes more on a very different topic, and that is the nomination of Patty Millett to the DC Circuit Court. In the past few weeks, as I mentioned, we have made some efforts to come together and get work done on behalf of the American people. There are many of us who work together in relationships of trust, and I hope that continues with regard to nominations. Patty Millett would make an excellent addition to the court on the DC Circuit, and I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and to confirm her without delay. Patty Millett has extensive Federal appellate and Supreme Court experience. She previously served 15 years as an attorney on the appellate staff of the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, and then as an assistant to the Solicitor General. She has argued 32 cases in the Supreme Court--32--in addition to dozens of cases in other appellate courts across the country. In addition to her work for the Justice Department and in private practice, she has also devoted substantial time to pro bono work. Ms. Millett clearly has an impressive professional background, but even outside the legal world she volunteers as a literacy tutor and for the homeless in the DC area. She was given the Attorney General's Distinguished Service Award for representing the interests of the United States before the Supreme Court and the National Association of Attorneys General award for assistance to the States in preparation for their appearances before the Supreme Court. Ms. Millett is the kind of woman we should have on the bench. It should be no surprise that the nonpartisan American Bar Association committee that reviews every Federal judicial nominee unanimously gave her its highest rating, and over 100 leading lawyers and law professors wrote a letter in support of her nomination. This letter included 7 former Solicitors General who served under Democratic and Republican Presidents alike. Clearly there can be no question she has the experience and ability to sit on the Federal bench. She also has the support of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Police Executive Research Forum, the National Women's Law Center, the Women's Bar Association, and the National Congress of American Indians. Ms. Millett is well qualified, and we should confirm her now. One justification--and there is only one that I have heard and I don't think it is a good one, and I am about to debunk it. The only justification I have heard is not about her at all, it is about the DC Circuit. Some of my colleagues think they should remain with three openings on the bench. I don't think this argument squares with the facts. Currently, 3 of the 11 seats on the DC Circuit are empty. According to the Administrative Office of the Courts, senior judges-- judges who are partially retired--are now involved in over 40 percent of the cases that are decided on the merits. Before he was our Supreme Court Justice, John Roberts was confirmed to sit on the DC Circuit. Ten years ago when Chief Justice Roberts was confirmed to sit on that circuit, the average judge on that court had only 125 pending cases. Today, with 3 vacancies on the court, that number is 185 cases. Those are the complex cases that are pending. Even if we fill all the empty slots, the judges on the DC Circuit will still have more pending cases on average than John Roberts did when we confirmed him to sit on the DC Circuit back in 2003. There are no excuses. We have a finely qualified nominee, with 32 Supreme Court arguments, support of the nonpartisan group that looks at these nominees, someone whose spouse served in the military for 22 years, someone who raised her kids while he was over in Kuwait, and we are going to turn her down? That makes no sense to me at all, and I urge my colleagues to help Patty Millett get into this job to do what she says is the highest honor you can have; that is, public service. She should be confirmed without delay. The Senate should have confirmed her this week. We heard from the American people--we all heard this when we were home--how they are sick and tired of this kind of delay and partisanship. She is a fine, highly qualified nominee. She should get an up-or-down vote. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Arizona--he brought a very experienced voice to our group--and especially I thank Senator Collins for bringing this group together. I think it shows what courage is going to be in the next year in this Chamber and in the Congress. It is not going to be just standing here by yourself making a speech with no one there. Courage is going to be whether you are willing to stand next to someone you do not always agree with for the betterment of this country. This was very close to another default--to seeing what we saw in 2011 with the Dow down 2000 points, household wealth down over $2 trillion. That cannot happen again. Thanks to our leader Senator Reid, thanks to his work with Senator McConnell, we averted it this time. I think you will find a strong bipartisan vote in the Senate for this compromise, for this idea of paying our bills, opening the government again, and making sure we have a reasonable time period to work out a solution long term. That is our challenge. Yes, we have averted this crisis, but we need to stop having these crises. We need to actually come up with a long-term solution in a balanced way that brings down our debt while at the same time doing it in a way that will not start another financial crisis. I thank my colleagues for their amazing work, for their good humor during a very difficult time, and for the fact that we are finally moving forward and ending the brinkmanship. I see my friend the Senator from Alaska is here.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, we are now in day 8 of the government shutdown, and the pain has been felt by all across the country--by the cancer patients being denied access to new clinical trials at NIH, by the mom whose son has muscular dystrophy. His name is Jackson. She told me that every day those researchers aren't working on a cure for her son's disease is a day lost. She said every day counts. Small businesses can't get affordable loans through the SBA. Farmers write me about not being able to get their conservation loans. I have here a letter I read on the floor on Saturday: Please do whatever you can to stop the government shutdown. We have 14 acres of land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program. Our rental payment is made to us this first week of October. We depend on this money. It is not a small amount for our family. Kathy, from Minnesota: I am an employee of the Social Security Administration, Office of Disability . . . I have seen you intervene on matters for claimants who have disability hearings pending. I am furloughed as part of the government shutdown. If you want your constituents' hearings addressed, I need to be at work in my office. Alicia, from Hastings, MN: I am writing to express my extreme concern over the federal government shutdown. I am a teacher, a mother of three boys, and the wife of a furloughed veteran who works for the Minnesota Air National Guard. I have never before written a letter to my representatives, but feel so utterly helpless and frustrated at this time; I needed to voice my concern. . . . At this point in time, my husband, who is a veteran . . . is out of work because he is a federal employee not deemed essential. I am afraid that not only are the other 800,000 laid-off federal employees deemed non-essential, but the rest of the American citizens are non-essential as well. She goes on to say: Our struggles are real-life struggles; not a game, not philosophical, not in theory, not distant, and not imaginary. My hope is that these struggles and hardships matter to you . . . That is your duty. That is your charge. That is your enormous task. Shutting down the government is not one of those responsible actions. That is what we are hearing from the people in my State, the people all over the country. It is time to end the shutdown, and I will continue to urge my colleagues in the House to do the right thing and pass the straightforward bill the Senate passed on September 27 that would get the government back to work and get those employees back to their jobs. It is great that the House passed a bill to pay them. That is a good thing. But now they are paying them to stay home. They are paying them to not do their job. They want to come back to work. As you know, Madam President, we are now facing another critical deadline--the deadline for paying our bills or facing default. Next Thursday, on October 17, our country will hit its legal borrowing limit, and when that happens we will be asked to do what Congress has routinely done 70 times over the past 50 years; that is, pay our country's bills. Let me be clear. This is about making good on commitments we have already made. This is about doing what regular Americans do every month when they pay their credit card bills. Yet lately we have heard voices from the other side from a number of people who seem to think this is just no big deal. Just the other day Republican Congressman Joe Barton of Texas said: Some bills have to be paid and some bills we can defer and only pay partially, but that doesn't mean that we have to pay every bill the day it comes in. Then there was Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow at the conservative Cato Institute, who said: There's no need to fret. No need to fret? That is not what history teaches us. As chair on the Senate side of the Joint Economic Committee, I had a hearing a few weeks ago about the cost of this brinkmanship, about what happens if we go over that cliff, if we let our bills go, if we don't pay them. Let's turn back to 2011. We have a very clear lesson of what happens when the mere prospect of a default sent shock waves through our economy. I recently released a report examining the fallout of that brinkmanship. The results were ugly. The Dow Jones plummeted more than 2,000 points, our credit rating was downgraded, and $2.4 trillion in American household wealth was wiped away. I think it is important for everyone to remember that in 2011 all of this happened before we averted default. The Treasury Secretary sent a letter to Congress about the looming debt ceiling starting on January 6, 2011. On May 2 he announced that the debt limit would be reached on August 2. That was the magic day. We now have people saying maybe it is not October 17. They were saying that back then. But do you know what happened in the lead-up to August 2? On July 14 Standard & Poor's warned that it may downgrade the U.S. credit rating. They followed through on that. They downgraded it after the magic day of August 2, but it was 2 weeks before that they warned they might do it. What happened then? Well, over late July and early August, leading up to the date, the Dow Jones dropped more than 2,000 points. So the next time someone says there is no need to fret over playing games with the debt ceiling, tell them to talk to the families whose retirement plans took a hit. Make no mistake. This