[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4920-4929]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

   PROTECTING VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY RESPONDERS ACT OF 
                   2014--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume legislative session.
  The Senator from Georgia is recognized.


                         Remembering Kate Puzey

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the fifth 
anniversary of the tragic murder of a Georgia citizen who volunteered 
for the Peace Corps, who traveled to West Africa to the nation of Benin 
and lost her life. She lost her life because she did the right thing--
she reported the abuse of children in a village school where she 
taught.
  The reason I have recently returned from Benin is that I have taken 
this case on as a personal passion, to see to it that justice and some 
closure comes to the family of this wonderful young lady. Her name was 
Kate Puzey. Kate Puzey was top of her class, valedictorian, outstanding 
student, and she wanted to go out and save the world, to help the world 
and fulfill the dream John Kennedy professed in 1961 when he created 
the Peace Corps.
  So Kate Puzey went to Benin and she found that one of the village 
natives in the village where she was teaching was abusing children in 
the school where she was teaching. In this very remote area, she took 
the only communication mechanism she had to report the violation of 
these children to the appropriate authorities in Cotonou, Benin. 
Unfortunately, because those communications were not secure, a relative 
of the person she reported notified the person she had reported that he 
had been reported. That night, in her hut in the Nation of Benin, her 
throat was cut and she died. She died because she did the right thing.
  This Senate, 2 years ago, joined me and Senator Boxer in passing the 
Peace Corps Protection Act, which is now named the Kate Puzey Peace 
Corps Volunteer Protection Act. This provides a mechanism and a way 
where Peace Corps volunteers can report violations or trauma of a 
sexual nature, gender-based violence, or any other type of violence 
against themselves or in any other place where they might be as a 
servant of the Peace Corps. Because of that, there are now ombudsmen 
and ways and mechanisms where our Peace Corps volunteers can safely 
report violations and damage and have the protection not only of the 
United States but of the nation where they serve.
  But back to the point of my trip to Benin, which took place this last 
week. This was my second visit to Benin, because what I want to see is 
a continuation of the investigation of the death of this young lady 
until there is a trial and closure available for her and her family, 
just as any of us would want were we the parent of a young lady who had 
lost her life on behalf of the United States of America.
  I rise to pay particular tribute first to Secretary Kerry; to the 
United Nations' Samantha Power; to the State Department of the United 
States of America; to Michael Raynor, the Ambassador in Benin; to Todd 
Whatley, the Deputy Chief of Mission; to Kevin Armstrong, the USAID 
Director; to Billy Alfano, to Marilyn Gayton, and to Robert Freedom--
Bob Friedman--the Peace Corps representative in Benin, all of whom have 
made the investigation and the fulfillment of bringing this case to a 
reality their top priority.
  Three years ago, when I went to Benin for the first time, it was to 
encourage President Yayi of Benin to allow the United States to come in 
and assist in the investigation and the prosecution of the case--a rare 
thing to happen in a French colony which is governed by French law. To 
our credit and to President Yayi's credit he allowed the United States 
and Jennifer Dent, the FBI agent in charge in Lagos, to come in to 
Benin and begin assisting the investigation.
  I went back last week during our break because it looked as though 
the case was dying. It looked as though the intensity of the interest 
was dying. And it was so important to me and for the family in my home 
State of Georgia to see to it we in some way finally bring closure, 
either right or wrong, for the terrible things that happened. I am 
happy to report the visit was successful.
  President Yayi spent over 4 hours with the family members and myself. 
He committed the judiciary and the investigatory body in the Nation of 
Benin to accept the assistance of the U.S. FBI and our technology. 
During the course of our visit, he removed and separated the prisoners, 
as had been requested by the FBI, to see to it those who are being held 
and thought to be guilty in this case could no longer communicate in 
the prisons where they were held.
  I don't know what the ultimate result will be, and I want justice to 
be done. I want the right person to be persecuted and prosecuted, and 
the right person to pay the price, but I want closure for this family.
  I want to thank the American Embassy, the State Department, and 
Samantha Power at the U.N. for the intensity they have put into this 
investigation, as well as the U.S. FBI, and in particular Victor Lloyd, 
special agent in Lagos, Nigeria, for all the time he has dedicated. We 
seem to be at a point where everything is coming together toward a 
prosecution and, ultimately,

[[Page 4921]]

a trial. When that happens, it will happen primarily because the U.S. 
Government, the people of the United States of America, both President 
Bush and President Obama, and all in this Congress have dedicated 
themselves to the interest of one child's life--Kate Puzey.
  It is important the people of this country know that we as a body 
will come together behind any injured American, any loss of life, 
anybody who has deployed themselves on behalf of this country in the 
service of peace and prosperity. They deserve to know the U.S. Congress 
and this U.S. Senate are standing ready to help.
  But I am here in particular to pay tribute to the Embassy of Benin, 
to FBI Special Agent Victor Lloyd, and to all those who have helped and 
assisted in seeing to it the prosecution of the case in the murder of 
Kate Puzey comes to a final conclusion. I am grateful for their service 
to America, grateful for what they have done for the Puzey family in 
Georgia, and grateful that I live in a country that protects and loves 
those who have represented our interests wherever it may be, on 
whatever shore it may be, and in whatever country it may be.
  May God bless America, may God bless the Peace Corps, and may God 
bless the family of Kate Puzey.
  I yield back, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  For-Profit Colleges and Universities

