[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16703-16715]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




EMPLOYMENT NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT OF 2013--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask to be allowed to address the 
Senate for a brief period of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.


                          Balancing The Budget

  Mr. SANDERS. This afternoon I wish to touch on two issues. One is the 
issue of Social Security, which is life-and-death for many millions of 
Americans, and the other is the issue of Medicare and Medicaid.
  The main point I would like to make--and I make this as a member of 
the budget conference committee--is that the American people, 
regardless of their political persuasion--Democratic, Republican, 
Independent, conservative, progressive, whatever--are quite united in 
stating they do not want cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and 
Medicaid and they do not believe we should balance the budget on the 
backs of some of the most vulnerable people in this country.
  According to the latest National Journal/United Technologies poll, 81 
percent of the American people do not want to cut Medicare benefits at 
all, 76 percent of the American people do not want to cut Social 
Security benefits at all, and 60 percent of the American people do not 
want to cut Medicaid benefits at all. This is only one of many polls 
that are out.
  What the American people understand is that millions of people are 
hurting in today's economy. The number of people living in poverty is 
at an alltime high, and median family income is going down. 
Unemployment is much too high. People are hurting, and we cannot make 
devastating cuts to the social safety net that is literally life-and-
death for so many of our people.
  I did want to mention that I worked on a petition drive with a number 
of grassroots organizations throughout this country. They include 
CREDO, Daily Kos, Campaign for America's Future, Social Security Works, 
Democracy for America, Progressives United,

[[Page 16704]]

MoveOn, Other98, USAction, and the Alliance for Retired Americans. In a 
pretty short time--less than 1 week--we received over 500,000 names on 
a petition that says very clearly: Do not cut Social Security, 
Medicare, and Medicaid. Do not balance the budget on the backs of some 
of the most vulnerable people in this country.
  The other point I would make when we talk about the budget is that at 
the end of the day people do believe the deficit is too high. We should 
be proud, by the way, that in the last 4 years we have cut the deficit 
in half, but it is too high. But what the American people also say is 
that what is much more significant to them is the economy and the fact 
that we have so many people who are unemployed.
  I would point out, as somebody who believes very strongly--and I 
speak as a former mayor of Burlington, VT--who believes absolutely that 
when your infrastructure--your roads, bridges, and rail system--is in 
need of enormous investment, where we can create millions of decent-
paying jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, what the American 
people are saying is, yes, we have to create jobs. According to a March 
3, 2013, Gallup poll, 75 percent of the American people--including 56 
percent of Republicans, 74 percent of Independents, and 93 percent of 
Democrats--support ``a federal jobs creation law'' that would spend 
government money for a program ``designed to create more than 1 million 
new jobs.''
  Again, of course, people say we are divided in America. In many ways 
we are not quite so divided. The American people say don't cut Social 
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The American people say the most 
important issue facing our country is creating jobs. They want the 
Federal Government to do that. In this body we are divided, but among 
the American people, on these issues, Republicans, Democrats, and 
Independents are not quite so divided.
  When we talk about unemployment, an issue that does not get anywhere 
near the kind of discussion we need is youth unemployment in America. 
As horrendous as unemployment is for anybody of any age, it is terrible 
for the young people who are graduating high school and graduating 
college. All of us say to the young people in this country: Don't stand 
on street corners. Don't do drugs. Go out and get a job, create a 
career, and make it into the middle class.
  Yet real unemployment for young people in this country, for youth in 
this country, is somewhere around 20 percent. Among African-American 
young people it is over 40 percent. I don't hear the discussion in the 
Senate about the need to create the millions of jobs our young people 
desperately need so when they leave school they can go out and create a 
career for themselves and make it into the middle class. I worry very 
much about those young people who don't have that opportunity.
  In an interview published October 1, 2013, Pope Francis said:

       The most serious of the evils that afflict the world these 
     days are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old.

  He is not, of course, only talking about America; he is talking about 
what is going on throughout the world.
  Continuing:

       The old need care and companionship; the young need work 
     and hope but have neither one nor the other, and the problem 
     is they don't even look for them anymore.

  I couldn't agree more.
  We cannot turn our backs on the elderly. We cannot cut Social 
Security and Medicare. We cannot turn our backs on the young people. 
They need to be given the opportunity to have decent jobs and make a 
life for themselves.


                          Older Americans Act

  I would also like to say a few words about a piece of legislation 
that just passed the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. I 
am the chairperson of the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging. I 
thank Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Alexander, who are cosponsors 
of the Older Americans Act legislation that only last week came out of 
committee. This is a bill some of us have been working on for several 
years.
  The Older Americans Act is an enormously important piece of 
legislation for senior citizens all over this country. The bill that 
came out of committee in a very strong bipartisan way has the strong 
support of over 50 national organizations representing tens of millions 
of Americans, including AARP, the National Committee to Preserve Social 
Security and Medicare, the National Council on Aging, the Alzheimer's 
Association, and the Meals On Wheels Association of America.
  I won't go into all of what this bill does, as I don't have the time 
do that, but it deals with the very important issue of elder abuse and 
making sure that seniors in nursing homes get the care and respect to 
which they are entitled. It deals with the Long-Term Care Ombudsman 
Program. It places an increased emphasis on evidence-based programs. It 
addresses the changing nature of senior centers in America, prevents 
fraud and abuse, and it focuses on home care and nutrition services. 
There is a lot in this bill that I believe is quite good, and it is a 
step forward.
  One of the problems we have--Senator Burr of North Carolina raised 
it, and appropriately so--the issue is that we are seeing in this 
country in general a migration of folks from northern parts of the 
country to the South--this is not a new issue--including many seniors. 
What Senator Burr was arguing is that he thinks the current formula is 
unfair and that it does not take into account that kind of migration. I 
think he has a valid point, which we want to address.
  The other point and the most important point is that since 2006--the 
last year in which the Older Americans Act was authorized--the U.S. 
elder population has grown by over 20 percent. As the baby boomers age, 
every single State in this country has seen its senior population grow. 
The important point is that Federal funding for this legislation is the 
same today as it was in 2006--$1.8 billion. Funding for the act in 
terms of real inflation-accounted-for dollars has decreased by more 
than $250 million during that period of time.
  We have a growth in the senior population and a decline in real 
dollars going into the needs of seniors through the Older Americans 
Act, and this is a very serious problem. We compound that problem with 
the migration from the North in some States to the South.
  What is the solution? I believe the solution is very simple. If we 
understand that the Older Americans Act is an enormously cost-effective 
act--one doesn't need to be a gerontologist or a physician who deals 
with senior citizens to understand that when a senior is malnourished 
and doesn't get the nutrition he or she needs, that senior is more 
likely to break a hip by falling, that senior is more likely to get 
sick, go to the emergency room, and go to the hospital at great cost. 
Everybody knows that. There is no debate about that. When seniors have 
the companionship and the nutrition they need, they are less likely to 
go to the emergency room, they are less likely to go to the hospital, 
and we can save money.
  Study after study shows that investing in programs such as the Older 
Americans Act--that is, the Meals On Wheels program, the congregate 
meal program, employment opportunities for seniors, dealing with elder 
abuse--when we invest in those programs, we save money. We not only 
from a moral perspective make life better for seniors, we actually save 
Federal money by preventing other bad things from happening.
  I hope our committee and Members of the Senate can work together to 
say that increasing funding for the Older Americans Act is not only the 
right thing to do for millions of Americans, it is also the cost-
effective way to go. If we can increase funding, we can deal with some 
of the issues Senator Burr has raised.
  What I will not support is making drastic cuts in certain States, 
such as Iowa, New York, or Massachusetts, in order to increase funding 
in other States. We have to protect every State in this country because 
there is no State in which programs like the Meals

[[Page 16705]]

On Wheels program don't already have long waiting lines. What we need 
to do is invest in these programs. When we do, we will have done 
something that is very important for seniors all over this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. JOHANNS. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business 
for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Health Care

  Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about 
the health care law. We have reached the 1-month milestone of the 
embarrassing rollout of healthcare.gov, and it doesn't work. There is 
no shortage of headlines about the issues.
  CNBC: ``99 percent of Obamacare applications hit a wall.''
  Bloomberg: ``Insurers Getting Faulty Data From U.S. Health 
Exchanges.''
  Consumer Reports: ``Stay away from HealthCare.gov for at least 
another month if you can.''
  Forbes: ``Now She Tells Us: Sebelius Says Obamacare's Exchange 
Website Needed Six Years of Development, Instead Of Two.''
  The Associated Press: `` . . . government memo shows . . . a lack of 
testing posed a high security risk . . . ''
  Nebraskans have relayed the same frustrating messages to me and to my 
office. One Nebraskan from Ogallala shared that she was on the Web site 
from 9 a.m. until 3 p.m. and was not able to set up an account. She 
said that after 6 hours the Web site screen read: ``The account 
couldn't be created at this time.'' Another Nebraskan from Norfolk said 
he couldn't get the Web site to work, so he contacted a Web site 
official, who actually said he could not help him. Instead, the 
official directed him back to the nonworking Web site.
  The accounts from people who have experienced page crashes, hours and 
hours of slow service, no service, and information errors goes on and 
on. Yesterday, I launched a page on my Web site for Nebraskans to share 
their ObamaCare stories. In just the first 24 hours, nearly all of the 
stories I have received are heart-wrenching accounts about the law's 
negative impact.
  Despite the headlines and stories flooding in across the country, the 
President continues his all-too-familiar cheerleading act. Rather than 
offering Americans the accountability and the transparency they 
deserve, the President claims, ``the product is working; it's really 
good.''
  Top HHS officials reflected the President's poor leadership in their 
hearings today and last week. They dodged questions, they withheld 
critical information, and they delivered more promises that won't be 
kept. Strikingly, the ObamaCare enrollment site was actually down as 
the HHS Secretary testified for the first time about the Web site's 
troubled rollout and even assured Americans the Web site is working and 
that it is just slow and unreliable.
  Americans are understandably frustrated with this failed effort and, 
most importantly, this failed law. Last week I cosponsored legislation 
that requires HHS to provide weekly reports to Congress and to the 
public about healthcare.gov. This ensures Americans, who have paid over 
$400 million for this exchange, will actually receive the transparency 
they deserve. While enacting this bill is one worthwhile step, the 
issues with this law aren't just about the Web site. The reality is 
there are much larger issues--issues that no fix to the Web site can 
solve.
  Not surprisingly, the law's botched implementation is mimicking the 
clumsy passage. I was here. I saw it--2,700 pages written behind closed 
doors, passed on party-line votes, full of unrealistic promises and 
filled with pork. It indeed has been a recipe for disaster since day 1. 
We received clear warnings in 2009 that a lack of transparency, missed 
deadlines, and broken promises were to be the legacy of this law. And 
now, almost 4 years later, we are seeing just the start of the real-
life consequences of this irresponsible process and policy.
  A number of stories I have heard from Nebraskans reflect what is 
happening on a large-scale basis across this great country. A widowed 
mother from Kearney pays for her family's health insurance out of her 
own wages. She is extremely disappointed because her existing plan 
won't be offered next year. The President's repeated promise to her and 
to others that ``if you like your plan, you can keep it'' is not true 
for that mother in Kearney or for millions of Americans.
  So this Nebraskan is stuck with two options: She can choose a plan 
with a similar premium, but her coinsurance will go up, her deductible 
will increase to $1,500, and her family out-of-pocket limit will 
increase to $9,700. Her second option is to select a plan with similar 
coverage that costs an additional $200 per month. That is $2,400 more 
per year. She said in her letter:

       I don't find this to be affordable health care. I had 
     affordable health care.

  This woman is not alone, according to figures released by the 
Nebraska Department of Insurance about the exchange in our State. 
Nebraska's insurance director said:

       Basically, the rates are going up.

  Family coverage for a single mom with 3 children in Hastings, NE, 
will increase 21 percent. A single male in Lincoln will see a 144 
percent increase. Let me repeat that--a 144 percent increase.
  A Manhattan Institute study found that Nebraska would be one of the 
worst-hit States for rate hikes, specifically citing young males and 
middle-aged women.
  A practicing physician in Nebraska wrote to me saying Obamacare will 
``destroy'' our health care system. She says the law means ``more 
paperwork, less time with patients, doctors outright quitting or 
retiring early, and fewer students willing to invest time and money to 
become doctors.''
  This fall Nebraska grocers came to my office to discuss ObamaCare. 
They shared that small grocery stores are hiring fewer people and are 
cutting back hours. As we all know, the employer mandate requires 
businesses with over 50 employees to provide coverage for all of their 
employees or pay a $2,000 penalty for each employee. Even though the 
mandate was delayed, grocers shared, ``The labor force is fundamentally 
changing already.'' I might add, not for the better.
  I find it amazingly contradictory that the Obama administration is 
granting a delay that provides private businesses temporary relief from 
an employer mandate. Yet American families will be subject to the 
individual mandate. It is even more inconsistent and unfair to punish 
American families by imposing a penalty for not enrolling on a Web site 
that isn't working.
  Last week I signed on to legislation to delay the individual mandate 
until 6 months after the Web site is verifiably fixed. I have also 
signed on to a bill that delays the mandate for 1 year and another bill 
that would repeal it entirely. I firmly oppose the mandate. I hope to 
repeal it. But at the very least, I believe the American people should 
have the same protection our Nation's businesses have been promised. 
Because the reality is this law has put goodwill and hardworking 
Americans, who are playing by the rules, in the most frustrating and 
heartbreaking situations.
  When it comes to this law, I have already said I believe the people 
of Nebraska and the citizens of our great country deserve so much 
better. They deserve a law that addresses the rising cost of care. They 
deserve a government that fosters economic growth so that families can 
confidently make a downpayment on a house, send their kids to college, 
grow their businesses or start a new one. Instead, because of their 
government, Americans are more uncertain than ever. They simply can't 
make sense of the 2,700-page law or its 20,000 pages of regulations and 
what that means for their families. You would need a cadre of lawyers 
to figure that out.
  The administration's failed Web site launch only deepens Americans' 
concern about what more could come. ObamaCare was never ready for prime 
time. It wasn't ready that Christmas Eve when it was passed on a pure 
party-line vote. Sadly, we all knew this

[[Page 16706]]

when it passed, but now we are beginning to see that you reap what you 
sew.
  Today we find ourselves at a crossroads, and it is time to listen to 
the American people and repeal the law. That would deliver the single 
biggest solution to removing the uncertainty, anxiety, and burden upon 
our economy. History will harshly judge those who defend, for political 
reasons, a law that is so clearly inflicting so much harm.
  Lately, a few of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle have 
begun to admit the problems and admit they are real and substantial. 
There is tremendous pressure on them not to break ranks. Yet several 
are beginning to speak for the people instead of the party. Some are 
rightly beginning to refuse to defend promises that have now proven to 
be lies. Most importantly, some are now signaling a willingness to 
support legislative solutions.
  Maybe there is a crack in the armor, but we need more than the 
current few to stand with the American people. We need 15 Democrats to 
join our 45 Republican Senators to actually repeal or amend any section 
of this ill-advised law. It is a worthwhile endeavor, and it is one we 
must pursue.
  I believe that, ultimately, history will commend those who rise above 
the political fray to recognize that at this moment in time true 
statesmen, true public servants must stand with the American people.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I wish to begin by thanking a number 
of my colleagues for their leadership, including Senators Merkley and 
Harkin and others in this body who have championed the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act, known as ENDA, over many years with great passion 
and constancy. Now we are literally on the verge of approving this 
historic measure in this body and hopefully in the House of 
Representatives.
  I have heard from numerous organizations that represent America's 
workforce, such as the Service Employees International Union and the 
United Auto Workers Union, that--and I am quoting the UAW--``this 
legislation represents a step in the right direction toward providing 
equal opportunity for all Americans.'' That message is also carried on 
by America's faith leaders, our business community, generally, and many 
others who have fought over the years for civil rights and civil 
liberties. It is one of the paramount civil rights issues of our time 
and I am proud to be fighting for it.
  I wish to mention some of the American businesses that have stepped 
forward to endorse this legislation: Boehringer Ingelheim 
Pharmaceuticals of Ridgefield, CT; Diageo North America of Norwalk, CT; 
UBS AG of Stamford, CT; and Xerox Corporation, also of Stamford, CT. 
There are many others around Connecticut, big and small.
  The reason the business community is steadfastly and strongly behind 
this bill is that it is good for America's working men and women and it 
is good for the business community. It has attracted bipartisan support 
in this body and around the Nation. America is moving toward this kind 
of guarantee against discrimination.
  This bill is many years in the making. The last time the Senate voted 
on this issue in 1995 the bill couldn't even attain 50 votes. Our 
Nation has made tremendous progress since then, of course--not only on 
this bill but on a range of LGBT civil rights issues. This bill is 
important because it is inclusive. ``Inclusive'' is the word that ought 
to characterize our society.
  In the 18 years since the Senate last voted on ENDA, 14 States, which 
together are home to almost one-third of the Nation's population, have 
come to recognize same-sex marriage. This is, of course, an increase 
from zero in 1995.
  Over the past two decades, we have seen a string of landmark Supreme 
Court cases, from Romer v. Evans to Lawrence v. Texas, to this year's 
hugely important and inspirational ruling in Windsor v. United States. 
But this issue is about more than just legal reasoning and rulings. It 
is about real people. It is about members--millions of them--of the 
LGBT community who are now just beginning to enjoy full freedom and 
equality that is guaranteed to them by our Constitution as citizens. It 
is about their moms and dads, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, 
members of their families from all over, as well as their coworkers in 
the places where discrimination will be banned and who are supporting 
this legislation. They deserve nothing less than full equality, which 
is what this bill would give to them. They should not be victims of 
discrimination because of whom they love. That is the simple idea 
behind this historical potential law.
  Still, we have a lot more work to do on this bill. The House 
certainly will not be an easy battle. We need to make sure, very 
simply, that the House is given an opportunity to vote. Because if it 
is given that opportunity--if the House votes--it will approve this 
bill, just as it did the Violence Against Women Act, after the Speaker 
initially denied that opportunity. The last time this bill came to a 
vote in the House was in 2007, when 35 Republicans joined Democrats to 
pass the bill, but it did not pass the Senate.
  I understand Speaker Boehner may have reservations. He has expressed 
them already. I understand the politics for other Members may be 
difficult. But this vote is about the future of our Nation, about what 
kind of America we are going to be. It transcends in importance a lot 
of the measures we undertake. It is about real people's lives in the 
workplace, in their homes, and what kind of life they have, what kind 
of opportunities they have to fulfill all of their potential as human 
beings. That is why America is so special. It guarantees people an 
equal opportunity.
  In 29 States, LGBT Americans live without any protections against 
discrimination in private sector employment. They have those 
protections in 21 States across the country. Between 15 percent and 43 
percent of all LGBT Americans have experienced discrimination or 
harassment in their workplaces because of their sexual orientation or 
gender identity, and that number rises to a staggering 90 percent for 
transgendered Americans in particular, with more than one-quarter--25 
percent--reporting they have been fired. These kinds of troubling 
statistics have no place in the America of the 21st century.
  We have an opportunity in this same bill to ban discrimination 
against our veterans. I would suggest--and I will propose it in an 
amendment--that similar protections be afforded to them. Hiring a 
veteran is a good investment for any business. Veterans have unique 
qualities, including dedication and discipline, which make them 
qualified for many civilian jobs. Unfortunately, too many veterans are 
unable to find work today, most especially our younger veterans who 
experience higher unemployment rates than their contemporaries who have 
not made the sacrifice and have not given the service they have in 
uniform. For them to be unemployed at higher rates is a disgrace. It is 
an outrage that the greatest Nation in the history of the world whose 
citizens volunteer to serve and sacrifice, preserving our freedom, have 
higher unemployment rates when they come home than others.
  The evidence is--and I have heard it and seen it from veterans as 
well as others--that they are sometimes victims of discrimination. That 
ought to be outlawed. That is what I believe this law can do, in 
addition to seeking equality and opportunity for all Americans and 
banning discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
  I wish to express my gratitude to AMVETS, Veterans of Foreign Wars,