brinkmanship has very real consequences for our economy. We can't afford to go down this path again because this time around the fall could be so much harder. Our Joint Economic Committee analysis indicates that rates could rise on everything from credit cards and home mortgages to borrowing costs for businesses. At a time when our economy is finally turning a corner, this would put a real strain on families and small business owners. But don't take my word for it. Secretary Lew has said extraordinary measures will be exhausted by mid-October. Already our government is not matching the retirement fund that Federal workers put in. Already they are not issuing some of the municipal bonds. Already they are not making some of the typical investments they would normally make. The business community and my friends on the other side of the aisle know businesses are overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of America not paying its bills, including key leaders such as Randall Stephenson, CEO of AT&T, who said: It is unthinkable that the US could default, and it would be the height of irresponsibility for a public official to consider such a course. Our country cannot afford to keep lurching from crisis to crisis. It is time for both parties to focus on real solutions and get the government back to work in the short term so we can focus on responsibly reducing our deficit in the long term. I supported the work of the Gang of 6, the work of the Gang of 8, the work that was being done by the Domenici-Rivlin Commission, the work that was being done by the debt commission. I was one of 14 Senators who pushed for that work to be done, and I think it is a great basis. I don't agree with everything in it, but it is a good start for how we can negotiate a major deal. We cannot do that in the next few days. We need time to do it, and that is why the Senate proposal is 6 weeks--6 weeks to allow the government to open again so we can truly negotiate the kind of long-term debt reduction deal that we should. We need to be forward-looking. We need to be forward-looking enough to recognize the decisions we make today go far beyond the next election cycle; they will be felt by generations to come. We have a responsibility to get things right. We can't allow our country to go over the brink. It is not the American way. In a 1987 address to the American people when he was talking about the debt ceiling and the need to pay our country's bills, President Ronald Reagan said: The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility--two things that set us apart from much of the world. I urge my colleagues to take these words seriously and to join me in ensuring that Congress acts responsibly and in the best interest of this country. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today marks the fifth day of the shutdown. I come to the Senate floor once again to call on the House of Representatives to take up the Senate bill. It is a simple bill. It has no bells and whistles. It simply says, Let's open the government again. Let's open all the monuments. Let's open up the research that is going on at the National Institutes of Health which is important to save lives. Let's put our intelligence employees, who every day are putting themselves at risk trying to gather intelligence data, back to work. And then let's take those 6 weeks to do what the Senator from South Dakota was talking about, which is to negotiate a bigger deal, a budget deal. One of the things I have been concerned about is that the Senate has, in fact, passed a budget, the House has, in fact, passed a budget, but our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will not let those two budgets go to conference committee as they are supposed to do so we can work out the differences and have a long-term solution. The solution is not to shut the government down. What has happened? The Senator from Maine, the Presiding Officer, did a good job of reviewing what has gone on over the past few weeks. First, we passed a sensible bill to keep the government open at low spending levels--sequestration levels, as we call them here--with the spending cuts included, because we knew that was a compromise, but we knew that was a way we could get our friends from the other side of the aisle to agree to have a further negotiation period. Instead, we got back a bill that would have delayed the Affordable Care Act--something they knew very well the President would veto and the Senate would not agree to. Now we have gotten a series of bills where they have agreed to keep certain agencies open--sort of government by Whack-a-Mole. One problem comes up; OK, we will get that one done. Oh, maybe there is a big merger that has been proposed that has antitrust problems and could cost consumers money. Maybe we will put a few antitrust lawyers back to work. Oh, I guess there is an imminent threat going on right now, so let's add a few intelligence officers. Let's handle that one. Maybe there is a foodborne illness problem that has developed in part of the country. Maybe we have to put some of those Centers for Disease Control employees back to work. That is no way to govern in business and that is no way to govern the greatest Nation on Earth. We are a democracy that has been a model for the rest of the world. This is not the answer. What is the next vehicle we got? Today we found out they have voted to pay furloughed workers. That is something I support. That is something most of the Senators here support. OK. But does this make sense, that they would decide to do that today and then not also vote to put them back to work? They are essentially deciding they are going to pay them--which I support--that they are going to pay them, but they are going to pay them to stay at home. This doesn't make sense in Lanesboro, MN. This doesn't make sense in Detroit Lakes, MN. They believe Federal workers have been hired to do a job and it is time to put them back to work, and that is what this debate is about. These are the things I have been hearing from my constituents. I have some random letters that came in on our e-mail system over the last few days. Here is a letter from Jason of St. Paul. He says: I am a Minnesota resident currently on active duty in the U.S. Navy on deployment in the Middle East for my 2nd tour . . . As a military member, if I did not do my job I'd be putting the lives of my friends and fellow military members at risk. Jason is a Navy reservist on active duty. He continues: At home, I am a full-time professional firefighter and EMT for the St. Paul Fire Department. If I chose to fail on my duties when a fire call came in, people would die. Similarly, the shutdown in the U.S. Government-- He says, I know it happened in the House, and that the Senate passed a bill, sorry-- He adds that, and then he says: The shutdown of the U.S. Government is unacceptable. I work in a coalition office with several other European officers from other navies and I am embarrassed at what I see from Congress. I urge you with all of my being to work to resolve this. I am confident that you can get the job done. Next, Lisa from Oakdale, MN: Senator Klobuchar, I am 39 years old and have never contacted a representative until now. I felt compelled to do so today because as a federal civilian employee, I want to express my extreme disappointment. I have dedicated my career to federal service, which I am now considering changing given this unfairness. Please work to resolve the budget as quickly as possible so my husband and I can return to work. That is what Lisa said. The House of Representatives said, rightfully so, they would pay her while she is at home, but they didn't send her back to work. They didn't do what she asked for in this letter. They didn't send her back to work. She simply wants to do her job. Here is a letter from Pamela from Young America, MN, a farmer: Please do whatever you can to stop the government shutdown. We have 14 acres of land enrolled in the CRP program [Conservation Reserve Program] and our rental payment is to be made to us this first week of October. As long as the government shutdown is in place our CRP payments are delayed. We depend on this money as it is not a small amount for our family. There are many farmers/land owners in this same situation. Please stop the shutdown. Well, I hope the House of Representatives is listening to Pamela of Young America, MN, today. Kathy from Braham, MN: I am an employee of the Social Security Administration, Office of Disability Adjudication and Review. I have seen you intervene on matters for claimants who have disability hearings pending. I am furloughed as part of the government shutdown. If you want your constituents' hearings addressed, I need to be at work in my office. Is she talking about pay in this letter? Of course she wants to get paid, and she is going to get her pay, and she should, but that is not what she is talking about. She is talking about doing her job and getting back to work. Yet today the House of Representatives voted to pay workers to stay home. OK, we want to pay them but not to put them back at work, when that is all she is asking to do. Alicia from Hastings, MN: Dear Senator Klobuchar: I am writing to express my extreme concern over the federal government shutdown. I am a teacher, a mother of three boys and the wife of a furloughed veteran who works for the Minnesota Air National Guard. I have never before written a letter to my representatives, but feel so utterly helpless and frustrated at this time; I need to voice my concern. My concern at this time is that those in Congress have forgotten about people like me, like those in my family, and those in my community. I feel like an inconsequential number, a nameless and faceless casualty in a game that has no winners. I am concerned that my family's experience is lost in the rhetoric exchanged between party members. I am concerned that we are the forgotten and nameless . . . collateral damage in a philosophical debate. At this point in time, my husband, who is a veteran working full-time for the Minnesota Air National Guard, is out of work because he is a federal employee not deemed essential. I am afraid that not only are the other 800,000 laid-off federal employees deemed non-essential, but the rest of the American citizens are non-essential as well. . . . Our struggles are real-life struggles; not a game, not philosophical, not in theory, not distant and not imaginary. My hope is that those struggles and hardships matter to you, and in a real way. . . . I am hoping you will understand the urgency of this situation for my family and for the thousands of others whom you directly impact on a daily basis. I don't want any representatives to forget the real people affected by these decisions. . . . That is your duty. That is your charge. That is your enormous task. . . . I hope that I can count on you to look out for my family and the many others you affect. I hope that you will consider our lives and hardships. . . . Thank you for your efforts to . . . solve this situation. She does not want to be inconsequential. She does not want to be non- essential--not just her husband, who is furloughed, but she as a citizen of this country. Again, is she asking for money? Of course they want to get paid, and they will get paid, but that is not what this is about. This is about her husband getting back to work to do the duties he was hired to do by the American people. This is a simple bill. It simply allows them to go back to work. I am heartened by the fact that the number--I think it is at 22 House Members now on the Republican side--who have said they want to vote on this Senate bill. That is a magic number. That is enough to pass it. We have to let that bill come up for a vote. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to call for an end to the senseless government shutdown and urge Members of the House to set aside political games for the betterment of the country. The American people are tired of our country being held hostage and our economic recovery threatened just to score political points, and justifiably so. There are real consequences for this irresponsibility. Shutting down the government for 3 or 4 weeks would reduce real gross domestic product by 1.4 percentage points in the fourth quarter alone, and a shutdown longer than 2 months would likely precipitate another recession. But my colleagues don't have to take my word for it. Here is what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said in a letter on this very topic: . . . ``it is not in the best interests of the U.S. business community or the American people to risk even a brief government shutdown that might trigger disruptive consequences or raise new policy uncertainties washing over the U.S. economy.'' David Cote, the chief executive officer of Honeywell, stated that if you want to create economic disruption and uncertainty for businesses, then a government shutdown is a great way to do it. I couldn't agree more. The truth is we simply can't afford another self-inflicted wound to our economy, especially not at a time when things are finally turning around. We had big news in our State this month. The unemployment rate is down to 5.1 percent. National unemployment is at 7.3 percent. That is the lowest point since December of 2008. The housing market is bouncing back with existing home sales reaching a 6\1/2\ year high in August. Retail sales are up, and so far this year we have added 1.5 million private sector jobs. We are not where we need to be, but we are moving in the right direction and it is clear that now is not the time to take a step back. Yet here we are again, right in the middle of another manufactured crisis. On Friday, the Senate passed a bill to keep the government running that is free of any ideological policy provisions. The Senate bill would fund the government at the same level as last year through November 15 and would give Congress and the President time to negotiate a balanced deficit reduction plan. The commonsense next step would be for the House to take up and pass the Senate's bill. That is democracy. They should put the bill before the House and, by most beliefs, it would pass and it would end the shutdown. Instead, the House has sent us four separate versions of the legislation with full knowledge that the Senate would not agree to them and the President stating he would veto them. Each of the House proposals would have delayed implementation of the Affordable Care Act. So here we stand with the Federal Government shut down just so the House Republicans could again attempt to relitigate a law that both the House and the Senate passed, the President signed, and the Supreme Court upheld. That doesn't mean there will be no changes to the law going forward. I know the Presiding Officer, the Senator from the great State of West Virginia, has some ideas and I have some ideas, but they must be made in a rational manner, not as part of poison pill partisanship. House Republicans don't seem to understand or they choose not to care about the negative impact on businesses and families that a government shutdown would have. Here are some examples of how my State will be impacted, and I know the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Coons, is here, and I know he has some examples as well. This is the story in Minnesota: According to the Small Business Administration, in 2012 their loan programs approved 53,847 applications and supported 571,383 jobs for an average of just over 1,000 applications per week. What does this mean for Minnesota? Well, my State is home to 115,000 small businesses, and I wish to ensure that the SBA loans keep coming through. All lands managed by the National Park Service in Minnesota would be closed. They are closed. These include Voyageurs National Park, the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, the North Country National Scenic Trail, the Pipestone National Monument, and the Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway. Closure of the parks would result in the loss of tourism revenue. Last year, more than 600,000 visitors enjoyed these parks, an average of more than 1,600 visitors per day. According to the National Park Service in 2011, visits to these parks in Minnesota contributed $37 million in economic benefits and generated 665 jobs in my State. In a State such as Minnesota, where tourism is our fifth largest industry and the source of 11 percent of our private sector revenue, we simply can't afford for this to happen. We simply cannot afford for this critical industry to be hamstrung by political posturing. In the shutdown, the Food and Drug Administration will furlough 7,000 people, roughly 55 percent of the agency's workforce. That means the process for approving life-saving drugs and treatments and devices-- something that matters a lot in my State--would grind to a halt, and shipments arriving at our ports from overseas will no longer be monitored by the FDA. The shutdown also has the potential to slow down research at the Mayo Clinic. The bulk of Mayo's funding for research comes from the National Institutes of Health grants. In the government shutdown, 70 percent of NIH staff is shut out, as Senator Mikulski has said on this floor many times, 70 percent of the National Institutes of Health staff. That represents about 19,000 American scientists, researchers, and others who are working to develop a cure for Alzheimer's, working to develop a cure for muscular dystrophy, working to develop a cure for autism. Staff from the Mayo Clinic said if the government shuts down, the NIH will not be reviewing new grant proposals, and that is starting today. In addition, it means funding for recently approved grant projects won't be released, and new patients will not be admitted to the NIH Clinical Center or allowed to begin new clinical trials. We must also be willing to do the right thing for the safety of our people. That is, all in all, in my belief as a former prosecutor, the No. 1 duty of government--to keep our people safe. When it comes to homeland security, counterterrorism, and Federal law enforcement, rest assured those protections will continue, but in the event of a shutdown, the Federal officers who continue going to work protecting the public from violent crimes, gangs, and terrorists won't be getting a paycheck. Instead, they will be getting an IOU. So basically what we will be saying to these people, and what we are saying as of midnight last night, is: Thank you for putting your lives on the line but we can't pay you right now because there are some people in the House who want to delay the Affordable Health Care Act, and if you are lucky, maybe you will get backpay when all this is sorted out. My colleagues in the House like to talk a big game about how uncertainty is hindering real economic growth. I believe uncertainty hinders economic growth. So it is quite ironic that they are now creating this economic uncertainty and are willing to threaten our economy on a political gamble. Shutting down the government is not a negotiating tactic. If the House were to take up the Senate bill to fund the government, it is expected to pass and the shutdown would end. During that time, over the next 6 weeks, it will give us that time to truly negotiate a long-term debt deal done in a balanced way. Instead, critical services and the economic recovery are being threatened with poison pill partisanship. To my colleagues in the House and in the Senate, I say this: Let's get this done. We owe it to the people we were elected to serve. We owe it to the country. Let's end this government shutdown now. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I would first like to acknowledge Senator Coons of Delaware for his leadership, and Senator Mikulski, the powerful head of the Appropriations Committee, who has put together a group this hour to talk about public safety and infrastructure, and what a government shutdown would mean and what sequestration means when it comes to the progress of this country. We heard from Senators from different parts of the country. Senator Landrieu from the great State of Louisiana talked about the importance of FEMA. No one knows better than she does after Katrina what a government shutdown would mean for Louisiana. Senator Bennet of Colorado was here, where right now they are experiencing the horrible aftermath of these floods. Then we look at what happened in the State of Massachusetts with the Boston Marathon. What would have happened there if we were in the middle of a government shutdown and didn't have the resources we needed? Do we want the head of the FBI worried about who he can lay off and who he can't? Or the head of the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms that investigated that bombing in Boston--do we want them off looking at what are we going to do if we have a shutdown in the middle of that bombing? That is not what we want happening. That is not how this country runs. I sat and watched the last hour of this debate, and I saw Senator Corker come to the floor and do a fine job of explaining that it is not every Republican in this Chamber who is trying to slow this vote down so we don't even have it today. He focused on two Republicans who were doing that, and I think it is very important for the American people to know that the Senate has tended to work in a bipartisan way. We want to move forward, we want to get this bill voted on, and we want to give a chance for the House to come back. No more delays. We need to get this done. Much of the focus has oftentimes been: I want to shut down Washington. But my job today is to talk about what it means in our States. As someone who spent 8 years as the chief prosecutor for Minnesota's largest county, I know the pain of this shutdown would be felt by State and local officials, by State and local people, right down the line, and, not least of all, by the first responders and law enforcement officers who rely on Federal funding for everything from crime prevention to community corrections programs to drug courts, and to simply keeping cops on the beat. There are some who are willing to hold these first responders hostage, there are some who are willing to hold