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as I speak, all over the country 
telephones are ringing. When the recipient of the call picks up, they 
are greeted by the friendly voice of a college recruiter from a for-
profit college or university. It is easy to go back to school, this 
recruiter will tell those who answer the phone. In fact, we can sign 
you up for Federal loans right now.
  That is the key. These for-profit colleges and universities target 
individuals who qualify for easy Federal money. Pell grants and GI bill 
benefits are preferred. And all the promises sound so good to those who 
are receiving these phone calls. After all, going back to school is 
supposed to be the path to success and more money in your life. But 
before they know what has hit them, these people who answered the phone 
call from for-profit schools and universities find out they are taking 
on more debt than they can even understand and may end up with a so-
called education that is worthless.
  That is what happened to Jaqueta Cherry from North Carolina. After 
trying a community college, Jaqueta was lured by the kind voice on the 
other end of the phone and the fancy commercials on TV. She saw them in 
North Carolina. You see them across the United States. Get on a bus in 
Chicago and look around at all the signs trying to lure young people on 
those buses into for-profit colleges and universities.
  Jaqueta said: The schools blew up my phone.
  She enrolled at Everest College, which is part of the Corinthian 
College chain. The California attorney general is currently suing this 
chain of schools, and the Department of Education is investigating 
allegations that they lied to the Federal Government about their job 
placements.
  In the meantime, Jaqueta's living situation changed, and she had to 
drop out and couldn't continue her studies at Everest. It wasn't long 
before she was tracked down by another for-profit school through a pop-
up ad she clicked on, on the Internet. If someone is college age and 
gets on the Internet, they will see these ads bombarding them from for-
profit colleges and universities. She got a call the next day from the 
Education Management Corporation's The Art Institutes and signed up for 
an online program.
  After taking out more loans, Jaqueta found herself unable to continue 
her courses. Her roommate had moved out, left her with unpaid bills, 
and her only access to the Internet was a phone that was turned off 2 
days prior to her final exams. At that point she was thousands of 
dollars in debt with nothing to show for it. Guess what. The calls kept 
coming. DeVry--the second or third largest for-profit school in the 
United States, based in Chicago, currently being investigated by the 
Federal Trade Commission for their advertising and marketing policies--
called her, and then ITT Tech called her as well. They are being sued 
by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for pressuring students 
into high-cost private loans.
  The calls she gets from Everest and The Art Institutes these days are 
not the kind voices they used to be. ``They're very mean and 
threatening,'' she says. Not surprising. You see, Jaqueta is no longer 
an ATM machine from which they can draw Federal dollars.
  For many years for-profit schools were allowed to operate relatively 
freely and often one step ahead of the regulators. I am hopeful that 
with the investigations I mentioned and the many others that are 
occurring State by State, we may be turning a corner. We need to hold 
these schools--all schools but especially for-profit schools--
accountable to taxpayers, who often subsidize up to 90 percent of their 
operations, and to students, who ultimately are their victims.
  If we take all the Federal money that goes to for-profit colleges and 
universities and total it up, it is around $20 billion. This private 
sector group would be the equivalent of the ninth largest Federal 
agency in Washington. They survive on Federal money. The only thing 
different is, of course, their employees aren't Federal employees and 
their CEOs make more money than any employee of the Federal Government 
could ever dream of.
  There are a lot of agencies involved in looking at these for-profit 
colleges and universities--Department of Education, Securities and 
Exchange Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal 
Trade Commission, Department of Defense, and others. It is important 
that they work together.
  This morning I held a hearing in my Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee. In front of me was the Secretary of the Navy, the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the Chief of Naval Operations, and 
we talked about these schools. I can tell you in private what they told 
me. They are saddened at how many military families are lured into 
these schools and waste their GI benefits, going online to places 
called the American Military University--boy, doesn't that sound 
official. That sounds like the real thing. It is another for-profit 
school that just happened to pick a name which appeals to a lot of 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.
  A nephew of mine was a doorman right up here. Then he served in the 
Army and was sent overseas to Afghanistan. I was so proud of him. He 
got home safely. Then he was sent to Korea. He came home safely. Now he 
is out of the Army. He contacted me once and said: I have good news for 
you. I avoided all those for-profit schools you warned me about, and I 
signed up with the American Military University.
  He didn't know any better. He thought for sure that this was real. It 
is really not. I advised him that there is one university from his home 
State, the University of Maryland, which has been offering courses to 
the military for decades--and their hours are transferable when he 
comes home.
  Oh, he said. I should have thought of that.
  What the Navy told us this morning is they are now sitting down with 
the sailors and their families and saying: Think twice before you sign 
up for these for-profit schools. You are wasting your GI benefits on 
schools that could be worthless. Think twice about whether those hours 
are transferable when you get out of the service.
  Sadly, there are too many American citizens--young people primarily 
and even members of the military--who were lured into these awful 
schools before anybody warned them.
  Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa and I are working on a bill we will 
introduce next week to ensure that the agencies currently investigating 
all of these for-profit schools are coordinating their efforts. He and 
I teamed up on this issue a long time ago. It is going to be a shame 
when Senator Harkin retires

[[Page 4922]]

from the Senate this year, but the for-profit schools should know that 
the spotlight Tom Harkin turned on with his committee hearings is going 
to continue even after he leaves.
  An industry that receives more than $25 billion in Federal dollars 
and has such a terrible record needs aggressive oversight. We don't owe 
it to just the taxpayers who are coming up with $25 billion for these 
schools; we owe it to the students who are lured into these schools, 
lured into debt, and end up many times with nothing to show for it.
  We need to keep three numbers in mind when we think about the for-
profit colleges and universities, and I always warn people that these 
three numbers will be on the final, so listen closely.
  Ten percent of the students who graduate from high school go to for-
profit colleges and universities; yet they receive 20 percent of all 
the Federal aid to education because they cost twice as much. For-
profit colleges and universities account for 46 percent of all student 
loan defaults. So 10 percent of the students, 46 percent of the 
defaults. Why? They charge too much, they lure these students deep into 
debt, and the students can't finish school or end up with worthless 
diplomas when they graduate.
  The sad reality is that the Federal Government is complicit. We are 
complicit because we don't blow the whistle on these schools, which 
should never, ever--never--qualify for Pell grants and Federal student 
loans.
  There is a kicker. Unlike virtually every other debt you can incur in 
life, student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. I have had 
students $150,000 in debt after 4 years in school and their lives are 
virtually ruined. They had no idea what they were getting into. When 
they were private loans, those loans grew geometrically whenever they 
failed to pay. Where are those students today? They are living in their 
parents' basement. They cannot afford to get married, they cannot buy a 
car, and if they get married, they cannot afford to have children. They 
certainly cannot afford to borrow money to go to a real college or 
university. They are stuck, and we ought to do something about it.
  Student loans in this country are exploding. They are trapping 
generations of students such as Jaqueta in poverty, and they are 
hurting their opportunities for being full members in our society and 
economy. We have to address head-on these for-profit colleges which are 
a scourge on education. There are a few exceptions, but by and large 
this industry with 46 percent of the student loan defaults is shameful.
  Chairman Harkin is going to hold a hearing in the Senate HELP 
Committee this week on the student loan programs. I am going to work 
with him and submit some testimony. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island 
and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and I are putting 
together a package of bills. We are going to address this issue from a 
lot of different perspectives. There is no reason a college student 
should sign up for a private loan with higher interest rates and worse 
conditions for payback when they are still eligible for government 
loans which are more flexible and have lower interest rates. Yet some 
of these irresponsible schools steer their kids into private loans. The 
kids don't know any better, neither do their parents. Secondly, they 
end up loaning money to these students and to their families that they 
will never, ever be able to pay back. Senator Reed says they ought to 
have some skin in the game. At some point if they have been 
overextended in loans, they ought to have to eat some of those losses 
when the students cannot pay it back.
  Senator Warren is tackling an even bigger issue about refinancing 
college loans. What is it all about? It is about giving a fair shot to 
these families and these students. We are going to talk a lot about 
this.
  When I think of where I am today, it is because of my mother who 
checked my report card every 6 weeks and told me I could always do 
better and because of that I ended up in college and law school and 
here I stand. I borrowed money from the government to do it and 
couldn't have done it otherwise. So I believe in education, and I 
certainly believe kids from lower and middle-income families, when they 
need to borrow money, should have that opportunity. What is happening 
today is out of hand. The debt we are piling on students and their 
families is unconscionable, not just the for-profit schools but across 
the board.
  On this side of the aisle we believe these students deserve an 
opportunity, and they shouldn't be saddled with a debt that can 
literally ruin their lives. We are going to be working on this issue as 
part of our effort this year to define what Congress can do to make 
this a better nation for working families across the board to make sure 
everyone--everyone--has a fair shot.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.