[[Page 16707]]

and the National Guard Association of the United States, which have 
supported this initiative prohibiting discrimination against veterans. 
When I introduced S. 1281, the Veterans and Servicemembers Employment 
Rights and Housing Act of 2013, they supported it, and I am grateful to 
them. I think this kind of amendment would be a welcome companion to 
ENDA, the landmark legislation the Senate is moving forward toward 
passing.


                 Manufacturing Reinvestment Account Act

  When it comes to the workplace--on a separate, unrelated piece of 
legislation--I wish to thank Senator Coons for his leadership in the 
manufacturing initiative area he has spearheaded and speak on a 
particular measure that will help manufacturers grow and invest, the 
Manufacturing Reinvestment Account Act. This legislation was 
cosponsored by my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Murphy, as well 
as sponsored in the House by another Connecticut colleague, Rosa 
DeLauro, to create a new type of an account that manufacturers can use 
to help save and eventually make investments in their businesses.
  I am proud the Manufacturing Reinvestment Account Act is part of the 
Senate's manufacturing American jobs agenda led by Senator Coons. Under 
this initiative, several of my colleagues have come together to make 
sure we move away from manufacturing crises and toward manufacturing 
jobs. That is what we should be doing, helping to create jobs, not 
create crises, especially when they result in self-inflicted wounds.
  This bill will allow manufacturers to put up to $500,000 a year in 
these special manufacturing reinvestment accounts, much like people put 
away money in IRAs. It would give them 7 years to use the money they 
deposit for qualified manufacturing expenses. Essentially, these 
manufacturers can use these funds for investments in physical capital 
such as equipment and new facilities or human capital such as job 
training and workforce development. They then would be able to withdraw 
the funds from their accounts at a low 15-percent tax rate.
  This bill is a Connecticut original. I am very proud I sponsored it 
last session and I am proud to do so again now. I wish to thank in 
particular Jamie Scott of Air Handling Systems in Woodbridge, CT, for 
the key role he played in developing this idea. He came to me with the 
basic concept and we developed it into a bill which is so eminently 
qualified for support. It makes such clear common sense, and it shows 
what happens when industry leaders and their elected representatives 
work together to devise innovative ideas to grow the economy. We not 
only produce in Connecticut and make the best manufactured products in 
the world, but we also make ideas, which is why this Yankee ingenuity 
has produced a bill that favors reinvestment accounts to enable 
investment at low tax rates and spur and incentivize job creation.
  With the support of Mr. Scott and Congresswoman DeLauro, it has been 
reintroduced on the House side. I have been happy to introduce this 
legislation in the Senate. I hope it will provide real encouragement 
for manufacturers to grow and invest and expand job training, taking 
this money from profits and putting it away so it can be saved without 
taxation, and then using it at lower rates of taxation is a basic 
principle that makes eminent good sense. I think it comes at an 
important time as we all grapple--economists, experts, businesspeople--
with how to recognize and spur a manufacturing renaissance throughout 
the United States. What is needed is dollars and capital and the 
commitment to make sure we create jobs and use people for those jobs 
who are not only willing but eager to work.
  I also thank our community colleges, such as Asnuntuck and others 
around the State, that have done so much to provide job training in the 
skills that are needed, matching skills to jobs that exist and jobs 
that will be created. Asnuntuck Community College's manufacturing 
technology program is just one example among all of our community 
colleges which have trained more than 1,000 students who have 
transitioned successfully to private sector jobs that make use of the 
cutting-edge skills they learned on machinery, often donated by 
businesses, so Asnuntuck can teach those students so they can be 
matched to those businesses' needs. I have seen those students in 
action during my visits to Delta Industries in East Granby and ATI 
Stowe Machining in Windsor. Both of these companies have hired many 
students from Asnuntuck and are looking to hire more as they grow and 
expand in Connecticut.
  So these programs serve a profoundly important public good for our 
whole country that should bring us together on a bipartisan basis. We 
want to work together, not divide ourselves over false crises and 
unnecessary partisan division. I am confident, if we pass this 
legislation, our manufacturers will use this innovative tool and the 
manufacturing reinvestment account will help us to double down on 
growing America.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Budget Conference

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, earlier this year, a man named William, 
who is from Gig Harbor, WA, wrote to me to express his frustration with 
what he saw happening here in Congress. William served in the Navy. He 
now works for a tech company that supports Navy communications in the 
Pacific Northwest.
  Like so many Americans in recent years, he has witnessed hiring 
freezes and cutbacks and furloughs and layoffs. He said a couple of 
years ago he was hoping for a promotion, but now he considers himself 
just lucky to have a job. He is not even sure how long he can count on 
that.
  Well, William is not alone. The partisanship and the gridlock here in 
Washington, DC, have been devastating for families such as his in my 
home State of Washington and across the country.
  The government shutdown and the debt limit brinkmanship last month 
were just the latest examples. But Congress has been lurching from 
crisis to crisis to crisis for years and it has got to end. So today I 
am going to share a few stories from families who have been paying the 
price for the dysfunction here in Congress. I have worked very hard to 
make sure that voices such as theirs are heard loudly and clearly in 
the budget process. I am going to keep fighting to make sure their 
interests are represented every day as we work now toward a balanced 
and bipartisan budget agreement.
  Seven months ago the House and the Senate each passed their budget. 
The Senate budget that we passed here was built on three principles. 
First of all, our highest priority was investing in jobs and economic 
growth and prosperity that is built from the middle out, not from the 
top down.
  Secondly, the deficit has been now cut in half and we built on the 
$2\1/2\ trillion in deficit reduction we have passed now since 2011 to 
continue to tackle this challenge fairly and responsibly.
  Third, our budget keeps the promises that we have made to our seniors 
and our families and our communities.
  The budget that passed the House reflects different values and 
priorities. But it was our job to get in a room, make some compromises 
with them, and find a way to bring those two budgets together. Although 
I had hoped we could start this bipartisan budget negotiation far 
sooner and avoided last month's crisis, the budget conference has now 
begun--started last week--and offers us now the opportunity to break 
this cycle of gridlock and dysfunction and start moving our country 
back in the right direction. We have a chance now to turn our attention 
back to