our country hostage, to score political points. The fact is a government shutdown would be painful and it would be expensive. These men and women go to work every day protecting the people. While most people may run away from disasters, calamities, and tragedies, they bravely run toward them, and they do it selflessly--not because they are looking for fame or glory but because they are simply doing their jobs. We in Washington have a responsibility to do our jobs. We have a responsibility to ensure that our cops and firefighters and EMTs have the tools to protect the public safely and effectively. We have a responsibility to pass a resolution that prevents the government from shutting down. We simply can't afford another self-inflicted wound to our economy, as Senator Bennet was pointing out, especially not at a time when things are finally turning around. At 7.3 percent, our national unemployment rate is at its lowest point since December of 2008. In my State, it is at 5.1 percent. The housing market is bouncing back. Retail sales are up. So far this year we have added 1.5 million private sector jobs. We are not where we need to be, but we are headed in the right direction and we need to keep moving forward and not move backward. Yet here we are again, facing another manufactured crisis that threatens to shut down the government. Last week, House Republicans sent us a continuing resolution they knew had zero chance of passing the Senate. When House Republicans passed a budget tied to defunding the Affordable Care Act, they decided they were willing to risk shutting down the government just to relitigate a law that both the House and Senate passed, the President signed, and the Supreme Court upheld. Will there be changes to that law going forward? I am sure there will. There always are with large bills. But the answer is not to defund it on a must-pass bill. Even Members of their own party agree this is the wrong thing to do. Senator McCain has called defunding the health care law as part of the CR the height of foolishness and not rational. Even a poll conducted by the conservative Crossroads GPS, headed by Karl Rove, found that Independents overwhelmingly oppose shutting the government down to defund ObamaCare on a margin of 58 percent in opposition to 30 percent. That is Independent voters in a poll conducted by Karl Rove's group. In the short term, a government shutdown lasting more than 1 week would have an immediate effect on economic growth, as the Federal Government would suspend all nonessential spending. Shutting down the government for 3 or 4 weeks would reduce real GDP by 1.4 percentage points in the fourth quarter. And a shutdown longer than 2 months would likely precipitate another recession. My colleagues in the House like to talk a big game about reducing the deficit and doing what is fiscally responsible. Yet they are willing to mortgage our economy on a political gamble? Pardon me, but that is not how we define fiscal responsibility in my State. Here is something else Minnesotans don't call fiscally responsible: closing our national parks, which generate billions of dollars in tourism revenues every year. If the government shuts down, so will all 368 National Park Service sites. And how about the visa processing centers? During the 1996 government shutdown, more than 500,000 visa applications and 200,000 passport applications were put on hold. We might say, why would that affect me? It does. It affects jobs in the United States of America. In a State such as Minnesota where tourism is our fifth largest industry and the source of 11 percent of our private sector jobs, we simply can't afford to let that happen. We simply can't afford for this critical industry to be hamstrung by political posturing on the other side of the aisle in Washington. In addition to the impact on our tourism sector, a government shutdown would also have serious repercussions for industries such as medical technology, something that Minnesota and Massachusetts share. Without funding to keep the lights on at the Food and Drug Administration, the process for approving medical devices and other biotech products would grind to a standstill. These are just a few examples of the industries that would be hurt by a government shutdown. If we use the 1996 impasse as a guide, we can also expect to see delays in the Small Business Administration financing, a suspension of Federal Housing Administration insurance for people buying new homes, new patients denied access into clinical research trials at the National Institutes of Health. You heard correctly. If we can't reach a compromise, we will all feel the negative results. Now I want to get back to the focus of my earlier remarks, and that is law enforcement programs. We must be willing to do the right thing for the safety of our people. When it comes to homeland security, counterterrorism, and Federal law enforcement, rest assured those protections will continue. But in the event of a shutdown, the Federal officers who continue going to work protecting the public from violent crimes, gangs, and terrorists won't be getting a paycheck. Instead, they will be getting an IOU. Basically what we will be saying to these people is: Thanks for putting your lives on the line. We can't pay you right now. And if you are lucky, maybe you will get backpay when Congress sorts this all out. Is that what we want to say to the people who showed up first at that Boston Marathon bombing, We have an IOU for you? I don't think so. The strain on a shutdown on law enforcement would come at a time when agencies are already struggling to make ends meet in the wake of sequestration. The new head of the FBI just talked about how sequestration would put him in a position to lay off 3,000 FBI agents. I don't think that is where we want to be in this country. These are cuts to some of the most successful crime prevention and crime-fighting programs out there. Even more frustrating is that Chairman Mikulski and the Senate Appropriations Committee worked across party lines to draft spending bills for 2014 that would provide additional resources for grant programs important to law enforcement. Under sequestration, the COPS Program has been reduced by $22 million compared to the funding level the Senate approved. Funding for drug courts has also been slashed, despite the fact that drug courts actually save money to the tune of $6,000 per person. For every $1 spent on drug courts, more than $3 is saved on criminal justice costs alone. And when you factor in other things such as costs to victims and health care, they can save up to $27 per person. Local law enforcement also relies on Byrne grants, which have been cut by $20 million due to sequestration. As a former prosecutor, I have always believed that the No. 1 job of government is to protect people. It is to keep people safe. It is to have safe roads and bridges. If we continue to cut, to delay, and deny critical funding for programs such as COPS and Byrne grants, we will be failing in this most basic duty, and I refuse to let that happen. Instead of threatening critical services and our economy with poison pill partisanship, we need to focus on real solutions. This means agreeing to go to conference committee on the budget. For many months Senator Patty Murray, the head of the Budget Committee, has been asking permission to simply bring our Senate-passed budget to conference committee, where it can meet up with the House budget and where we can at least try to work out a long-term solution. Senator McCain and Senator Collins have joined us in this call to be allowed to bring a long-term budget to a conference committee, but we have been met every step of the way with opposition from the other side. That is where we should be working these things out. Instead, we are on the floor today to try to end the brinkmanship on simply keeping the government going. Secondly, we have another problem, and that is that our country will hit its legal borrowing limit as soon as mid-October. When this happens, we will be asked to do what Congress has routinely done 70 times over the past 50 years, and that is to pay our country's bills. Let me be clear. This is about making good on commitments we have already made. This is about doing what regular Americans do every month when they pay their credit card bills. As vice chair of the Joint Economic Committee and the chair on the Senate side, last week I held a hearing and released a report examining the economic impact of this brinkmanship. The results aren't pretty and they are based on history. Let's remember what happened the last time when we had a showdown on the debt ceiling in the summer of 2011: The United States experienced the cost of protracted brinkmanship on the debt ceiling. As Congress struggled with this issue, the Dow Jones dropped more than 2,000 points, and Standard & Poors downgraded the U.S. credit rating. Consumer confidence fell, and we were out over $1 billion in borrowing costs. That is on the backs of the taxpayers of this country. That is what happened in 2011. If we face another impasse this year, there could be very real ramifications for businesses and for people. Interest rates could rise on everything from credit cards and home mortgages to borrowing costs for businesses, putting a real strain on families and small business owners, and stalling the economy just as we are at a time when we can expand it, just when we are at a time when we are starting to see that stability grow to real growth. Our country cannot afford to keep lurching from crisis to crisis. It is time for both parties to come together and focus on real solutions. Do you know what I learned the last 24 hours, the last 2 days, watching what was going on on this floor? That there are a few of my colleagues who see this place as a battleground. I see it as a place to look for common ground, and that is what we are supposed to be doing on behalf of the American people. The battleground has to give way. We need to do the work for the American people, find that common ground, work together. We are going to pass a good, clean bill so that we can continue the U.S. Government and move on to work out the details of the budget. That is what we need to do for our first responders, for our police, for our firefighters, for those people who put their lives at risk every day. That is what we need to do for the American people. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for her beautiful remarks on behalf of her constituents and their families. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families. I also thank her for her thoughts on some of the policy ramifications that come out of the terrible tragedy. I know the Senator stands by those families as she has stood by so many military families in the State of Maryland. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Brown follow me after my remarks.