                              Health Care

  Ms. STABENOW. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  We are 5 days away from the deadline to begin enrolling for health 
insurance under the Affordable Care Act--5 days for folks who don't 
have insurance now or want to see if they can find a better deal under 
their local marketplace or Federal marketplace under the Affordable 
Care Act.
  We have heard the stories about the trouble with the Web site last 
October, but there are so many stories we haven't heard of people 
successfully signing up now for health care coverage. Those are the 
stories we want to talk about, in terms of the millions of people who 
are finding, in fact, for the first time they can have peace of mind, 
knowing they can find affordable health insurance and not only from a 
cost standpoint.
  Every woman who is able to get insurance now knows she is not going 
to be rated differently and have higher costs from the insurance 
company just because she is a woman--being a woman previously was 
somehow a preexisting condition--or if she is wanting to have a baby, 
she knows she can have her maternity care covered, which was not true 
for millions of women. In fact, going to the private marketplace prior 
to health care reform, about 60 percent of the insurance policies 
didn't cover something as important and basic as maternity care, 
unbelievably. So we are talking about people who are getting covered 
and people who have peace of mind, knowing they have affordable 
coverage and they can't get dropped if they get sick.
  In fact, now going forward, if anyone has a policy, they cannot get 
dropped just because they get sick. Anyone who has cancer or diabetes--
children with juvenile diabetes or heart disease--all of the various 
concerns and chronic diseases people have, knows they can find 
insurance; that they will not be blocked from getting medical care and 
health insurance because of a preexisting condition.
  So far over 5 million people have already enrolled in private health 
insurance plans through the new marketplaces, including over 144,000 in 
my home State of Michigan, people who are finally in a position where 
they have peace of mind at night, knowing they have health insurance 
for themselves and their families if somebody gets sick. If they need 
preventive care, they are not going to have out-of-pocket costs to get 
the cancer screening, the mammogram, and other preventive care.
  In Michigan 144,000 individuals have signed up for health care, which 
is nearly 16,000 more people than was actually predicted at this point 
in time, because people want and need affordable health care. This is 
not a frill. We cannot control whether somebody in the family gets 
sick. Now there are things we can do to do our best to stay healthy, 
but we never know when something is going to happen, no matter our age 
or our circumstance. We all understand. We all want to make sure our 
children are covered, whether they are 3 years old or 30 years old. We 
want to make sure our moms and dads are covered, and we want to make 
sure we have coverage as a small business owner, that there is access 
to affordable coverage. People are signing up because this is personal 
for them and for their families.

[[Page 4923]]

  I wish to share success stories of three of my constituents today. 
The first story is about LaNika, a 34-year-old volleyball coach from 
Flint, MI, who lived without health insurance for years while she 
focused on developing her career path. She didn't think she needed 
health insurance because she was healthy. One day she had an accident. 
She was playing volleyball, and she and another woman collided, leaving 
her with a concussion. We all know head injuries are serious. So she 
had no choice but to go to the emergency room without having health 
insurance.
  By the way, we all know that people who go to the emergency room 
without health insurance get treated, as they should, and then 
everybody with insurance--this is the way we have done it for decades--
everybody with insurance sees their rates go up to pay for folks going 
into the emergency room, getting care in the most expensive way 
possible, which is going to the emergency room for care, rather than 
seeing a doctor.
  In this particular case LaNika said this was her aha moment. After 
going to the ER, LaNika logged on to healthcare.gov to see if she could 
get covered. She entered her information, she compared plans, and she 
selected the best plan for her. She ended up selecting a silver plan 
from Michigan's largest health insurance company for less than $100 a 
month because of her income level.
  The whole process, she said, took an hour. She said that getting her 
insurance card was like a breath of fresh air because she knew that if 
disaster struck again she would be covered. Peace of mind, as they say 
in the commercials, is priceless. Now she can go see a doctor without 
worrying about a bill she cannot afford to pay.
  Another constituent, Jim, from Shelby, MI, shared his story too. He 
had seen all the bad press, he said, on the Affordable Care Act on TV 
and social media and thought it wasn't worth it to sign up. He planned 
to sign his family up for COBRA coverage because he had worked and was 
going to sign up for COBRA to keep his former employer's coverage going 
but found out that wasn't an option. He decided to give healthcare.gov 
a try. After filling out his basic information, he saw how low his 
costs for good coverage would be and he signed up his family. Because 
he had such a positive experience, he began sharing it on Facebook so 
other people could see how easy it was to get covered. A recent post of 
his read: ``There are only a few days left to sign up. Don't let this 
opportunity pass without taking a look,'' which is our message today. 
Don't let this opportunity pass without taking a look.
  Another constituent, Bryan, from Okemos called my East Lansing office 
because he was upset that his health plan had been canceled. The 
replacement plan he was offered by his insurer wasn't affordable. He 
let us know how upset he was. He then asked what he was supposed to do.
  We suggested he go to healthcare.gov to see if he could find a more 
affordable option that would meet his needs. He said he didn't have a 
computer. So we gave him the 1-800 number to call. He was skeptical, of 
course, that he would find a good plan. He expected to have to wait on 
the phone for hours to talk to somebody, but we encouraged him to give 
it a try.
  He called the office back shortly with some good news. He had called 
the 1-800 number and someone answered right away. They were very 
friendly and helpful, he said. They helped Bryan find a plan that had 
better coverage than his old plan. On top of that, it was $60 per month 
cheaper than his old plan, and he was able to add dental coverage too. 
He apologized for his first call.
  We certainly understand that when people get those kinds of notices 
that the insurance they have has been canceled, of course everyone 
responds with panic and being upset with what is going on, what is 
going to happen to me. But the good news is that he was able to call 
the 1-800 number and, in fact, find better coverage that was lower 
priced and he is now also covered for important dental care. He said he 
is extremely happy with the Affordable Care Act.
  LaNika's, Jim's, and Bryan's stories aren't unique. They are very 
typical. Despite all of the hype and all of the efforts that have gone 
on, they are very typical. It is important that people get beyond all 
the politics of health care, which for the life of me I don't know why 
we are not all working together to make sure people have the health 
care they need and the information they need--for all the politics that 
have come before, for people to get beyond that and just find out for 
themselves if it will work. Hopefully, it will and they will have the 
same kind of results that LaNika and Jim and Bryan had.
  To everyone in America who doesn't have health insurance right now 
and needs to sign up but hasn't yet, there is less than 1 week to begin 
the process. Once you have begun, I want to make sure you complete it.
  I appreciate the President's willingness to allow more people time to 
complete that process because health care is an essential in life that 
literally can be about life or death for a person or their family. I 
would suggest that folks not get left behind but get covered as LaNika, 
Jim, and Bryan did. It is quick, it will give you peace of mind, and we 
are hopeful you will find it to be something that is very good for you 
and your family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank Senator Stabenow not only for her statement, but 
she has talked a lot about people she meets in her State and they say 
to her: Senator, all we want is a fair shot. Before Senator Stabenow 
leaves the floor I wanted to say I hear the same thing at home as well. 
When it comes to insurance all people want is a fair shot at affordable 
insurance. That is why we are here today. We are here to celebrate the 
fourth anniversary of the Affordable Care Act.
  I say for the record, we have millions of reasons in California to 
say thank you for the Affordable Care Act, and I will go through some 
of the numbers. We have exceeded our goals. We have now signed up 1 
million, and that is 300,000 over our goal. We now know President Obama 
has extended the signup period for those who are signing up on the 
national exchange. We are not sure yet whether California is going to 
extend its time. Anyone within the sound of my voice--those in 
California--need to know that we have not yet extended the time, so 
join the millions of Californians who have signed up through the 
exchanges.
  Let's be clear: This is a real partisan battle. The House Republicans 
have been bragging about the 54 times they voted to repeal the 
Affordable Care Act, but I have to tell them before they vote again to 
tear this law down and vilify this law for the 55th time: Pay attention 
to the people in my State and all over the country.
  I will go through the math of what is happening here. In addition to 
the 1 million people in California who have signed up on the exchange, 
we have 400,000 young adults who are staying on their parents' 
insurance policies and 1.8 million people on Medicaid. When I say we 
have more than a million reasons to say thank you for this law, we 
really do.
  I have some other numbers to add to this. Eight million Californians 
now have access to free preventive care, including mammograms, birth 
control, and immunizations; 16 million Californians with preexisting 
conditions, such as asthma, cancer, and diabetes are guaranteed 
coverage--including 2.2 million children. California seniors and people 
with disabilities are saving money on prescription drugs--350,000, 
thanks to the work we did to close that doughnut hole, and 12 million 
Californians have new insurance protections and no longer have to worry 
about hitting annual limits on their health care.
  I say to the Republicans: Wake up and see what is happening in your 
communities. Don't take my word for it. Listen to some of my 
Californians:

       Just got my Obamacare Covered CA insurance plan. I'm 
     ecstatic. Saving $400 a month.

  Another Californian said: ``Loving my new health coverage, way to go 
California.''
  Another person wrote:

       Just paid my first premium for Covered CA healthcare. A 42% 
     reduction for a nearly identical plan.


[[Page 4924]]


  Bobby Dutta from Sacramento writes:

       I was being crushed by the heavy burden of health insurance 
     premium costs. I had a PPO plan with Anthem Blue Cross and 
     was paying $1,324 per month for a family of two. Now, for a 
     comparable plan through ACA, my premiums are $61 per month.

  Earth to Republicans: People are saving so much money because of the 
Affordable Care Act. They are getting peace of mind. Why would 
Republicans want to repeal a law that is helping so many people in 
California and across the country? I have never seen a law so vilified.
  Today I went back to the Congressional Record--and I want to share 
this with Senator Murphy, who has organized this today. I thought this 
was the only law Republicans vilified, but I went back to take a look 
at when Social Security was debated and passed.
  In 1935, on the floor of the House during the debate on Social 
Security, a Republican Congressman from Ohio said:

       This is compulsion of the rankest kind.

  That was how he talked about Social Security. He called it rank.

       Do not be misled by the title. The title says ``Old Age 
     Benefits.'' Shame on you for putting such a misleading and 
     unfair title on such a nefarious bill. Old-age benefits? 
     Think of it! What a travesty! . . .

  Another Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania said:

       . . . security for the individual, whether worker or aged, 
     will be a mockery and a sham if . . . [we] allot to our 
     people the role of puppets of a socialistic state . . .

  Doesn't this sound familiar? If you do anything for people, 
Republicans will call you a socialist. They call Social Security 
socialist.
  He says:

       We cannot provide a sense of security by programs for the 
     destruction of wealth . . .

  That is how he described Social Security. Listen, people pay into 
Social Security. It is an insurance plan. People pay premiums for their 
health care.
  I have to say it: The Republicans are vilifying the Affordable Care 
Act just as they vilified Social Security and they vilified Medicare.
  Let's look at what Republicans said about Medicare. In 1965 a 
Representative from Missouri said:

       . . . we cannot stand idly by now, as the Nation is urged 
     to embark on an ill-conceived adventure in government 
     medicine, the end of which no one can see, and from which the 
     patient is certain to be the ultimate sufferer.

  I say to my colleagues: This is unbelievable. In 1965, the 
Republicans said that government medicine, which they called Medicare, 
even though you have a private doctor, would lead to patients 
suffering. If you ask patients who have Medicare now if they like it, 
they love it. Even the rightwing tea partiers who came to Washington 
had signs that said: ``Hands off my Medicare.'' The Republicans 
vilified Medicare.
  How about another one? A Republican from Wyoming had this to say 
about Medicare:

       I am disturbed about the effect this legislation would have 
     upon our economy and upon our private insurance system . . .

  In 1995, Dick Armey, the Republican House majority leader, said that 
Medicare is ``a program I would have no part of in a free world.''
  I want people to understand that when the Republicans vilify the 
Affordable Care Act, they are doing exactly what they did on Social 
Security and Medicare. They were on the wrong side of history then and 
they are on the wrong side of history now. And, of course, Newt 
Gingrich said Medicare was ``going to wither on the vine.'' Well, it 
would, if Republicans controlled this place.
  Senate Majority Leader Dole said in 1996, ``I was there, fighting the 
fight, voting against Medicare . . . because we knew it wouldn't work 
in 1965.''
  Folks, there is a big difference between the parties. When you see 
the Republicans start to vote again to repeal the Affordable Care Act, 
that is what they wanted to do to Social Security and that is what they 
wanted to do to Medicare. We stopped them then, and we will stop them 
now. All they want to do is repeal all of these great benefits that are 
helping millions of people, and I say to them: Enough already. Enough. 
Work with us. Let's make sure everyone in America has that sense of 
security that they can handle whatever health impacts hit their 
families.
  I thank my colleague from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, we are here to point out that there 
are an awful lot of Americans who are winning because of the Affordable 
Care Act--whether it is a mom with kids who have gotten out of college 
but couldn't get health care on their own who can now stay on mom and 
dad's policy. That is one less thing for her to worry about--her 22- or 
23-year-old children; that is a pretty big win.
  Olive, who has been in touch with me, is a Rhode Islander from 
Woonsocket. She used to go into the doughnut hole every year because 
her husband has Alzheimer's and needs expensive medication. She saved 
$2,400 in the first year alone. That is a significant benefit for 
Olive.
  We have people who are trapped in their jobs because they couldn't 
get away. They were chained to their jobs because of the need of 
insurance. Alana, from Warwick, was one such person. She was working at 
one of our universities. She liked her job, but she really wanted to be 
a Web entrepreneur. She was tied to her job by employer-supplied health 
care. She went to HealthSource Rhode Island back in December and found 
a plan that worked for her. The plan's premium was so low she told me 
it sent her ``over the moon.'' She has become the proud owner of her 
own Rhode Island small business because she had the confidence she 
could go forward. Stories such as Alana's abound not just in Rhode 
Island but across the country.
  When I first came into our Rhode Island health exchange, the first 
person I saw who was ahead of me in line had boxes of Dunkin' Donuts 
and two big boxes of coffee. They had been there earlier in the 
afternoon, and the people who worked there were able to help them sign 
up for health insurance for the first time for their family. They were 
so thrilled they brought in doughnuts and coffee as a thank-you. That 
is the story we see.
  I have to say that we have to look at what the problem was with 
health care. This is where we should be working together. Look at where 
the costs are going; that is health care costs. In 1960, $27 billion, 
and $2.7 trillion in 2011. This was out of control. This was not going 
to be sustainable. Something absolutely, positively has to be done to 
get health care under control.
  The unsung part of the Affordable Care Act is the part that begins 
the change in our delivery system reform so we can make our system 
affordable. Do we do it by taking things away from people? No. We do it 
by making the system better. How do we know that will work?
  Here is a graph of all the major countries that are various kinds of 
competitors with us: Switzerland, Norway, Netherlands, Great Britain, 
Japan, and basically the rest of the major industrial nations. If you 
plot their life expectancy in years and their population against how 
much they spend per capita on health care, you get a pretty solid 
grouping through here, and you get a pretty clear curve that can be 
drawn through that.
  Well, here is the U.S.A. We are way more per capita than the most 
expensive country--better than $2,000 per person more per capita than 
the other most expensive countries in the world. Look at us for life 
expectancy. We come in around Chile and the Czech Republic, and we are 
below all of our competitors.
  There is huge room for improvement--better health care at lower costs 
that will extend our lives and reduce the costs. If we just move back 
into this pack, we would save $1 trillion a year in health care in this 
country--not just the government, but across the country. It would help 
businesses, it would help taxpayers, and it would help everybody.
  There are different ways to do it. Here is one little example. This 
is people who are readmitted after they have gone into the hospital. 
What was happening was that after people got out of