[[Page 16708]]

where it belongs, strengthening our economy and creating jobs, continue 
making responsible spending cuts while closing wasteful tax loopholes 
that are used by the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations, and 
to finally show the American people that Congress can work together. We 
can compromise and alleviate the uncertainty and the pain that families 
across the country are facing.
  The effect of these years of gridlock is clear in places such as the 
Denise Louie Education Center in Seattle. I visited that Head Start 
Program earlier this year where pre-K students from low-income families 
can learn their ABCs and take part in story time and benefit from 
health and nutrition programs. Even before the major cuts to Head Start 
that took effect last month, that center had a waiting list. Now the 
director of the school has had to drop kids from that program because 
of these tight budget constraints.
  They are far from alone. Another Head Start in Everett, WA, a program 
that has served needy kids since the 1970s, had to completely shut its 
doors this summer because Congress could not work together. That one 
facility alone was helping 40 kids prepare for kindergarten. 
Nationwide, these cuts have forced tens of thousands of children out of 
Head Start as well.
  That is not all. The senseless cuts for sequestration have impacted 
education programs all across the country. Researchers and scientists 
who are working on cures for cancer and other diseases have lost their 
jobs. Programs such as Meals On Wheels that deliver food to seniors 
have been cut.
  There is so much more. The ripples from the so-called sequester have 
been felt in our homes and in our businesses and across our fragile 
economy.
  The across-the-board cuts have also had, of course, serious impact on 
defense programs and workers. Earlier this year I heard from one of my 
constituents whose family was impacted by this very directly. His name 
is Bob. He is from Bremerton, WA, and is an engineer at the Puget Sound 
Naval Shipyard. He told me every day highly skilled employees come into 
his office, often in tears, and tell him they do not know how they are 
going to manage to make ends meet if they are furloughed or laid off. 
They are worried now. They have felt the pain for months. They know it 
could get worse. Because if these automatic cuts are not replaced in a 
bipartisan deal, another $20 billion is scheduled to be cut from 
defense spending in January, just a few short months from now. That 
would make more furloughs and layoffs much more likely. It would mean 
continued and deeper cuts to combat training.
  It does not have to be this way, because something both Democrats and 
Republicans agree on is that the very least this budget conference 
should be able to accomplish, at an absolute minimum, is finding a path 
to replace these terrible sequester cuts and set a budget level for at 
least the short term.
  Republican Congressman Hal Rogers, the House Appropriations Committee 
chairman, said, ``Sequestration--and its unrealistic and ill-conceived 
discretionary cuts--must be brought to an end.''
  Even House Speaker John Boehner said the cuts would ``hollow out'' 
our military.
  Just recently the House Armed Service Committee Republicans sent me 
and Chairman Ryan a letter urging us to replace the sequester, saying 
it was ``never intended to be policy.''
  That is exactly right. Sequester was intended to be so bad it would 
drive both sides to the table to be willing to make some compromises, 
to replace it with smarter savings. I am very glad that more and more 
of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle are stepping up to try 
and find a solution. So the question now is not whether we should 
replace the across-the-board sequester cuts, but how we do it.
  The House and the Senate budgets both deal with sequester, just in 
different ways. The House budget fully replaces the defense cuts and 
lifts the BCA cap. It pays for that by cutting even more deeply into 
key domestic investments. Our Senate budget, on the other hand, 
replaces all of the automatic cuts and pays for it with an equal mix of 
responsible spending cuts and revenue that we raise by closing wasteful 
tax loopholes.
  Finding a bipartisan solution will not be easy. We all know that. It 
will require compromise from both sides. As I mentioned at our first 
budget committee conference last week, I am going into this process 
ready to offer some tough spending cuts that, unlike the sequester caps 
that disappear in 2022, would be permanently locked into law. I know 
there are many Republicans who would be very interested in swapping 
some of the inefficient and damaging cuts in the sequester with 
structural changes to programs that would save many multiples of the 
cuts to be replaced in the coming decades.
  In short, I am willing to compromise. I am ready to listen to 
Republican ideas, as long as their proposals are fair for seniors and 
families. I am prepared to make some tough concessions to get this deal 
done. But I cannot negotiate by myself. Compromise has to run both 
ways. That means in addition to the responsible spending cuts, 
Republicans need to work with us to close wasteful tax loopholes and 
special-interest subsidies, because it would be unfair and unacceptable 
to put the entire burden of deficit reduction on the backs of our 
seniors and our families. It should not be difficult for Republicans to 
agree to put just a few of the most egregious, wasteful loopholes and 
special-interest carveouts on the table to get a balanced and 
bipartisan deal.
  If the choice is between closing a wasteful loophole and lurching to 
another crisis, I hope every one of my colleagues will put their 
constituents before special interests. Over the last few years people 
across the country have lost a great deal of confidence in Congress's 
ability to work together for the good of our Nation, people such as 
Naani King, who, as the New York Times recently reported, serves as a 
registered nurse at Madigan Army Medical Center in my home State of 
Washington. During the shutdown last month, she worked without pay. 
Without a paycheck, she had to dip into her retirement account to make 
her monthly mortgage payment. Now, even though the shutdown is over, 
her family cannot take any chances. She told the Times, ``We just have 
too much to lose.''
  We here in Congress owe it to her family and to families all over 
this country to work to find a path forward. So let's put an end to 
this gridlock. Let's put an end to these crises. Let's show the 
American people we are listening to them. In fact, let's show them that 
their stories are more important than sticking to party lines or 
staying in ideological corners.
  We have got to rebuild some trust and we can do that. We need to find 
a path to compromise. We need to work together to strengthen our 
economy and create jobs. I am ready to do that in this budget 
conference. I am hopeful that over the coming weeks every one of my 
colleagues on that committee will make it clear that they are as well.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I am very proud to be here today speaking 
in support of historic legislation that will move us one step closer to 
the day when who you love has absolutely nothing to do with the rights 
that you are afforded as a citizen of the greatest country in the 
world.
  Frankly, the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is 
embarrassingly long overdue. In my State of Connecticut we have had 
antidiscrimination laws on the books for over 20 years. In 1991, 
Connecticut became the 4th State to formally protect LGBT workplace 
rights, and in 2011 we became the 15th State to offer similar 
protections to our transgender citizens.

[[Page 16709]]

  So it is funny, because my constituents assume that all across this 
country it is already illegal to fire somebody for whom they love and 
for who they are. But, of course, as we know, that is just not the case 
across most of the country.
  Right now, in some States, you can be fired from your job simply 
because of having a little photograph of your partner on your desk at 
work. While ENDA has been a commonly accepted civil rights protection 
in my State, you may hear some express opposition to this legislation 
on this floor by vaguely citing what are commonly referred to as the 
``concerns of the business community.'' I am not sure what businesses 
they are referring to, because in my State we have some of the biggest 
and most successful multistate and multinational businesses in the 
world; and they know that nondiscrimination isn't just the right thing 
to do, it is also really good for business.
  Companies such as United Technologies, General Electric, and Xerox 
want the best and the brightest people to work in an inclusive team 
environment--not having their employees hiding from each other who they 
really are. Companies such as BI Pharmaceuticals and Aetna haven't 
folded under the weight of having these State-based workplace 
protections. In fact, they are thriving in Connecticut, across the 
country, and all around the world.
  So in speaking with companies from all over Connecticut, none, to me, 
has ever argued that equal protection in Connecticut is something that 
is holding their businesses back. They have been living under this law 
for decades now. And it is not just Connecticut's largest employers. 
Connecticut's law actually goes further than ENDA does in prohibiting 
discrimination even among businesses with fewer than 15 employees. Our 
small business community understands that, far from inhibiting 
commerce, nondiscrimination policies actually help make our companies--
big and small--stronger.
  So even though a majority of American businesses oppose employment 
discrimination, some argue this legislation is going to harm businesses 
whose leaders have very strong religious beliefs. However, I think it 
is important to note the religious exemption in this legislation is 
even broader--remarkably broader, I would argue--than the exemption 
that is in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and it represents a 
compromise that doesn't go as far as some Members of this body, 
including myself, would like.
  In an op-ed that was published this summer, the former head of the 
NAACP, Julian Bond, equated these religious concerns with the arguments 
he heard from opponents of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Here 
is what Bond wrote.

       In response to the historic gains of the Civil Rights 
     movement in the 1960s, opponents argued that their religious 
     beliefs prohibited integration. To be true to their religious 
     beliefs, they argued they couldn't serve African-Americans in 
     their restaurants or accept interracial marriages.

  It would be shocking to hear somebody make a similar argument today 
about the treatment of African-Americans in our society. Frankly, I 
think it will be just as shocking 40 or 50 years from now for people to 
read that this argument is being made today about the treatment of LGBT 
Americans. There are, in fact--interesting to point out--numerous 
Christian and Jewish organizations and denominations that have taken a 
strong stand in favor of this legislation because they understand that 
unequal treatment under the law is at odds with their faith.
  Others on this floor have made the argument that passage of ENDA will 
lead to frivolous lawsuits from fired workers. So let me give my 
State's perspective on this. Again, we have been living under this law 
since 1991. We have had protections that we are debating today for two 
decades and we simply haven't seen frivolous lawsuits. And again, we 
have big companies that employ thousands of people across the State and 
across the Nation. Let me cite the statistics from 2009 to 2010, which 
is the most recent year for which we have data available.
  Out of a total of 1,740 employment-based discrimination complaints 
that were filed in the State that year, only 53 were based on sexual 
orientation discrimination. Just as a means of comparison, 464 
complaints were filed based on age discrimination. We went back a 
number of years, and in not a single year over the last half decade 
that we looked at were there more than about 40 or 50 complaints.
  My State has been a test case for these protections for sexual 
orientation and gender identity. The parade of horrible consequences 
opponents of this bill say will happen just have not happened in 
Connecticut.
  What we are doing here is pretty simple. We are not trampling on the 
First Amendment. We are not dictating morality. We are not harming the 
economy. We are not undermining the religious community. We are just 
saying that you can't discriminate against people in the workplace 
because of whom they choose to love or who they are inside.
  The simplicity of this bill is why two-thirds of the American public 
support it, and it is why I believe that 50 years from now history is 
going to judge no less harshly those who vote against this act as it 
now judges those who voted against some of the civil rights acts of the 
1950s and 1960s. Whom you love, who you are inside, and what you feel 
should never, ever be a reason for discrimination.
  I was on the House floor 6 years ago when the House passed ENDA, and 
I still remember listening to Congressman Barney Frank's closing 
argument. He welled up as he was giving it, and there were a lot of 
tears shed on the floor as well. I just want to close by quoting what 
he said, and I won't try to do his accent. Barney Frank said:

       I used to be someone subject to this prejudice. And through 
     luck and circumstance, I got to be a big shot. I am now above 
     that prejudice. But I feel an obligation to 15-year-olds 
     dreading to go to school because of the torment they endure, 
     to people who fear they will lose their job at a gas station 
     if somebody finds out whom they love. I feel an obligation to 
     use the status that I have been lucky enough to get to help 
     them. I make a personal appeal to my colleagues, please don't 
     turn your back on them.