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013. I believe the beneficial role that energy efficiency improvements can have for consumers and also for industrial competitiveness often gets overlooked in today's debate about energy policy. When I travel around my State I am always hearing from businesses and manufacturers about the importance of keeping energy affordable. That is why it is so important we are having this debate and that we are looking at taking real steps on meaningful energy legislation. This legislation will help consumers save money on their utility bills and help our businesses be more competitive. Minnesota has long been an example of leadership in energy policy, with the 25 by 25 renewable energy standard. Our largest energy provider, Xcel Energy, agreed to a 30-percent standard by 2020. So we have been one of the leading States in a bipartisan way. This bill was signed by Governor Pawlenty, then-Governor Pawlenty, with strong bipartisan support in our State legislature. I would say it was also as a result of other things, but I would say it certainly has not hurt our economy. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates. We are at 5.2 percent. It came out today the Twin Cities had its biggest year in the last year of any year in terms of economic gain. Minnesota is also leading the way with a 1.5-percent energy efficiency standard. Each year our utilities work with consumers and businesses to find ways to save energy and reduce waste from energy efficiency improvements, much like those contained in the Shaheen- Portman bill. I believe we need an ``all of the above'' plan to get serious about building a new energy agenda for Minnesota, a plan that helps businesses compete in the global economy, preserves our environment, and restarts the engine that has always kept our economy going forward; that is the energy of innovation. Although Senators may differ on the specific details of an ``all of the above'' energy plan, I believe we can find broad agreement that energy efficiency, as we see in this bill, must be a part of any plan. Senators Shaheen and Portman have produced a very good bill that I strongly support, but I also know there are many good ideas, many of them bipartisan, that promote energy efficiency, and I thank them for the opportunity to build on their legislation to boost energy efficiency. One goal that I share with my friend and colleague from North Dakota Senator Hoeven was to find new opportunities to engage the nonprofit community in making energy efficiency improvements. I spoke briefly on the Senate floor earlier in the week about this important issue. When faced with the choice, nonprofits including hospitals, schools, faith based organizations and youth centers often make the decision to delay or forgo improvements in energy efficiency to help stretch budgets and serve more people. But we know investing in energy efficiency improvements today can lead to savings over time that go beyond the cost of the initial investment. So it is a difficult question. Should we do a little less for a year or two so that upgrades can be made to our heating system so that we can use the long term savings to protect our ability to serve well into the future? That is why I introduced the Nonprofit Energy Efficiency Act as an amendment with Senator Hoeven, and we have the support of Senators Blunt, Pryor, Risch, Schatz, and Stabenow. Our amendment, which is fully offset, would provide $10 million each year for the next 5 years to create a pilot grant program so that non- profits can save through energy efficiency. We worked with stakeholders to ensure that grants will achieve significant amounts of energy savings and are done in a cost effective manner. The grants would require a 50 percent match so that there is complete buy in from the nonprofits, and grants would also be capped at $200,000. Our amendment has the support of National Council of Churches, the YMCA of the USA, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. I ask unanimous consent that these letters of support for the Nonprofit Energy Efficiency Act be included in the Record. I again thank Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski as well as Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman for their tireless efforts to move this important legislation forward. I urge my colleagues to support the Klobuchar-Hoeven amendment, the Nonprofit Energy Efficiency Act, and also support the underlying Shaheen-Portman legislation. I want to raise another important energy issue that I have worked on this year that impacts nearly every family, business, and industry in America--and that is the price of gasoline. This past May in Minnesota in just one week we saw gas prices spike 40 cents higher per gallon and over 80 cents higher over the course of one month. We know that this sharp spike in prices was caused when a number of refineries that serve Minnesota and the region went offline for both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, in part to prepare for summer fuel blends. I understand the need to adjust for seasonal gasoline blends and perform upgrades to protect worker safety and make necessary repairs. But scheduled, routine maintenance should not be an excuse for major gasoline shortages and steep price spikes. Gas prices in Minnesota have subsided after setting records this spring of over $4.25 a gallon, but we know refinery outages will continue to have significant impacts, disrupting commerce and hurting consumers, small businesses and farmers if we do not act. That is why I introduced the Gas Price and Refine Capacity Relief Act of 2013 with Senators Hoeven, Franken, and Durbin. Our bill requires refineries give advance warning of any planned outage and immediate notification for any unplanned outage. This information would serve as an early warning system and protect consumers from paying the price at the pump when there are production problems within the refining industry. With more transparency--and more lead time--fuel retailers will have the opportunity to purchase fuel at prices that better reflect the underlying costs of crude oil and better reflect supply and demand across the country. When we had this recent increase you couldn't explain it by supply and demand. We had ample supplies. Demand was down. The only reason we could find, besides perhaps speculation, was these refineries that had planned closures. What we are trying to do is create an early warning system and I appreciate the bipartisan support for this bill. The bill would also require the Secretary of Energy 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 and that makes us more vulnerable to the kinds of refinery outages we've experienced this year--both planned and unplanned--that led to dramatic spikes in the price of gas. I thank Chairman Wyden for holding a hearing on this issue in July. Although this amendment will not come up for a vote as a part of the bill being considered by the Senate, I look forward to continue working on this issue so we can prevent another unnecessary spike in gas prices like we saw in Minnesota this spring. Most people wouldn't tie the last issue I wish to discuss today to energy policy. But just ask any power company or construction crew across the country, or even operators of ice skating rinks in Minnesota and you would quickly learn about the growing national problem of metal theft and it must be addressed. I have filed my bipartisan bill, the Metal Theft Prevention Act, to the energy efficiency bill to bring attention to metal theft. I introduced it last February with Senators Hoeven, Schumer, Graham, and Coons. The bill is the much-needed Federal response to the increasingly pervasive and damaging crime of metal theft. Metal theft has jumped more than 80 percent in recent years, hurting businesses and threatening public safety in communities throughout the country. Metal theft is a major threat to American businesses, especially to power companies. In a recent study, the U.S. Department of Energy found that the total value of damages to industries affected by the theft of copper wire is approximately $1 billion each year. Across the country, copper thieves have targeted construction sites, power and phone lines, retail stores, and vacant houses. They've caused explosions in vacant buildings by stealing metal from gas lines, and they've caused blackouts by stealing copper wiring from streetlights and electrical substations. Thieves are even taking brass stars from our veterans' graves. On Memorial Day in 2012, thieves stole more than 200 bronze star markers from veterans' graves in Minnesota. In another case that shows just how dangerous metal theft can be, Georgia Power was having a huge problem with thieves targeting a substation that feeds the entire Atlanta-Hartsfield International Airport, one of the busiest airports in the world. The airport was getting hit 2 to 3 times a week and surveillance didn't lead to any arrests. Last winter, at a recreation center in St. Paul thieves stole $20,000 worth of pipe from the outdoor ice rink, causing the center to close until local businesses donated labor and materials to make the repairs. This rise in incidents of metal theft across the country underscores the critical need for Federal action to crack down on metal thieves, put them behind bars and make it more difficult for them to sell their stolen goods. Our Metal Theft Prevention Act will help combat this growing problem by putting modest record-keeping requirements onto the recyclers who buy scrap metal . . . limiting the value of cash transactions . . . and requiring sellers in certain cases prove they actually own the metal . . . The amendment also makes it a Federal crime to steal metal from critical infrastructure and directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review relevant penalties. This amendment respects State law. Our intention is not to preempt State laws, so if a State already has laws on the books regarding metal theft, they would not apply the Federal law. I realize that the majority of cases will likely continue to be handled by State and local law authorities, but the Federal government needs to be a strong partner, and the Metal Theft Prevention Act will send the clear message that metal theft is a serious crime. The Metal Theft Prevention Act has been endorsed by the National Rural Electrical Cooperatives, American Public Power Association, APPA, American Supply, Edison Electric Institute, National Electrical Contractors Association, National Association of Home Builders, National Retail Federation, U.S. Telecom Association, and about a dozen other businesses and organizations. It also has the support of the major law enforcement organizations-- Major Cities Police Chiefs, Major County Sheriffs, National Sheriffs, Fraternal Order of Police and the National Association of Police Organizations. I would love to just bring this bill to the Senate after I have gotten it through the committee already in Judiciary, unanimously, but there are people still holding it up. The Metal Theft Prevention Act will not come to a vote in relation to the bill currently pending before the Senate, but it must be a priority. We need to do everything we can to protect our critical energy industry infrastructure from unscrupulous metal thieves. And, I hope my colleagues will support the Metal Theft Prevention Act as well when it does come before the full Senate. Again, I commend Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman on their legislation to encourage energy efficiency. The bill would save consumers and taxpayers money through reduced energy consumption, help create jobs, make our country more energy independent, and reduce harmful emissions.