[[Page 4925]]

the hospital and went back to their nursing home or back to their 
house, their discharge plan was not very good. Their doctor may not 
have even known they were getting out, and they didn't know what to do 
with their medications. So what happens? Two weeks or a month later, 
they are back in the hospital again. We decided to do something about 
it in the Affordable Care Act.
  This is the readmission rate. It was rocking along around 19 percent, 
and then along comes our bill in 2011, and it starts to drop. It starts 
to drop pretty dramatically. If we can keep that up, we save the money 
of all of those readmissions. You don't pay for a readmission that 
never happens. It is an absolute economic savings. Plus, the family 
doesn't have to worry about grandma going back into the hospital again 
and picking up a hospital-acquired infection or some other cost like 
that.
  I thank the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Murphy, for organizing 
us on the floor today.
  I want to summarize that there is a great human interest story to 
tell about the Affordable Care Act that is helping families not only in 
Rhode Island but across the country; and moreover, it is a great tool 
for us as I hope we can work together to improve our delivery system of 
health care so we are delivering better health care to Americans for a 
lower cost. We know we can do it. For crying out loud, if Greece and 
these other countries can do it, then by God so can the United States 
of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Whitehouse, who is an 
extraordinary leader on the issue of trying to control costs and 
improving quality. Senator Stabenow and Senator Boxer have been down 
here talking about the importance of the Affordable Care Act long 
before I got to this body, and I thank them for being with us as well.
  Our message is pretty simple. Our message is that the Affordable Care 
Act is working. We know that because just yesterday we had record 
numbers of people who went onto the Web site to try to sign up for 
coverage. They placed calls into the call centers. We had 1.2 million 
people who went on the Web site yesterday looking for coverage. About 
390,000 people placed a call.
  We are seeing extraordinary levels of signups day after day. It looks 
as though we are on pace to achieve the goal to help those 6 million 
individuals sign up. That is not surprising because folks have been 
crying out in desperation for a better way for years and years. People 
such as one constituent of mine, Sean Hannon, from Weston, CT--I talked 
about him earlier on the floor today. He had a plan for him and his 
family that cost about $1,400 a month. Under the Affordable Care Act 
and the Connecticut Exchange, he is now paying $309. He wrote a really 
wonderful letter talking about what that means to him and his family, 
and he ended with this. He said:

       We are sharing all of this personal information--

  His family is sharing this personal information--

     because there is an aggressive campaign underway to dismantle 
     this valuable program. The misinformation being put out there 
     is skewing public opinion and this must not happen.

  Part of the reason why we have decided to come to the floor week 
after week is because Republicans who are spreading mythology about 
this law not working for people are chilling interest all across the 
country in signing up. Part of the reason why we are here on the floor 
is because there are Governors and State legislatures all around the 
country that are working to undermine the law rather than to implement 
the law. But in States such as California and Connecticut, that are 
actually working to make the law work, we are seeing record numbers of 
people sign up, and we are seeing story after story such as the 
Hannons.
  In Connecticut, we had a goal of signing up about 100,000 to 120,000 
people between Medicaid and the health care exchanges. Right now we 
have 170,000 people signed up. I don't know what our final number will 
be, but I imagine it will likely be double, if not more, of what our 
original estimate was. Why? Because we are actually going out and 
making it easy, simple for people to sign up. When we go out and make 
it easy for people to get affordable insurance, guess what. They want 
it.
  Now that we are celebrating the 4-year mark of this law's being 
signed by President Obama, it is worthwhile to talk for a second about 
what the reality was before the law was passed and what the reality of 
the law is today because that explains why we are seeing this overflow 
of interest in this final week of signup.
  Before the passage of this law, there were 3.4 million seniors who 
were Medicare Part D enrollees--that is the prescription drug benefit--
who were falling into the doughnut hole. There was about 15 percent of 
those using drugs in that doughnut hole who were skipping or stopping 
medications when they reached that gap in coverage. The average senior 
could be paying out as much as $160 in cost-sharing for certain 
procedures such as colorectal cancer screenings, paying lots and lots 
of money in preventive health care copays that had effectively stopped 
a lot of seniors from getting that wellness coverage they so badly 
needed.
  So what has happened after the passage of the law? There are 7.9 
million seniors who are now in the doughnut hole and saving, on 
average, about $1,200 in drug costs. That is $9.9 billion being saved 
by seniors because of the Affordable Care Act. Thirty-seven million 
seniors all across the country have taken advantage of the free 
preventive care, getting at least one free preventive service now that 
the law is in effect.
  Let's look at the other end of the age spectrum. Before this law was 
passed, 31.4 percent of young adults between ages 19 and 25 lacked 
coverage. That was nearly double the national rate. We are seeing young 
people flock to sign up for these health care exchanges, but even 
before that, about 3 million young adults all across the country had 
gained coverage because the health care law allows them to stay on 
their parents' coverage until age 26.
  Before the law, women often paid 50 percent more in premiums because 
of gender rating--the idea that one could be charged more as a woman 
simply because she is a woman. Put another way, being female was listed 
by many insurance companies as a preexisting condition. After the law, 
gender rating was banned, and women are on equity with men in terms of 
the rates they pay.
  For middle-class families that have been struggling with health care 
costs because of a crippling illness, they now never have to worry 
about losing coverage simply because someone gets sick or not being 
able to afford coverage in the first place because of a preexisting 
condition. A world in which 60 percent of all personal bankruptcies 
were reported to be related to medical costs will be history in this 
country.
  Four years after the passage of the law, that is the reality of what 
life was like before: Seniors paying thousands of dollars more in 
prescription drug costs, young adults unable to get coverage, women 
paying more for health care simply because they are women. The new 
reality is much different.
  I imagine that is also why a new poll out this week tells us that 60 
percent of Americans want to keep the Affordable Care Act in place. 
They may entertain some minor changes to the law, but less than 20 
percent of Americans want to see this law repealed.
  There is a total incongruity between what people out there believe, 
what they are experiencing, and what we are hearing as the reality from 
our Republican colleagues. That is why we are going to come down to the 
floor week after week and talk about how the Affordable Care Act is 
working for millions of Americans.
  Finally, I wish to share one story because Republicans are very good 
at coming down and telling stories about people who have disagreements 
with the law. We are beginning to see an overflow of stories and 
anecdotes from

[[Page 4926]]

people whose lives are being transformed.
  Anne Masterson, from Norwich, CT, writes this:

       Because of a minor preexisting condition, I was unable to 
     get health insurance as an individual. I could get it through 
     my business, my own law practice. I've always opted for good 
     coverage, but I paid dearly for it. My premiums this year 
     increased $965 a month--equivalent to a second mortgage 
     payment.