  We are all big shots here. We have been lucky enough to get elected 
to the greatest deliberative body in the world, and there is an 
obligation and a responsibility that comes with the job we have to 
stick up for people who are being discriminated against because of who 
they are. The greatest moments of this body have been when we have 
joined together, Republican and Democrat, to stand against that kind of 
discrimination.
  Our ability to rise to Congressman Frank's challenge--``please, don't 
turn your back on them''--can be this week, another great chapter in 
the history of this great body.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on the motion to proceed to S. 815.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 10 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               The Budget

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about how 
we can avoid another shutdown of our government and also, even more 
important, avoid another shutdown or slowdown of our economy. That is 
how we in the Congress, both sides of the aisle, both sides of the 
dome, need to work to arrive at a budget agreement and then an 
appropriations agreement for the rest of the fiscal year.
  Earlier today on the floor we heard from the distinguished chair of 
the Budget Committee, the Senator from Washington State, Patty Murray, 
who talked about the budget and what was going on. I come here today to 
support her efforts and the work of the budget

[[Page 16710]]

conferees as they work to reach an agreement on the funding levels that 
will invest in America's future--creating jobs, repairing 
infrastructure, keeping us safe in our communities and making sure our 
children are well educated for the 21st century.
  The budget conference is absolutely important to America's future 
because it is about how much we should invest in America's future: What 
should we do in terms of revenue? How do we close corporate loopholes 
and corporate welfare and also have them step up to their patriotic 
responsibility? Also, what is the best way to approach the funding for 
this government?
  There is no doubt we need to reduce public debt, but austerity alone 
is not the answer. We have seen it in Europe where, yes, they have 
reduced their public debt, but they have not been progrowth. The agenda 
I stand for--and I know the chair of the Budget Committee does and many 
of us on both sides of the aisle do--is we not only want to reduce 
public debt, we also want to reduce unemployment, and we also want to 
reduce statistics such as crime rates.
  We need to be able to work together. My goals for the conference 
committee that is meeting are simple and straightforward. I would like 
to see the Budget Committee come up with not only a 1-year framework 
but a 2-year framework, giving a top-line funding level for 2014 and 
2015 and replacing the sequester policy for at least 2 years and do 
that with increased revenues and strategic cuts--a balanced approach.
  Let me say why this is important, because many people do not 
understand the difference between the Budget Committee and the 
Appropriations Committee. The Budget Committee looks at the entire 
budget of the government of the United States of America, money out and 
money in. It looks at money out in two categories. Discretionary 
spending, that is the Appropriations Committee; mandatory spending, 
that is Social Security, that is Medicare, that is veterans benefits. 
Then the other is revenue in, either through trust fund contributions 
or through fees or through taxes.
  The so-called top line is what discretionary spending is, what they 
allow for discretionary spending. In the budget it is under an act 
called section 302(a) of the budget. In order to do my job as the chair 
of the Appropriations Committee, I need the Budget Committee, with the 
concurrence of the Congress, to give my counterparts in the House--
Congressman Rogers and Nita Lowey--and myself and Senator Shelby, my 
vice chairman on the other side of the aisle, the so-called top line. 
Then we work through our 12 subcommittees. This is absolutely crucial 
because we cannot do discretionary spending for fiscal year 2014 until 
we hear from the Budget Committee.
  We do not want another CR. We do not want another shutdown. We do not 
want another slowdown. We are ready to go to work. We have already done 
our due diligence. We have already worked our way through the 12 
subcommittees, looking at what public investments should be made and, 
by the way, how we can be more frugal, how do we get rid of what is 
dated, what is duplicative, and what is dysfunctional.
  As the chair of the subcommittee, again with Senator Shelby, the 
distinguished Senator from Alabama, my vice chairman, we asked the 
committee to look at what is it we need to spend and what is it we can 
get rid of. We have done a great job this year. I am very proud of 
them. By August 1 all of my subcommittees were marked up, but we need 
to have this agreement. So we say we need to have this agreement and we 
need to have it sooner rather than later.
  In the deal, the Budget Committee is to report out to the Congress, 
and therefore to the Appropriations Committee, by December 15. My 
committee and my counterparts in the House are to produce an 
appropriations omnibus by January 15. I do not want to get lost in 
words and the weeds. But essentially as it stands now, Congress will 
only be in session 8 days from December 15 to January 15 because of the 
holiday. Eight days--it is an awful lot to ask Barbara Mikulski and 
Richard Shelby and Harold Rogers and Nita Lowey and our wonderful 
subcommittees to produce a bill. We will do it if we have to. But we 
would prefer sooner rather than later.
  We believe so strongly about it that my House counterpart, 
Congressman Hal Rogers, a distinguished gentleman from Kentucky--and I 
say gentleman in the true sense of the word: civil, candid, 
straightforward, courteous. We have talked about issues, the 
differences in fiscal approach and so on. But we know how to get the 
job done. Where we differ we know how to resolve the conflicts and we 
are ready to go.
  We have sent a letter to the chair of the Budget Committee on both 
sides, to Senator Murray and to Paul Ryan, asking that they report to 
the Congress before the Thanksgiving recess--before the Thanksgiving 
recess. This was unprecedented. We didn't talk about dollars--that is 
the Budget Committee. We will take our pot of discretionary money, 
called the top line, and get it done.
  What both the House chairman and I are very worried about is that if 
we do not act, sequester kicks in January 15. What an awful way to do 
business in our government. You heard me say our subcommittee chairmen 
have worked to get rid of what is dated, what is duplicative, and what 
is dysfunctional. That is not just meant to be an alliterative, clever 
throwaway line. That was a governing policy, both sides of the aisle, 
scrutinizing.
  I am worried. When I look at defense, funding for defense would be 
$54 billion lower than the Senate's version in both defense and 
military construction. According to the military chiefs, the readiness 
of our force has been degraded under existing sequesters. Eighty-five 
percent of Army brigade combat teams will not be fully trained to 
deploy. The Navy and our Marine Corps will only have one carrier strike 
group and one amphibious ready group. They are always going to be 
semper fi, but we have to be semper fi too and always faithful to 
getting the job done. The Air Force will have to cut aircraft and 
possibly an entire fleet.
  This is a dangerous time in the world with numerous threats to our 
security. We cannot operate our military on the cheap.
  Just to give a sense of what furlough meant, over 650,000 national 
security employees were initially furloughed in defense and 
intelligence and in other security positions in key government 
agencies. This is unacceptable. We cannot protect the country and run 
the government like that.
  I chair the commerce, justice subcommittee. That is the committee 
that funds Federal law enforcement, FBI, drug enforcement, U.S. 
Marshals, the U.S. attorneys who actually move this, the bureau of 
alcohol and firearms that keeps us safe from terrorism, catches child 
predators, prosecutes drug dealers, and gangs.
  Think of how the FBI went after the Boston Marathon killers. The CJS 
bill adds $2.3 billion above sequester levels to allow Federal law 
enforcement to do their jobs. U.S. Marshals track down violent 
fugitives and sex offenders. DEA goes after not only drug dealers but 
international drug cartels, so it doesn't make it to the playground or 
to the school room.
  The new FBI Director recently announced that if sequester continued, 
the FBI will have to furlough people up to 10 days over the next year. 
This is not good. In the long term CR at the sequester level, a 
continuing resolution will fund--they will keep a hiring freeze of over 
3,000 positions. We cannot have the kind of law enforcement we need at 
those levels.
  We have a big job to do. We have to do it sooner rather than later. I 
ask the support of the Congress for the Budget Committee for them to be 
able to bring a budget to the floor. Let's try to do it before the 
Thanksgiving break. Let's look at how we can look at a balanced 
approach between strategic cuts--and we on the Appropriations Committee 
are ready to keep on doing the job we started almost 7 years ago under 
Senator Byrd, our wonderful, most beloved leader of West Virginia, and 
Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens. We need to keep on doing that, but 
we need the Budget Committee to do their job.