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up my amendment No. 1856.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I would still like to talk about this amendment. And I want to thank both Senator Wyden for working with us on this amendment and also Senator Murkowski for working with us on this amendment. I appreciate their support. This is an amendment Senator Hoeven and I have submitted together. I will describe it to you because I think it is such a good amendment. We want to make sure we get moving on this very important bill that I support, as well as these amendments. The Nonprofit Energy Efficiency Act would provide assistance to nonprofit organizations to help make the buildings they own and operate more energy efficient. Nonprofit organizations are the heart of our country and serve millions of Americans every day. Nonprofits include hospitals, schools, houses of worship--particularly supportive of this amendment--and youth centers. They face the choice of making facility improvements or serving more people, which is also difficult for them. That choice is clear for so many organizations. Nonprofits often operate in older, less efficient buildings, and because of their nonprofit status, they cannot participate in energy efficiency programs despite the financial benefits of energy efficiency retrofits and other improvements. This amendment is about allowing the Department of Energy to make grants of up to $200,000 for energy efficiency projects over the next 5 years. The amendment requires a 50-percent cost share and includes provisions to ensure that the projects achieve significant amounts of energy savings and are done in a cost-effective manner. This amendment, the Klobuchar-Hoeven amendment, is fully offset. I appreciate the work of the committee and the committee staff on this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the Nonprofit Energy Efficiency Act amendment. Before I yield the floor, I again want to thank Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman for their tireless efforts to move this important legislation forward. I believe energy efficiency is an area we can all agree is good for the economy, it is good for consumers, and it is an issue where we can find common ground, as you can see by the amendment I have done with Senator Hoeven. Senator Hoeven from North Dakota knows a little bit about producing energy with their oil production, natural gas production, the biofuel production they share with Minnesota. We are some of the top biofuel producers in the country. But in our States we also believe in conserving energy and in energy efficiency. We believe this bill is a good bill and also that this amendment is a very good addition to the bill, as it allows nonprofits, such as places of worship, to also share in the energy efficiency program, and they are very interested in moving ahead with this amendment. So I thank you. I thank the authors, and I thank the chair and the ranking member of the committee. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise in support of the nomination of Todd Jones to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. I wish to first thank Senator Coons for his remarks about Samantha Power. I am also looking forward to the vote on her confirmation. I am looking forward to her service. This is a very important job. As the Presiding Officer knows, the ATF has an incredibly important role in investigating crimes and terrorist incidents such as the Boston Marathon. They recently investigated the explosion in Texas that took so many innocent lives. This must be a top priority for the United States of America. Yet this is a position where there are 2,400 agents--2,400 ATF agents--and they have gone without a permanent Director for 7 years, ever since this became a confirmable position. This happened under President Bush. There was not a confirmed Director. It is happening now up until today under President Obama. It is time to change that. It is simply time to change it. I know Todd Jones. For 2 years he has served as the U.S. attorney of Minnesota at the same time he is serving as the ATF Director. That is not an easy job. He has five children. He is a former marine. He was willing to take on the ATF job after the Fast and Furious debacle. He was willing to come in after that and help to clean up that agency and make some very tough decisions. He took on that job while still remaining the U.S. attorney in Minnesota. I would note he served as the U.S. attorney of Minnesota under President Clinton and again was appointed to serve under President Obama. Then, 2 years ago, he was asked to be the Acting Director of ATF, never knowing if this day would ever come when actually there would be a vote on his confirmation. He literally has never turned down a tough assignment. Todd Jones has an impressive background that makes him well prepared to lead the ATF. After law school at the University of Minnesota, he entered the U.S. Marine Corps, as I noted, where he served on Active Duty as a judge advocate and infantry officer from 1983 until 1989. Two years later, he was called back to Active Duty during the first Iraq war. In addition to his military career and having the rare distinction of serving as U.S. attorney under two different Presidents, Todd Jones also has a strong record as a line prosecutor in the Minnesota U.S. Attorney's Office. When Jones was U.S. attorney in Minnesota from 1998 to 2001, the violent crime rate decreased by 15 percent. So far during his second tenure as the U.S. attorney, the violent crime rate in Minnesota has already decreased by 9 percent. We all know there are a lot of factors that go into that, including the great work of our local police officers, including work of our police chiefs, including the work of community groups, including the economy. There are a number of things at hand. But when I hear attacks against Mr. Jones, I believe it is important to set the record straight. One other thing--I did want to set the record straight on one other thing. I so appreciate the leadership Senator Grassley has shown when it comes to whistleblowers. But everyone should know, regarding this complaint within the office, an internal complaint within the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota, it was investigated by the Judiciary Committee. In this place, to set the record straight, the complainant voluntarily agreed to mediate his concerns. The Office of Special Counsel is no longer investigating. I wish to make that straight for all of my colleagues so they understand the outcome of that and that there is a mediation going on. It is not being investigated. As an assistant U.S. attorney, Todd Jones was the lead prosecutor in a number of cases involving drug conspiracies, money laundering, financial fraud, and violent crime in the early 1990s. In the private sector, he became a partner at two very well regarded Minnesota law firms, Robins Kaplan and Greene Espel. He has led a number of very important prosecutions in his capacity as U.S. attorney: Operation Rhino, which involved the criminal prosecution of Omer Abdi Mohamed, who recruited young Somali Americans to fight for terrorist groups in Somalia, To date, this investigation has resulted in charges filed against 22 other individuals and Operation Brother's Keeper, a major RICO case, the second biggest Ponzi scheme in the history of America, second only to the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme, prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office, by a fine prosecutor named Joe Dixon and many others under Todd Jones's leadership. This gives us a sense--and I would end with this as I see Senator Leahy, our great chairman is here. Jones's confirmation is supported by the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Chiefs of Police, 81 U.S. attorneys, the National District Attorneys Association, Minnesota's former FBI Special Agent in Charge, Ralph Boelter, the former U.S. attorney Tom Hefflefinger, who served under both George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush in Minnesota, and dozens of others who have worked with Mr. Jones over his many years of public service. I would end with this: The ATF has people on the frontlines every day. They do not ask if the work they have done is ordered by a Republican or a Democrat. When they go to investigate a bombing, they do not ask the police officers what their political affiliation is or who the FBI is. They do not care. They just do their job. Now it is time for the Senate to do its job and confirm an ATF Director for the first time in 7 years. I thank the chairman for his leadership. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that is vital for the future health and well-being of citizens in our country; that is, funding for medical research for the National Institutes of Health. Unfortunately, NIH funding, like many other important Federal priorities, is being impacted by the across-the-board spending cuts. As we all know, we want to see that budget go down, we want to see the debt reduced, but we have to do it in a sensible way, not with a hammer. Sequestration was never intended to be implemented and was supposed to bring Democrats and Republicans together to focus on smart solutions to reducing our debt. I am a supporter of the work of the debt commission. I believe there is a way we can bring down our debt in a significant way. But I do not think we meant to have sequestration implemented in the way it is being implemented and seeing the kind of cuts we are seeing. These cuts are creating headwinds against short-term economic growth, reducing access to important services, and threatening our Nation's leadership in areas such as medical research. Congress needs to take a broader, long-term view toward our debt and deficit. That is why I support the Senate budget which would replace the sequester with targeted spending cuts and additional revenue, reducing the deficit in a balanced way. I know Senator Murray, who heads up the Budget Committee, has been trying valiantly to get this budget to a conference committee, which is supported by the Democrats in the Senate and supported by Republicans such as Senator McCain and Senator Collins. We have been stopped every step of the way, but this should go through regular order, into a conference committee so we can work out these differences with the House and replace sequester with something that makes sense. Today I want to focus on the impact of sequestration on this particular area of the Federal budget; that is, medical research. It may not be the first thing you think of when you think about these cuts and what they mean, but I hope when you listen