  Let's just break that down. What she is saying is she could get 
coverage through her business, but she couldn't get coverage as an 
individual, and that was the real story for decades when it came to 
individuals who had a preexisting condition. For many of them, it 
wasn't a matter of just having to pay more for health care; they 
couldn't get insurance at all because of a preexisting condition, and 
that was the real world for Anne Masterson.
  She further goes on to say this:

       Part of my practice is representing children and the 
     elderly in local probate courts. While not very lucrative, 
     it's one of the most professionally satisfying things I do. I 
     feel like I make a difference. However, with the increased 
     premiums, I don't know how I could continue to pay for my 
     health insurance.

  Let's break that down for a second. Think of all the people all 
across this country who are stuck in a job simply because they have to 
get health care for them and their family. Think of all of the 
innovation that is being stymied because people can't go out and start 
a business because it would involve taking the risk of going for a 
period of time without health care.
  Anne was contemplating giving up work she loved, work she was good 
at, representing children and the elderly--maybe one of the most 
important jobs we have in our legal system--because she couldn't afford 
to pay the premiums on that salary.
  She finishes by saying:

       Under the Affordable Care Act silver plan, I'll have the 
     exact same Anthem policy I have now--and pay nearly $600 less 
     per month. Not only will I have the peace of mind of having 
     good health insurance, but I'll also be able to continue 
     representing our most vulnerable citizens.

  We should step back and try to think about what our job really is 
here. We get consumed with studies and numbers and data, but really our 
job is to protect the security of this country and to try to increase 
the quality of life for the people we represent. It is hard to 
sometimes measure whether we are doing a good job at increasing the 
quality of life, but it is really about trying to make sure the people 
we represent are happy.
  Happiness comes in all sorts of different ways, but happiness had 
been stolen from millions of families across the country because every 
morning they would wake up thinking about how sick they were or how 
sick their child was or how sick their husband or wife was and their 
inability to pay for it.
  We hear those words ``peace of mind'' come up over and over when 
people talk about the Affordable Care Act. Yes, they are getting better 
coverage. Yes, they are healthier, but they just feel better about 
their existence in this world because they no longer have to worry 
about being part of the 60 percent of bankruptcies caused by medical 
debt. They no longer have to worry whether their child is going to have 
to have their life dictated by the terms of their illness.
  We can talk about the 5 million people who have signed up in 
exchanges all across the country or the fact that, as Senator 
Whitehouse says, the Federal Government is slated to save $1.2 trillion 
as compared to previous estimates on health care costs. We can talk 
about the $9 billion that seniors are saving because of the Affordable 
Care Act when it comes to prescription drug costs. But if we really 
want to talk about the transformation in the Affordable Care Act, if we 
really want to read into all of these letters we are getting in 
increasing volumes, it is about the fact that people don't have to wake 
up every day worrying about health care, worrying about getting sick, 
worrying about how they are going to pay for an illness.
  Maybe, in the end, when this law is fully implemented and ultimately 
Republicans come to this floor and defend it, just as they do Medicare, 
that will be the true measure of how the Affordable Care Act works.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. 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. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                Ukraine

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, tomorrow we are going to have an 
opportunity to vote on S. 2124, and I am pleased to learn that it looks 
as if there is going to be overwhelming support in the Senate for the 
passage of S. 2124. This is the legislation that helps Ukraine in 
dealing with the invasion by Russia.
  Russia's illegal actions of using its military to overtake Crimea, a 
part of Ukraine, violate numerous international obligations that Russia 
has committed to.
  I have the honor of chairing the U.S. Helsinki Commission. The 
Helsinki Accords were entered into in 1975. Russia was one of the 
leading forces for forming the OSCE.
  Russia's taking over of Crimea violates its commitments it made under 
the Helsinki Final Act. It violates the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which 
was signed by the United States, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, and 
Russia, that guaranteed basically Ukraine's integrity of its land. It 
violates the 1997 Ukraine-Russia bilateral treaty. It violates the U.N. 
Charter. The list goes on and on and on.
  So I believe it is absolutely essential that we have a strong voice 
in standing with the people of Ukraine. There was absolutely no 
justification whatsoever for Russia's action. There was no threat to 
any of the ethnic communities in Ukraine. All the rights of the people 
were being protected. The country was in transition from a corrupt 
government to a government that respected the rights of its citizens. 
If there was any provocation whatsoever of any unrest, it was caused by 
Russia's presence in Ukraine.
  We got reports from the chief rabbi in Kiev that Russia was staging 
anti-Semitic provocations in Crimea, and the list goes on and on as to 
what Russia was doing in order to try to give some justification for 
its actions.
  Russia's thinly veiled landgrab, cloaked in the cloth of self-
determination, must not go unchallenged. Here is what I think is 
critically important: This is a dangerous precedent. We saw Russia use 
a similar action in Georgia, and now in Crimea in Ukraine. There are 
other territorial issues involved around the world. If this goes 
unchecked, if we do not speak with a unified voice, it just encourages 
more irresponsible action by Russia in other countries.
  We know that we have concerns about the South China Sea. We know we 
have concerns about Moldova. There are many other areas where Russia 
could be involved in its border areas.
  So all of these issues are matters for us to speak with a strong 
unified voice. S. 2124 does that. It does it in two principal ways.
  First, it imposes the sanctions against those responsible for 
Russia's invasion into Crimea, Ukraine. It provides sanctions so that 
these individuals are not permitted to come to the United States. There 
are economic sanctions in regard to the use of our banking system. 
These are similar sanctions to what are now being imposed by our 
European allies.
  We need to isolate Russia. As we all know, the G8, which included 
Russia, is now a G7 without Russia. Russia needs to know that there 
will be sanctions imposed, and they will be stronger sanctions unless 
they stop this aggressive action.

[[Page 4927]]

  In addition, the legislation provides economic assistance to the new 
Government of Ukraine. Just 2 weeks ago the Prime Minister of Ukraine 
was here and met with Members of the Senate. I tell you, it was 
inspirational to listen to his vision for Ukraine as a democratic, 
independent state, with full integration into Europe. That is 
important. He is preparing for a May 25 election for the Presidency of 
Ukraine.
  These are all very, very positive steps. But if Ukraine does not have 
the economic foothold to be able to develop the type of economy and 
strength in their country, it will be difficult for Ukraine to be 
maintained as a viable independent state.
  Here is where the United States and our European allies, and I hope 
the global community, come together, as we have in this legislation, to 
provide economic help on a restructured economic plan for Ukraine that 
will help them move forward in a very constructive way.
  Mr. President, I must tell you I am disappointed, though, that the 
reforms of the IMF will be eliminated from this legislation. I think 
that is regrettable. We are entering into a plan for Ukraine that very 
much depends upon the IMF's--the International Monetary Fund's--plan to 
make sure that the moneys we are spending, Europe is spending, and 
other countries are loaning and providing to Ukraine are based upon a 
sound economic plan that will work. That is why the IMF is there. And 
they will be there. But the United States needs to be a full 
participant in the IMF. We are out of compliance, and here is another 
opportunity lost for us to be in full compliance with the IMF. I am 
disappointed about that.
  But as I said as I took the floor, we must speak with one voice--the 
Obama administration; the House, the Senate; the Congress--as we stand 
with the people of Ukraine for their integrity, for their independence, 
and for the adherence to international principles, which Russia has 
clearly violated.
  With that, 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. BROWN. 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. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            The Minimum Wage