[[Page 16711]]

  The impact on national security is significant. The impact on our 
domestic economy is significant. We need to step to the plate and not 
only avoid a crisis such as a shutdown, we also have to avoid the 
crisis of confidence that is occurring in our government: Can they 
govern? Can they get the job done? Are there significant pragmatists 
who will look at what is the must-do list we have around spending, of 
which I think security for our country is at the top of the list. I 
believe we can do it.
  I know the Presiding Officer was part of a bipartisan group during 
the shutdown to try to find a compromise. That group, I salute them. 
They changed the tone, showed civility, showed bipartisanship, and I 
think their initial effort was enough to stimulate and encourage coming 
to the final resolution that we did. That is the kind of spirit we need 
in this body.
  I would say to my colleagues, let's have the Budget Committee act 
sooner rather than later. Let's support them in a balanced approach to 
not only look at austerity but also growth, and that also means closing 
corporate loopholes.
  I welcome the Presiding Officer to the Chair. I think that concludes 
what I wanted to say today. As we get ready to approach the holidays, I 
want the American people to have confidence in their government. I want 
the American people to have confidence in those of us who have been 
elected.
  This is a big election day all over America. I recall this time last 
year--the reelection of President Obama and the election of the Senator 
from Massachusetts who is now the Presiding Officer. It was a big day. 
It was a big deal. Twenty women came to the Senate--a new Democratic 
woman and the distinguished Senator from the State of Nebraska. When 
they came, they were filled with excitement and passion to serve the 
Nation, represent the views of the people of their State, and to get 
something done, not only to do it with the lowest common denominator 
but also to be able to work together for the common good and worry 
about the next generation, not the next election. That is what we did. 
Let's recall how we felt this time last year. Let's get our act 
together and press on.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I was so excited talking about my topic, I forgot to note the absence 
of a quorum, so I hereby note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Judicial Nominations

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, in 2005--May of that year--the 
Senate faced a crisis that seems very familiar and very much like the 
one we face today in this body. Very simply, the Senate was unable to 
approve judges, which threatened to incapacitate a coequal branch of 
our government, the U.S. judiciary, and it confronted the threat of 
what came to be called the nuclear option, a change in the rules that 
would have wrecked the collegiality and civility that have 
characterized this body.
  Members of both parties recognized that the situation was untenable, 
and they recognized as well that the American court system was too 
important for the Senate to simply stop approving judges and suspend 
that very important constitutional responsibility on behalf of this 
body.
  At the time, 14 Senators came together to find a solution. They came 
to be known as the Gang of 14--7 Republicans and 7 Democrats. I want to 
read their names for the record because I think their conduct 
characterized what is really perhaps best about this institution. They 
were Senators Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode 
Island, Susan Collins of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lindsey Graham of 
South Carolina, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, 
Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, John McCain of Arizona, Ben Nelson of 
Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Ken Salazar of Colorado, Olympia 
Snowe of Maine, and John Warner of Virginia.
  What they devised was a quite simple solution. They were grappling 
with the same question that confronts us now: What can justify a Member 
of the U.S. Senate voting to block consideration--in other words, to 
filibuster a nominee to the judicial branch? Their idea, simple as it 
was, had tremendous power. They agreed they would oppose a judicial 
nominee only in ``extraordinary circumstances.'' That was the gist of 
the agreement. There were other features to it, but their spirit and 
intent in this short phrase had profoundly meaningful impact. In fact, 
for the remainder of the Bush Presidency, there were no more 
filibusters on judicial nominees, and those Senators, with that short 
phrase, accomplished a historic impact.
  What did they mean by it? One of them said at the time:

       Ideological attacks are not an ``extraordinary 
     circumstance.'' It would have to be a character problem, an 
     ethics problem, some allegations about the qualifications of 
     a person, not an ideological bent.

  An ethics problem, a character problem, some allegations about the 
qualifications of a person.
  Today, I ask for a renewed and revived commitment to the spirit of 
that agreement, a reinvigorated effort to apply that standard, and 
offer to work with my colleagues to revive that spirit of opposing a 
nominee and blocking that individual only in an extraordinary 
circumstance.
  I come to the floor today because we have heard objections to a 
number of nominees on the basis of claims that clearly cannot 
constitute an extraordinary circumstance. Opposed through that 60-vote 
threshold filibuster just last week were a couple of nominees who 
clearly have the qualifications to serve on the Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia Circuit.
  I rise in support today of another: Cornelia Pillard. Whatever has 
been said about this process, we have heard no extraordinary 
circumstance to oppose any of these nominees and certainly not Ms. 
Pillard. Senators can always disagree about exactly what our courts 
should do and how we should divide and allocate resources, and the 
claim has been made here that the reason to oppose those nominees is 
that there is insufficient workload to justify them. The fact is this 
Congress has approved the positions that are vacant and they have been 
nominated to fill.
  I know a lot of my colleagues have opinions on how to structure the 
courts and what the workloads should be, but I would assume these 
differences of opinion do not amount to extraordinary circumstances. 
They happen all the time. We debate what the workloads of the courts 
should be, and certainly the job of this Senate and of every Senator is 
to advise and consent on judicial nominations. If we refuse to consider 
the qualifications of a nominee and if we make the judgment based on 
irrelevant considerations, we are failing to advise and consent. We can 
debate about the structure and workload and number of cases before a 
court, but they are not extraordinary circumstances.
  The fact is that the workload of this court well justifies these 
nominations. In fact, it has grown in number since nominees were last 
approved. The waiting time for decisions on cases makes it eighth out 
of 12 circuit courts. The cases themselves cannot be judged only by the 
numbers, by the sheer volume of the caseload; the Senate, in my view, 
has to look also to the complexity and difficulty of the cases.
  I have argued before this circuit court and I participated in cases 
such as the Microsoft appeal, which took months--in fact, years--to 
resolve from start to finish and involved precedent-setting issues and 
decisions by the circuit court and literally hours of argument. So the 
argument about workload and about the need to fill or leave vacant, as 
the opponents say, those vacancies is incorrect and wrong.
  Agreeing with me are the Judicial Conference and a majority of their 
colleagues, who also say the vacancies should be filled, as do judges 
from across the political spectrum and appointees of a lot of different 
Presidents.

[[Page 16712]]

  But the point is that disagreement or even the claim that the 
workload does not justify it is not an extraordinary circumstance, and 
that ought to be the standard, consistent with the Gang of 14's 
agreement.
  I happen to believe Cornelia Pillard is almost the ideal nominee. If 
you were to design someone to sit on the court--if you had that 
ability--on the basis of record and talent and temperament, I do not 
think you could do much better.
  The D.C. court is said to be the second highest court in the country. 
I think they are all the second highest court. I do not think any one 
of them is better than the others.
  But what we want is an individual in each of these judgeships who is 
worthy of the immense responsibility because for most litigants the 
circuit court is the last stop on the litigation course.
  Nina Pillard brings to this nomination not only brilliance in an 
academic sense but a variety of experiences and a record of thoughtful 
engagement with diverse views and a dedication to excellence and to 
public service. She has spent time in the classroom as well as the 
courtroom, and she is a civil rights hero as well as a public servant 
and an expert on the judicial system. In other words, if you had to 
design someone with a record and experience that is ideal for this 
court or any of the other circuit courts, you would pick Nina Pillard.
  Now, I am going to come back to the floor. I am going to speak about 
her, I am going to speak about this court, I am going to speak about 
the Gang of 14, and I am going to speak about what should justify 
blocking a nominee of the President of the United States to serve in 
the courts. But for now let me just say about her that I hope my 
colleagues will see her qualifications, listen to her story, and listen 
to the better angels of their nature.
  The present situation cannot stand. If we continue on the present 
course, we will arrive at the same juncture that existed in May of 2005 
when the Gang of 14 helped to save the Senate from a crisis. It would 
have been a crisis for the collegiality and civility of this 
institution. It would have also been a crisis for the country. I hope 
we can again avoid it if we permit this process to move forward and 
recognize there is no extraordinary circumstance for any of these 
nominees that should block their approval by the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I request permission to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Affordable Care Act