to my stories it brings out a whole new significance. In the last century we have made enormous strides through medical and scientific research to understand the world around us. This research has led to a greater understanding of the nature and cause of disease and spurred a new generation of therapies and intervention to treat diseases. Our country has been a leader in this era of scientific discovery, and we are responsible for developing many of the innovative therapies and scientific advances that have changed the face of science and given hope to millions of patients across the world. These advancements have been made possible by our commitment to funding research through the National Institutes of Health. Currently, the NIH is the largest source of medical research funding in the world. Through its 27 Institutes, NIH funds research to prevent, detect, better treat, and even cure fatal and debilitating diseases such as cancer, heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer's, arthritis, diabetes, and mental health issues. The Institutes also fund basic science which provides the foundation for future breakthroughs in all fields of scientific discovery. Researchers in my State tell me they cannot think of anything they do clinically that was not influenced by basic research made possible by NIH funding. Think of the advancements we have made. These clinical advancements are critical to improving health and saving the lives of millions of Americans. To truly understand the importance of NIH, I think it is important to understand the impact on our own people, so I want to share some of the ways NIH funding has had influence in my State on people, on people such as Jim from Edina, MN. Jim was 36 when he was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor in 1998. He was a professional engineer. He had an MBA from Northwestern Kellogg School of Management and worked in the family's 56-year-old air-conditioning and heating business, Owens Companies, Inc. He had everything to live for. But when Jim was diagnosed, there were almost no treatment options beyond radical surgery and radiation, so Jim looked for other options. Over the course of the next 10 years he participated in multiple clinical trials and some seven treatments--all made possible by research grant funding. Jim passed away at age 46. But thanks to the clinical trials, he lived over 10 years, allowing his young son Max the chance to get to know his dad. He also was able to continue his lifelong athletic endeavors with a ride across the country with Livestrong in 2004 as part of the Tour of Hope, spreading the message of hope and survivorship. The clinical trials, however, did not just help Jim. This is the key part, Mr. President, whether you are from Connecticut or from Minnesota. One of the trials in which Jim participated proved so effective that it is now the standard treatment regimen for people who are diagnosed with the same cancer as Jim. That would not have been possible if Jim had not been willing to go through those treatments and if they had not been funded by NIH. Then there is Karen, a 48-year-old wife, mother of two teenagers, and a teacher. She was diagnosed with leukemia in August of 2005. With her type of leukemia, the prognosis is relatively good, and using the current treatments available she remained in remission until 2009. Then in the summer of 2009 she started feeling sick again and received news that the cancer had returned. Her only treatment option was a bone marrow transplant which had a 25-percent mortality rate. She and her husband visited with specialists and discovered that she had a mutation that did not respond to the current--at that time--frontline medication. That is when she learned about clinical trials. In January 2010 she began her clinical trial journey and has now been involved in two clinical trials. She responded well to the second clinical trial and has been in remission for over 2 years. Her kids are now 17 and 13, and she and her husband are preparing to send their oldest daughter off to college in the fall of 2014. NIH funding supports the research centers that make these stories like Jim's and Karen's possible. In Minnesota we have the Paul and Sheila Wellstone Muscular Dystrophy Center, which is supported by NIH funding. This center has 46 faculty members in 7 University of Minnesota colleges and schools and receives $6 million in annual funding from NIH. Together, these scientists are conducting over 10 active clinical research studies that are giving hope to parents and patients with muscular dystrophy. This facility believes science is more than just about the research. The researchers here have volunteered hundreds of thousands of hours helping to educate the people they serve and ensuring these families have access to support networks. All of this is made possible in part because of Federal investment in the NIH. These are inspiring stories, but supporting NIH is important for another reason--meeting the skyrocketing cost of treating chronic diseases. In total, today more than half of Americans are suffering from one or more chronic diseases. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, taken together these chronic diseases cause 7 in 10 deaths and account for about 75 percent of the $2 trillion we spend on medical care. This year it is estimated that almost 1.7 million people will be diagnosed with cancer, and almost 600,000 are projected to die from this devastating disease. That is approximately 1,600 people a day. Everyone in this room knows someone who had cancer or has cancer now, and 26 million Americans are living with diabetes, with a new case diagnosed every 30 seconds. An estimated 5.2 million Americans are living with Alzheimer's disease, and we know this number will escalate rapidly in the coming years as the baby boom generation ages. The growing prevalence of chronic disease is having an impact not just on Americans' physical health but on our economy as well. In 2008 cancer cost our country over $200 billion. A recent report on diabetes costs shows that the money spent on diabetes care has risen 41 percent, from $174 billion to $245 billion in the last 5 years, and Alzheimer's alone is expected to cost our country over $1 trillion by 2050. All of us as taxpayers help pay that bill because public programs such as Medicare and Medicaid cover a significant amount of the cost of care and treatment. If we had earlier interventions and treatments that delayed the onset of these diseases, we would be able to reduce spending significantly. Take Alzheimer's as an example.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I thank the majority leader for his work and the Members of the Senate for allowing Todd Jones to get a vote to head the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau. This is a job that has gone unfilled, as you know, for 7 years, since it became confirmable under law--7 years, under President Bush, under President Obama. These 2,400 agents have had no leader. During that time they have investigated extensive crimes, including just this year the Boston Marathon bombing, as well as the explosion in Texas. These are just examples of what these agents are doing. They deserve a full-time leader. Mr. Jones is a former marine. He has five children. He has been going back and forth in Minnesota between the U.S. attorney's job and doing the ATF job for 2 years. Enough is enough. I am glad we are moving forward with this nomination. I am glad for Mr. Jones, who deserves it, and who has been willing to put his name forward, willing to come in, clean up this agency after Fast and Furious and all the concerns we all had with that effort. He was willing to come in, take over this very difficult job, and do two jobs at once. He deserves to be confirmed for this job. I am pleased for the agents as well, those 2,400 hard-working people who simply go to work every day, immune from the politicians, immune from what Democrats think or what Republicans think. They just deserve a boss. That is what this vote is about.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I just want to speak for a few minutes. I spoke at length earlier this week. I thank Senator Franken for his kind words and the work he has done on this bill, and also Senator Leahy, as well as all of those involved with this bill. Managing the bill this morning, it is, again, awe inspiring to see all the work that has been done on both sides of the aisle--whether people will vote for the bill. I expect we will have a strong bipartisan vote on this bill after the civil debate we have had. This is an incredibly big and important issue for this country. I have been involved in this debate since 2007. We have seen everyone come together from labor, business, farm groups, migrant workers, immigrant workers, and religious groups. We are finally going to get this incredibly important bill done. As Senator Franken noted, the piece that has been most important to me--in addition to the DREAM Act and all of the work that had to be done in law enforcement--was the work we have done to improve our legal immigration system. We are a country built on immigration. Thirty percent of our U.S. Nobel Laureates were born in other countries; 90 of our Fortune 500 companies were formed by immigrants. We cannot continue to compete in the global economy if we close our doors to those who think and make things and invent things. In part, that is what most excites me about this bill, the work we have done to improve the legal immigration system. I thank my colleagues, the Gang of 8, and our great Judiciary Committee that debated and marked up this bill into the night day after day. We should be proud of this bill, and I ask my colleagues to support it. With that, I yield for Senator Lee.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. It was a clear, good vote for our new Commerce Secretary. We are very excited about that vote, 97 to 1. I am going to speak to that, but before I do, I yield to my colleague from the State of Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, for 2 minutes.