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, on October 16, 1936, President Roosevelt 
visited the then-largest city in Ohio, the town my wife and I live in, 
Cleveland, OH. He spoke about why the ``trickle down'' theory does not 
work--this whole view that has been tried a number of times in our 
country: trickle down economics--that trickle down economics does not 
work. That is when you give major tax breaks to the wealthiest people 
in the country.
  President Roosevelt called them ``economic royalists''--a term that 
sounds a little out of date but maybe fairly descriptive. But President 
Roosevelt said when you help the wealthy get wealthier and wealthier--
my Republican colleagues call them the ``job creators,'' but it just 
does not work that way; the hope then is that some of that wealth they 
accumulate--and we do not resent their wealth, we do not envy their 
wealth; we just do not think it is good economic policy for Toledo or 
Gallipolis or Chillicothe or Cleveland--that when the wealthiest people 
get richer and richer, it does not really trickle down and create jobs.
  Forget Franklin Roosevelt for a minute. Look at two decades in very 
recent memory--the 1990s during the Clinton years and the 8 years 
during the Bush years. From 1993 to 2000, the Clinton years, we 
actually reduced the budget deficit to the point where there was a 
surplus. There was an increase in taxes on upper income people and some 
budget cuts. But what happened during that 8 years is that 21 million 
private sector jobs were added to our economy between 1993 and 2000--21 
million private sector jobs.
  Then President Bush took office. Twice--once in 2001 and once in 
2003--with the assistance of kind of a bought-and-sold special interest 
Congress in those days, President Bush gave major tax cuts to the 
wealthiest people in this country. You know the theory, ``trickle 
down.'' You give tax breaks to the rich and it trickles down to 
moderate-income, middle-class people and creates jobs. Well, the middle 
class shrank during those 8 years. President Bush gave major tax cuts 
to the rich twice. Do you know how many jobs were created during those 
8 years? Under 1 million private sector jobs.
  So from 1993 to 2000 when we did not follow trickle-down economics, 
there were 21 million private sector jobs. During the 8 years of the 
Bush administration, there were big tax cuts for the rich--twice. There 
was essentially no real job creation in the private sector.
  A number of my colleagues want to continue that policy. But let's 
look at it the other way. The real job creation is not tax breaks for 
the richest people, it trickles down, and maybe some jobs will be 
created for the middle class and for low-income people. Let's look at 
it the other way. Let's look at it as the real job creation is from the 
bottom up. One of the ways to do that is a minimum wage increase. It 
will not mean everything, but look at this. The minimum wage today is 
worth $7.25 an hour nationally, in some States a little bit higher. My 
State is 90 cents higher than that, I believe. But the minimum wage 
today has one-third less buying power than it did in 1968. In 1968 a 
couple with minimum wage jobs--a husband and wife--actually had an OK 
standard of living. They were not doing great, but they were making it. 
They could afford to pay their rent. They could afford a car. They 
could afford some things. They were doing sort of OK.
  The minimum wage today--again, a minimum wage job--has one-third less 
buying power than it had in 1968. But think about this: The minimum 
wage for tipped employees--I imagine a number of the pages who are 
sitting here today are not indicative; it is really older people 
generally who have had minimum wage jobs and have had jobs where they 
rely on tips. It is a myth that minimum wage jobs are held by mostly 
teenagers. They are not. Minimum wage jobs are often held by people 
supporting themselves, and they are supporting kids sometimes on 
minimum wage jobs. They are not teenagers or mostly in their twenties 
and thirties.
  But get this. Do you know how much the tipped minimum wage is? It is 
$2.13 an hour. That means when you see a valet at an airport--if you go 
to Cleveland Hopkins Airport and you see someone pushing a wheelchair 
with an often older disabled person in it, those are tipped jobs. Those 
people do not even make $7.25 an hour. But they can make as little as 
$2.13 an hour. Do you know the last time they got a raise, the last 
time the tipped minimum wage was raised? It was 1992. For 20-plus years 
the tipped minimum wage has been $2.13 an hour. It has been that for 20 
years. That means that the waitress in the diner, the server in the 
diner, the valet in front of the restaurant, the person pushing the 
wheelchair or driving the cart at the airport, the person working in 
the hotel, their minimum wage is $2.13 an hour.
  The people opposed to this minimum wage increase--to me, some of the 
most self-absorbed interest groups in this country and some of the best 
off--say: Well, nobody really makes that because people get these tips.
  Well, if they work at a really high-end restaurant where the average 
patron will spend $75 or $100, buy a few drinks, where there is an 
expensive menu and all of that, the waiters do a little better. They 
make $50,000 or $60,000 or $70,000 a year if they are busy enough and 
if they are working enough hours, some even more than that. But in the 
diner where three retirees will come in on a Tuesday morning and drink 
coffee and sit there for 2 hours and take up a table, that waitress is 
usually a woman who is a sub-minimum wage tipped employee. The people 
may leave $1 on the table, and she

[[Page 4928]]

has worked for 2 hours. All they buy is coffee, and she keeps filling 
it up and filling it up. Think about the wear and tear on her body. She 
is standing on her feet all the time. She is working hard. You know, we 
like to think we work hard in the Senate. We do, but we do not do that 
and it is not so hard on our bodies.
  When I think about this minimum wage--I am never angry about 
politics. One of my heroes was Hubert Humphrey. They called him the 
``Happy Warrior'' because he always fought for justice but he was not 
angry. But there are some things that make me angry about this job, 
such as when I see some of my colleagues--and there are a number of 
them--vote for pay increases for themselves and then vote against the 
minimum wage. They may tell you they work hard. They are not working 
harder than that person pushing the cart at the airport. They are not 
working harder than the woman in the diner who is filling the coffee 
cup.
  I urge my colleagues to do something that Pope Francis mentioned. 
Pope Francis exhorted his parish priests to go out and smell like the 
flock. You think about the Biblical allegory of that, the sheep and the 
Old Testament and the shepherd. When he said ``go out and smell like 
the flock'' to his parish priests, what he was saying is pretty 
obvious: Go out and find out how they live. Go out and try to live 
among them. Go out and do what they do. Go out and understand their way 
of life.
  I ask my colleagues to think about it. I am not asking them to live 
on a minimum wage job. I am not asking them to wait tables. But I do 
ask them to spend some time talking to people about the hopes and 
dreams for their children and in their lives, people who are minimum 
wage workers, people making $7.25 an hour and working hard, people who 
are making less than that and rely on tips that may or may not be 
there.
  It is justice. Are we going to reward work? If so, we ought to 
increase the minimum wage. At the same time, we ought to expand the 
earned-income tax credit. It actually rewards work. If you are a 
trickle-down economics guy--and most of them are guys--and you believe 
that you reward people by cutting their taxes so they will work harder, 
maybe we ought to think about rewarding hand-working lower income 
people with tax breaks. For someone making $28,000 a year, that extra 
thousand dollars really means they can maybe put a little aside for 
their kid's community college or maybe they can actually go out to eat 
once in a while or maybe they can occasionally buy a really nice dinner 
for their kids or maybe they can buy school supplies or whatever with 
that extra thousand or two thousand dollars from the earned-income tax 
credit.
  We need to increase the minimum wage and the earned-income tax 
credit. It will not only be better for those families, it will help the 
economy because you put money into the economy. The unemployed worker 
or a minimum wage worker is going to spend that money. They are not 
going to invest it in a Swiss bank account the way some wealthy people 
might; they are going to spend that money, and that is going to create 
jobs in the local community. So increasing the minimum wage and 
expanding the earned-income tax credit is good for those families, it 
is good for those communities, and it is good for our economy. It is 
something we ought to do.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. I would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be 
rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Unemployment Extension