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, this morning in the HELP Committee we 
had an opportunity to hear from the administrator of the health 
exchanges, Ms. Tavenner, who came before the committee to talk about 
where we are in the process now with the exchanges that have been set 
up through the Affordable Care Act. It was an opportunity, in the 5 
minutes we have allocated to each of us, to pose questions and to speak 
to the situation in Alaska as it relates to the exchanges.
  I come to the floor this afternoon because there was so much that I 
as one Senator had to say that you cannot possibly condense into a 5-
minute exchange. But it did cause me to want to take a moment to speak 
about what is happening on the ground in the State of Alaska.
  I think it is probably not an unfair assessment to say that most of 
the constituents I am hearing from are not supportive of the Affordable 
Care Act and have been very skeptical about what benefits may come to 
our State.
  We are a high-cost State--high cost when it comes to health care and 
high cost when it comes to our insurance premiums. Right now we are No. 
2 in the Nation in terms of the premiums that Alaskans pay. So as much 
as Alaskans might not like the Affordable Care Act, I hear very clearly 
their expressions of concern about making sure we are working actively 
and aggressively to reduce the cost of health care, to increase access 
to providers, and to increase access to insurance that is affordable.
  But affordability is such a key factor in what we face. I had a 
chance to query Ms. Tavenner about the situation we are seeing in the 
State of Alaska right now with regard to enrollments within the 
exchange. The State of Alaska has opted not to have its own State 
exchange. They are part of the Federal exchange, an organization called 
Enroll Alaska which was established to provide for outreach, education, 
and enrollment of Alaskans into the federally facilitated marketplace.
  I met with a representative from Enroll Alaska about 10 days or so 
ago. It was October 27, I believe. At that point in time, I was 
informed that there was one Alaskan who had been successfully enrolled. 
I met with the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, United Way, and 
Enroll Alaska. They confirmed that no one had been successfully 
enrolled at that point in time.
  Moving forward to yesterday. As of yesterday, it has been confirmed 
that Enroll Alaska, the entity that has been set up specifically to 
advance enrollment within the exchanges, has been able to enroll just 
three individuals and has not been able to confirm that anyone else in 
the State has been successfully enrolled. So as folks are talking in 
different parts of the country about what is happening, they are using 
numbers: several thousand, several hundred initially. But it has been 
not only surprisingly slow, astonishingly slow, to the point where 
people are saying: Is it even open?
  Let me suggest that in Alaska things are not open right now. Enroll 
Alaska made a determination last week that--they had discovered that 
the FFM, the federally facilitated marketplace, was calculating the 
subsidy for Alaskans incorrectly, so due to this they suspended all 
their enrollments until this issue was resolved.
  I brought this up with the Administrator in committee this morning. 
She acknowledged that, in fact, they had learned that perhaps the 
calculation was incorrect and that they were ``working on it.'' Well, 
in the meantime, you have folks who are interested in signing up, 
wanting to avail themselves of the Affordable Care Act, or one of the 
5,600 who received a letter on Friday telling them that their insurance 
with Premera was going to be canceled at year end and being told: Well, 
you can, in fact, sign up for what Premera is going to offer. But in 
looking at this, they are learning that not only are their premiums 
going to increase, but in many cases they may double and the deductible 
will increase.
  So they want to know: Am I going to get a better deal on the 
exchange? Our problem is not being able to access, to utilize, to gain 
the information, when the entity that has been set up to help 
facilitate this says they have suspended all enrollments until this 
issue is resolved, and further going into their letter that was 
received last week, they say: We asked for the Obama administration to 
pull the Web site down, rebuild it, and redeploy it.
  Again, these are entities that are banking on the exchanges to work. 
They want to help facilitate it. Things are so confused and complicated 
and, quite honestly, a mess with the exchange up north that they are 
saying: We are not going to push further if we are not certain that the 
subsidy is being calculated correctly. It is not right to tell people 
that you can sign up in the State of Alaska right now.
  So the exchanges, we recognize, are a mess. They need to be 
addressed. I think we have recognized that at some point in time they 
will be addressed, they will be corrected. The Administrator has 
indicated that between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. eastern standard time the 
exchanges are going to be down so they can work on them, so they can be 
addressing these software glitches.
  Well, 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. eastern standard time, for those of us who are 
living on the west coast, is about the time when the dinner dishes are 
done, the kids' homework is done, they are in bed, you can actually sit 
down at your computer and go online and try to figure out what might be 
the best option for you on an exchange. But we are being told that the 
exchange is going

[[Page 16713]]

to be down between the time that most Alaskans, and certainly 
Hawaiians, who are a 5 hour time difference instead of just the 4 hours 
Alaskans are, are not even going to be able to go on line to address it 
there.
  That is one aspect of where we are with the exchanges and what that 
is going to mean if we are still going to continue with the deadlines 
that have been put in place by the administration in terms of when you 
have to sign up by, and when you may be assessed a fine or a penalty 
for failure to successfully enroll.
  I mentioned that on Friday there were some 5,600 Alaskans who 
actually--excuse me, 5,360 Alaskans who received discontinuation 
notices from Premera. Premera is the largest health insurer in Alaska. 
This represents about 60 percent of the folks whom Premera insures 
within the State in terms of its individual members. So when you think 
about these folks who have now received their letters this weekend, 
recognize that the policies they have had for a period of time are not 
going to be available to them, they read in the news and they see on 
the evening news that the ability to get on line and to better 
understand what is going on with the exchange is not available to them 
because the exchanges are down while they are working on them here in 
Washington, DC, or wherever they are working on them, and that the 
entities, the navigator, the Enroll Alaska, those who have been put out 
there to help them navigate this process, are effectively saying: We 
cannot enroll you right now and we will not until there is a greater 
assurance that the system is up and running and working.
  The Administrator has confirmed to us today that, well, we are 
working on it. But in the meantime, we still have these deadlines that 
folks are facing. The emails that have been coming to my office of 
late, though, have not been concerned with the exchanges themselves. 
What we have seen in the past few weeks has been a concern, an outcry, 
about what people will be expected to pay for their insurance once all 
aspects of the Affordable Care Act come into play. I mentioned already 
that Alaska faces the second highest premiums in the country. We are 
high for a lot of things, though. Our energy costs are some of the 
highest in the Nation. Our transportation costs are some of the highest 
in the Nation. Our food costs are some of the highest in the Nation. 
Our health care costs are some of the highest in the Nation. Now our 
premiums are going to be some of the highest in the Nation.
  But we recognize that to live in Alaska--it is expensive. So when you 
look at the average wages of an Alaskan, they are a little bit higher 
than you might see in other parts of the country. That is a good thing. 
That is going to help you pay for your transportation, for your fuel, 
for your food. But when we are talking about any level of subsidy, this 
is a concern we are seeing around the State. The higher income levels 
are going to kick you out of being eligible for any level of subsidy. 
So we have got Alaskans who are trying to be diligent about their 
health care and the insurance, wanting to be able to provide for their 
family. They are trying to figure out: Well, where do I go?
  I have got a letter here from a gentleman in Fairbanks. He runs a 
small knife and tool shop there. He has indicated that he was on 
Premera. He got the notice that they were not going to continue his 
coverage. The new policy with them, the least expensive he could get, 
was going to cost $1,260, up from $575. This is over a 60-percent 
increase he is going to experience. On top of that, his deductible is 
also going up from $5,000 to $6,000, an increase of about $2,700.
  We got an e-mail from a woman who is in the 55-and-above age bracket, 
she said. She says: We make a decent income, so we will not be eligible 
for the subsidies. We have looked at this. But she said they are going 
to be seeing premiums of over $1,500 a month. She says: This is more 
than our mortgage. This is like taking on a second mortgage. And also 
in her situation, she says: My deductible has gone from $5,000 to 
$6,300. So deductibles are going up, premiums are escalating.
  This woman said: You know, am I going to be in a situation where it 
is just going to be cheaper for me to pay the fine?
  So I started going back through the binder I have utilized to collect 
the emails from Alaskans over the past few weeks here. A woman in 
Anchorage says her rates are going to increase 23 percent from last 
year. A woman from Talkeetna says: It is an increase of 47 percent with 
1 fewer member in the family insured, a $10,000 deductible. But she is 
going up by 47 percent.
  Out in Wasilla, this woman has indicated: I calculated we are 
expected to have an increased monthly premium of 224 percent. Our 
premiums will be exceeding our mortgage by more than $300 a month.
  William in Anchorage says his health insurance has gone up 115 
percent. Out in Anchorage, a woman is facing an increase in premiums of 
45 percent. Again, she has indicated that she has been informed she is 
not going to be eligible for any level of subsidy.
  The gentleman in this email, Anthony, out of Valdez, has said he is 
looking at an 85-percent increase in his premium, and that is just over 
the past 4 months when he started out. He is a single guy. He is 41 
years old. He says: I am healthy. I have got money in my health savings 
account. But he has got a situation where he is going to be paying an 
85-percent increase in his medical insurance premiums.
  I go through these. These are not statistics. These are addressed 
to--I know this is not about you, Lisa Murkowski, but about 
representation for the people of Alaska.
  Address this. They are asking me to help them out because they can't 
afford the Affordable Care Act.
  I go through each of these, the folks in Petersburg, such as the 25-
year-old male, nonsmoker, who had a $10,000 deductible. He was paying 
$102 per month. Now he will have to pay $281 with a $6,300 deductible; 
a 35-year-old male, nonsmoker, paying $159 per month now has to pay 
$340; a 63-year-old male, nonsmoker, paying $525 per month, as of 
January paying $827. We go through these stories. These stories are 
people we represent, whether it is Tom or Wenda or Teresa or Chris or 
Mark, they are saying I thought what was coming our way with health 
care reform was reform that was going to increase my access and 
decrease my costs.
  Frustration with the Web site is one thing, and I am hopeful we will 
get on the other side of that very soon. The people of Alaska are done 
holding their breath on this. They are basically saying call me when 
you have it fixed.
  What they are concerned about is they are going to get that call, we 
will be up against the end of the year, and they have already received 
their notices saying: We are not going to continue this coverage. They 
are worried about what happens if we do have a family medical emergency 
in early January and this all hasn't knitted together. I didn't get a 
very satisfactory answer from the Administrator this afternoon in 
response to that question.
  I want to be able to have the right answers for these people, but I 
am extraordinarily concerned that as we address the issues with the Web 
site, the issues that the people in Alaska, who already face some of 
the highest costs for living in the nation, are going to be seeing 
increased insurance costs that will be out of their range, out of their 
ability to pay. The subsidies that would make a difference are not 
available to them.
  We have a great deal of work to do in this Congress to address health 
care reform. Alaskans are asking what are we going to do to address the 
concerns in my family when I am trying to figure out how I knit it all 
together. They want to know how have we reformed health care. How have 
we made our costs lower and increased our access?
  I suggest we have much more work to do. I stand ready to work with my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and in the other body. We can 
fight and argue about whether the Web site and the exchanges are going 
to work or are going to fail on their own or whether we need to push 
deadlines out. This is