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, we are debating this historic comprehensive immigration reform, something that as a member of the Judiciary Committee I have worked long and hard on, and actually worked back in 2007 when I first got to the Senate. I can't tell you the difference it is doing this 5 years later than it was back in 2007. This time we have a coalition that is incredibly strong, that has withstood a lot of different questions and issues about this bill, that has been able to accommodate concerns raised within the Gang of 8 and then on the Judiciary Committee level, and now after last night's vote adding other requests and other things Members have. But I want to emphasize why this bill is so important from an economic standpoint. When we were in the Judiciary Committee, we had hearings and we had a number of people testify about the bill and what this bill would do in terms of the debt--something I know the Presiding Officer cares about very much. We had a number of Republican economists come forward and talk about how this bill reduces the debt. There were some early figures out there. Then I held a hearing on the Joint Economic Committee and called Grover Norquist as a witness. I was the first Democratic Senator I know of to call Grover Norquist as my witness. But he came forward and talked about the effects this bill would have in terms of reducing the debt. Lo and behold, last week we got the true numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office which showed that in fact this bill reduces the debt by $197 billion in 10 years. Then in response to a request from Senator Sessions, they also looked at the 20-year figure, and it showed it reduces the debt by $700 billion in 20 years. This is one example of what you are seeing with this bill. We are going to see immigrant workers who have been in the shadows come out to get on a path to citizenship that will take 13 years, who will have to pay taxes, will have to pay fines, will have to learn English if they don't know English. They will have to show their records and make sure they don't have any significant criminal records in order to gain citizenship. But it also means they will be paying taxes that will contribute to the well-being of this country, and they will be paying into systems they haven't been paying into before that help other Americans. The other point economically is the fact we are going to see a better legal immigration system. That is what our country was built on. Everyone came from another country, when you look at the history of our country. For me, it was Slovenian and Swiss immigrants. My grandfather worked 1,500 feet underground in mines and never even graduated from high school. He saved money in a coffee can to send my dad to college. My mom's side of the family came from Switzerland. My grandmother ran a cheese shop. So I am here standing on the floor of the Senate on the shoulders of immigrants, a grandfather who worked in the mines and another grandparent who worked in a cheese factory. Those are my immigrant roots. We all have them. We have to remember what this bill is about, and we have to remember that 90 of our Fortune 500 companies were actually formed by immigrants--200 formed by children of immigrants--and 30 percent of our U.S. Nobel laureates born in other countries. So when we look at this, yes, we have to look at the enforcement side and enforcement of the border. That is incredibly important. But we also have to look at the economic engine of America that brought us to where we are and where we want to head and how we are going to compete internationally. We do that by welcoming in America's talent, which will be our talent--most of which is homegrown but some of which comes from other countries.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Speaking of bipartisanship, I wish to address the recent vote, the 97-to-1 vote, for Ms. Penny Pritzker. This is a very positive development at a time when we are seeing a lot of nominations that have been stalled out. As a member of the Commerce Committee, I wish to spend a few minutes talking about her nomination. I think we all know she is extremely well qualified. Over the course of her career, she has started and led a number of business ventures in a wide range of industries, such as finance, real estate, hospitality, and transportation. She has been an advocate for business and assisted companies in expanding into new markets. She is also a member of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board and is chairman of Skills for America's Future, helping to prepare workers for the 21st century. When I met with Ms. Pritzker, I was impressed not only by her experienced command of what is going on right now with our economy, obviously, but also her understanding of the Department. As we know, the Department oversees the International Trade Administration, the Patent Office, the Economic Development Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and many others. But beyond that, we talked about the fact the Commerce Secretary can actually be an advocate for business today and for jobs today. I think one thing long overdue is looking at our top exporting industries in America--whether it is farm machinery, agriculture, movies, all of our top exporting industries, medical devices--and seeing what we can do to help them expand in our country, not in other countries, so they are exporting to the world. My State has been built on exports over the last few years. We have an unemployment rate of 5.3 percent. Certainly, the growth is due in part to the fact we have recovered now 93 percent of the jobs lost in the downturn in our State, but it is a lot about exports and it is also a lot about tourism, something with which Ms. Pritzker is well acquainted. I think this is literally the low-hanging fruit when it comes to exports. We lost 16 percent in international tourism since 9/ 11, and every point we add back is 161,000 jobs--161,000 jobs--right in this country. We are starting to do that now. We are starting to do that now because we are finally advertising our country under Brand USA, something the Department of Commerce is greatly involved in overseas, but also because we are speeding up the wait time for visas, something the State Department and the Commerce Department have worked jointly on. Every visa we get down to 2 to 3 days for a tourist visa means someone will choose to visit the Mall of America in Bloomington or choose to visit Las Vegas or choose to visit South Carolina instead of going to another country, instead of going to London or instead of going to Singapore. We want them to come to the United States of America. I think this is a big part of the job the Commerce Secretary will need to do to continue the improvements we have seen with tourism, to make sure everyone knows they can have a great vacation in West Virginia and to keep that message going. Another part of why I am excited about Ms. Pritzker in this job is because we are seeing more and more women in the workplace, as we know. We just did a report on that with the Joint Economic Committee. We need to see even more women in areas they haven't been involved in as much, such as manufacturing. The share of women workers in the manufacturing industry has been declining since 1990 and is now at 27 percent, the lowest level since 1971. At the same time, we have job openings in manufacturing, and we need people to be trained in the new skills for today's manufacturing. This is no longer your grandpa's factory floor. There are new skills needed in robotics, advanced degrees, and others to run the equipment, to make the equipment, and to repair the equipment. On a more general matter with women--and this is something we discussed at our commerce hearing with Ms. Pritzker--we just have 17 percent of board seats across manufacturing, 12 percent of executives, and 6 percent of CEOs. So there is a lot of work that can be done there. I am very excited about this nomination and the work that is ahead for Ms. Pritzker, and I am glad to see such strong bipartisan support in the Senate. NLRB Nominations As we continue to negotiate the immigration bill, I would like to talk about one more issue that is vitally important to our country's middle class. I just focused on some of the business issues--whether it is reducing redtape for our businesses, making sure we bring our debt down in a reasonable way or simply looking industry by industry at what we can do to make sure our market share increases--our global market share in America--but we also have the issue of America's workers. While I am here, I wish to talk about something vitally important to our country's middle class; that is, moving forward with the President's nominations for the National Labor Relations Board so it can get back to work protecting the rights of working Americans and employers. Over the course of the last few months, the President has nominated a full slate of five very qualified people to serve on the NLRB--three Democrats and two Republicans--all of whom have sterling credentials and a track record of focusing on results and working across the aisle. The first two nominees were named in February--February--the month we celebrate Valentine's Day, and we are now headed to the Fourth of July. The remaining three were nominated at the beginning of April. Yet we still haven't had a vote. In May, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee held a hearing on the five nominees to the NLRB. This was an important first step, and I commend Chairman Harkin for moving forward on these nominations. However, until these nominees are confirmed and the NLRB is up and running, workers and businesses will continue to face uncertainty. The NLRB rules impact people's daily lives and reflect our values as a country: child labor laws that prevent young kids from being exploited and forced to work instead of going to school, fair pay laws which ensure women get equal compensation for equal work, laws that mandate decent working conditions to protect people from being hurt or injured on the job, and laws that uphold the fundamental rights of workers to organize. The impact of the NLRB is critical to workers. The Board is the only option available to employers and companies that become the victim of unfair labor actions or run into barriers during negotiations with labor unions. This is for both sides. It is there for employers and for workers. We have a responsibility to show some leadership and begin the process of vetting these nominees in the Senate so the NLRB can get back to work. This is about providing stability and consistency to workers and businesses, but it is also about doing what is right for American families. My mom was a teacher. She taught public school until she was 70 years old, so I have seen firsthand how important it is for workers to have that right to organize, to have that right to make their case. This is why I have always believed we need a good NLRB, a fair NLRB. We have a President who has put up five nominees, three Democrats, two Republicans. The last time I checked, this President won the election and he has the right to nominate people for this job. America was built on a strong middle class, and the NLRB is a critical agency for keeping America moving forward, for ensuring every person can work a steady job, with good wages, provide for their families, and save a little for the future. So there is much at stake, and I urge my colleagues to put politics aside and allow the Senate to move forward with consideration of the full package of five nominees to the National Labor Relations Board. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I first wish to thank the Gang of 8 and our Judiciary Committee for their work. As was discussed in the last few minutes, there has been an incredible amount of patience and hard work that has gone into this bill, and I am very hopeful we will be able to work out the remaining issues and amendments. I think the strong vote yesterday showed an incredible sense of momentum and bipartisan compromise. Pritzker Nomination