  Mr. CASEY. Thank you very much.
  I rise tonight to speak about emergency unemployment compensation. We 
know by the acronyms around here people refer to unemployment insurance 
as UI. What we are talking about in the real world are literally 
millions of Americans affected in one way or another because they have 
been out of work, unemployed for long periods of time.
  By one estimate the number of Americans who have been out of work for 
6 months or longer--and many of these individuals have been out of work 
for a lot more than 6 months, but when the line is drawn of 6 months or 
longer, it is more than 4 million Americans. It is a big number. I will 
talk a little bit more about the Pennsylvania impact and walk through 
some of those numbers.
  This legislation that is finally coming together after many weeks is 
going to be, and I think must be, a bipartisan compromise. That is the 
only way to move forward. It is an effort to provide an essential 
lifeline--that is not an overstatement and may be an understatement--an 
essential lifeline to middle-class families who rely upon the program 
to stay afloat as they are actively seeking work. I think what is 
sometimes lost in the discussion is these are folks who are trying to 
work, trying to find a job again.
  I would have preferred a much longer extension than the one that is 
being discussed and worked on. I also would have hoped that people 
relying upon this type of compensation--emergency unemployment 
compensation--would not have to see their benefits lapse. Extending 
this program has always been bipartisan, and we need to make sure we 
keep it in that vein. While our economy has made substantial 
improvements, we have a long way to go. Families are still hurting and 
they need help.
  Unfortunately, when families read the business page of their local 
newspaper, some of the numbers look pretty good. But if you are out of 
work for any period of time, especially 6 months or longer, it doesn't 
really matter what is on the business page or what the overall 
assessment is; it is very difficult for that individual or family 
because they are not working, and because they are not working they are 
not able to help their family.
  We know that in addition to being the lifeline for families--an 
essential connection to any kind of economic security--the other reason 
it is important to have the emergency unemployment compensation passed 
is because of the economic boost it provides. Emergency unemployment 
compensation provides an economic jump start.
  Just by way of example, in 2012, Mark Zandi, one of our more 
respected economists on both sides of the aisle, found that for every 
dollar of emergency unemployment compensation there was a $1.52 
economic impact--or new economic activity resulted. That is the old 
spend a buck, and what do you get for spending the buck? You spend a 
buck on this, you get a buck fifty-two in return. That is a substantial 
return on that investment.
  Recent analysis specifically focusing on the extension of benefits in 
2014 has also found a large economic boost. The Economic Policy 
Institute has estimated that extending unemployment benefits in 2014 
would generate $37.8 billion in economic activity. We know that this is 
an issue--unemployment, emergency unemployment or long-term 
unemployment--that varies depending on the State, but we know every 
State has been affected and almost every community has been affected in 
a very substantial way.
  Pennsylvania is a big and diverse State with more than 12 million 
people. In some ways it tends to broadly reflect what is happening in 
various parts of the country. In Pennsylvania 73,300 people immediately 
stopped receiving unemployment benefits when the emergency unemployment 
compensation expired on December 28, 2014. That was kind of the 
beginning of the current crisis for these families. They have been 
living through a very difficult economy for years now. They have been 
out of work for many months, and in some cases more than a year or two, 
but the current crisis started for them on December 28.
  I can't even imagine what it is like for them. You are at the end of 
the holiday season, you are out of work, you have been robbed of your 
dignity and your ability to contribute to your family's well-being, and 
on top of all of

[[Page 4929]]

that--in the middle of the holiday season when it is supposed to be a 
time of hope and optimism and gift giving and all kinds of family 
time--you, and perhaps another member of the family, lose your 
emergency unemployment compensation. That is where it started.
  Because Congress didn't have a bipartisan consensus until recently, 
the days and weeks started to add up. So when you go from December 28 
to March 1--and we can take another look at the numbers--unfortunately, 
and not surprisingly, those numbers went up. As of March 1, 105,000 
Pennsylvanians lost their benefits. It gets worse than that. If it 
continues, and there is not some relief provided through May--and this 
is the period that would be covered by the bill--it is estimated that 
158,400 Pennsylvanians and some 2,795,300 Americans who could benefit 
from this bill will lose their unemployment compensation.
  It is very simple in terms of the choice we have to make. We need to 
decide in the very near future--we hope starting this week so we can 
begin the process of finally getting this done--whether we will help 
almost 2.8 million Americans and almost 160,000 Pennsylvanians. It is a 
very simple choice. We are going to take either one path or the other. 
I hope and pray we take the path that helps those almost 3 million 
Americans and almost 160,000 Pennsylvanians.
  Earlier I mentioned the economic impact of passing this kind of 
legislation. We know that in Pennsylvania, for example, one estimate 
shows that extending benefits would provide a boost to consumption and 
economic activity which would save an estimated 15,000 jobs. That is 
another way to measure the impact of this program.
  It is my hope that the Senate can swiftly pass this bipartisan 
legislation to extend emergency unemployment compensation and that the 
House will take it up and pass it without delay. We can't allow 
politics to stand in the way of helping families in need.
  This is a basic and fundamental issue. These families and individuals 
have waited far too long. I will conclude with just one example. A 
couple of Sundays ago--maybe 3 weeks ago--I was walking out of church 
in our neighborhood and a woman came up to me. I didn't know her, but I 
recognized her from the neighborhood. She asked me about this issue. 
She said: I'm out of work; when do you think it will pass? She asked me 
the same question a couple of weeks before that. I said: I think we are 
getting to the point where there is a consensus. On that particular 
Sunday--just a couple of weeks ago--she asked me again. When she 
started to ask the question, she asked it with a seriousness and an 
earnestness and a kind of worry in her voice that caught my attention. 
I said something like: I think we are starting to get there, but I 
can't say for sure when. When I gave that answer, she looked at me and 
she started to become very emotional and said: I hope you are reaching 
the point where you can pass something because it is going to be very 
difficult for me to hang on any longer.
  This is very tough. I felt at that moment--as an elected official who 
was given power by the voters to vote and represent them--if not 
powerless, I was not doing nearly enough for her. I am part of an 
institution that has not come together yet--in the Senate and in the 
other body as well. We have not come together to answer her question 
with full confidence and to say: Yes, we understand. We understand what 
you are up against to the extent we can--not having lived through this 
ourselves--and we are going to act this week or tomorrow or the next 
day.
  Not having a specific answer for her gave me a sense of not just 
frustration but a sense of failure. There was a sense of urgency that 
she brought to my attention, and I believe almost every Member here 
could probably tell a similar story.
  We have to act. We have to get this done, and we have to make sure we 
undertake every effort in the next few days--and I hope we are talking 
days now--to get this done so we can finally provide a measure of 
relief which is short term but will have the effect of providing a 
measure of relief to families who have suffered in ways I can't even 
imagine.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________