[[Page 16714]]

only a part of what we are talking about.
  We have to do a better job when it comes to reining in the cost of 
health care itself, and how we deal with the delivery system. We 
haven't addressed these issues or how we deal with rural markets, such 
as Alaska because we don't have a very attractive market--it certainly 
would help us if we could purchase our insurance across State lines--
and how we work to make sure that when we have payment structures, the 
incentives are in the right place so we are encouraging efficiencies in 
our healthcare system.
  I encourage us to not lose sight of what we have to do in resolving 
our issues to bring down the cost of health care.
  I note that my colleague from Tennessee is on floor. I thank him for 
his leadership as the ranking member on the HELP Committee and the very 
thoughtful issues he raised this morning.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Alaska for her excellent 
remarks. I was pleased I was able to hear them. The Senator from Alaska 
and the Senator from Massachusetts were at the hearing this morning 
when the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services talked 
about the health care law.
  I thought the Senator from Alaska was especially cogent in pointing 
out the difficulties and the differences between those who live in 
Alaska and their inability to connect to the services in the new health 
care law. If I remember correctly, she said only three had been able to 
enroll and she pointed out the differences in time.
  I wish to spend a few minutes reflecting on what happened this 
morning and what I said to Ms. Tavenner, the administration's witness. 
I began by telling her a story, a story about 16,000 Tennesseans who 
have insurance through something called CoverTN, a low-cost, narrow 
coverage State program. ObamaCare is canceling their policies, those 
16,000 policies. CoverTN apparently is an example of what the President 
has called ``bad apples,'' an insurance plan that Washington has 
decided isn't good enough for you.
  I recently heard from one of those Tennesseans whose policy will be 
cancelled on January 1. Her name is Emilie, and she is 39 years of age. 
She has lupus and lives in Middle Tennessee. She told me:

       I cannot keep my current plan because it does not meet the 
     standards of coverage. This alone is a travesty. CoverTN has 
     been a lifeline. . . . With the discontinuation of CoverTN, I 
     am being forced to purchase a plan through the Exchange. . . 
     . My insurance premiums alone will increase a staggering 
     410%. My out of pocket expense will increase by more than 
     $6,000.00 a year [including subsidies]. Please help me 
     understand how this is ``affordable.''

  Our health care system makes up nearly 20 percent of our economy, 
touching the lives of every American. Today ObamaCare is pushing that 
20 percent of our economy in the wrong direction.
  As the President has said, this law is more than a Web site that will 
not work. It is a law transforming our health care system in the wrong 
direction by increasing premiums, canceling insurance plans, destroying 
patient relationships with doctors, raising taxes, forcing people into 
Medicaid, spending $500 billion Medicare dollars on a new program 
instead of using the money to make Medicare more solvent, encouraging 
employers to reduce their employees to a 30-hour work week, and having 
the IRS fine Americans for failing to sign up for insurance on a Web 
site that doesn't work.
  The President has promised--at this morning's hearing I read from an 
iPad on the White House Web site. The President's Web site says: ``If 
you like your plan you can keep it and you don't have to change a thing 
due to the health care law.''
  It says, ``If you like your plan, you can keep it, and you don't have 
to change a thing due to the health care law.''
  In fact, the law cancels millions of individual policies. For 
millions of others, employers are dropping insurance programs as they 
discover the added costs of ObamaCare. For these Americans, the new 
promise is if you want health care, go find it on a Web site that the 
administration says will not be working properly until the end of 
November. That is an unwelcome Christmas present, to have only 2 weeks 
to shop for and buy a new insurance policy by December 15 so people are 
covered next year when ObamaCare outlaws their policies.
  This administration had 3\1/2\ years to set up the Web site. Millions 
of Americans will have 2 weeks to buy their insurance.
  The President put Secretary Sebelius in charge of implementing this 
law. I have called on her to resign because this has hurt so many 
Americans.
  Before the Internet, RCA could tell us every day how many records 
Elvis was selling. Ford could tell us every day how many cars they were 
selling. McDonald's would tell us every day how many hamburgers it 
sold. Congressman Issa has put on his committee's Web site notes from 
meetings at an Obama administration war room where apparently they are 
telling each other how many people are enrolling in health care.
  I asked Ms. Tavenner this morning if she knew how many people are 
enrolling, how many have tried, what level of insurance they are 
buying, and in what ZIP Code they live. Why don't you tell us? Why 
don't you tell Congress? Why don't you tell the American people?
  She said she would tell us by the end of the month--but we need to 
know every day. We need to know every week at least. Governors need to 
know. As they make decisions about expanding Medicaid, wouldn't it help 
to know how many of these new enrollees are going into Medicaid?
  Members of Congress need to know. We have appropriated at least $400 
million for this Web site that doesn't work. The American people need 
to know. They might gain confidence in the system if they could see 
that every day more people were signing up for this or that.
  I can't get over the fact that we are not being told how many are 
enrolled, how many trying, what kind of insurance they are buying, 
where they live. We have a right to know that.
  Why doesn't the administration tell us that? One Senator has 
described the new health care law as an approaching train wreck. I know 
something about trains.
  My grandfather was a railroad engineer in Newton, KS, when I was a 
little boy. I was sure he was probably the most important person in the 
world sitting in that big locomotive. His job was to drive a steam 
engine locomotive onto what they called a round table, turn the train 
around and head it in the right direction. That was the only way you 
could turn something that big that fast.
  That is what our country needs to do. We need to turn this train 
around. We need to turn this law around and head it in the right 
direction.
  ObamaCare is the wrong direction because it expands a health care 
delivery system that we already knew cost too much.
  What is the right direction? The right direction is more choices and 
more competition that lowers costs so more Americans can afford to buy 
insurance.
  Don't expect Republicans to show up on this Senate floor with our 
3,000-page plan to move the health care delivery system in the way we 
think it ought to go. We don't believe in that approach. We are policy 
skeptics, one might say. We don't believe these big comprehensive plans 
are wise enough to do what needs to be done. Instead, we believe we 
should change our health care delivery system step-by-step.
  I remember during the health care debate in 2010 I counted the number 
of times Republicans spoke on the floor about our step-by-step plan to 
take the health care delivery system in a different direction--173 
times just during 2010.
  These are some of the steps we suggested and still do suggest that we 
should take to turn the train around and head it in the right 
direction:
  Make Medicare solvent. The trustees have said that in 13 years it 
will not

[[Page 16715]]

have enough money to pay hospital bills. I know plenty of Tennesseans 
who are counting on Medicare to pay their hospital bills.
  Reform Traditional Medicare to compete on a level playing field with 
Medicare Advantage. That would provide competition and more choices for 
seniors. The Congressional Budget Office says it would save taxpayers 
money.
  Make Medicaid flexible. When I was Governor of Tennessee in the 
1980s, Medicaid was 8 percent of the State budget. Today it is 26 
percent. As a result, Democratic and Republican Governors of Tennessee 
have been told by Washington to spend money on Medicaid that they 
instead would rather spend on higher education.
  Make Medicaid more flexible. Perhaps we can cover more people and set 
our own priorities.
  Encourage employee wellness incentives. We talk a good game in the 
Senate about that, but the administration's regulation actually limits 
the ability of employers to say to employees if you have a healthy 
lifestyle, your insurance will be cheaper. We should repeal that 
regulation and make it easier for employers to encourage that kind of 
behavior, and offer cheaper insurance.
  Allow small businesses to pool their resources and offer insurance 
together. We call that small business health plans.
  All of these steps, by the way, are in legislative form. They are 
bills we have introduced. They are steps we could take today if we had 
enough votes to pass them, turning the train around and heading it in a 
different direction.
  Buy insurance across State lines. If Americans could look on the 
Internet and buy insurance across State lines that suited their needs, 
perhaps more Americans could afford insurance. Isn't that what we want 
to do? Change the 30-hour workweek to 40 hours. Both Democrats and 
Republicans support this idea. I am not sure where it ever came from, 
but it is one of the worst features of ObamaCare. It creates a big 
incentive to cause businesses to reduce the number of working hours 
from 40 to 30 so their employees will be part-time and the business 
won't be affected by the ObamaCare rule. That creates consternation 
within business, and it doesn't create good relations between the 
employer and the employee. Think about the employee. Think about the 
pay cut from 40 hours to 30 hours. Think about the employee going out 
to find another part-time job at, say, another restaurant. Why not give 
these employees a 33 percent pay increase? That would be a pretty good 
way to get up above the so-called minimum wage and give businesses a 
chance to have full-time employees again.
  So these are all steps that would change the health care delivery 
system by changing its direction away from expanding a health care 
system that we know already costs too much and sending it in the 
direction of choice and competition and finding ways to lower the cost 
of health care plans so more Americans can afford to buy insurance.
  The 39-year-old Tennessee woman whom I talked about this morning to 
Ms. Tavenner, the woman named Emilie who is losing insurance because 
ObamaCare has decided that her plan isn't good enough for her, finished 
her story with these words:

       This is one of the biggest betrayals our government has 
     ever been committed on its citizens. I beg of you to continue 
     to fight for those, like me, who would only ask to be allowed 
     to continue to have what we already enjoy. A fair health 
     insurance plan at a fair price. Please find a way to return 
     to affordable health care.

  One good way to do that is to put the President's words into law: 
``If you like your health plan, you can keep it.'' Senator Johnson of 
Wisconsin has offered that legislation. I have cosponsored it, as have 
others.
  My message to Emilie is that I am going to do my best to turn this 
train around and head our health care delivery system in the right 
direction so that she can buy and keep health care insurance that she 
can afford.
  I thank the Chair, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________