[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5422-5460]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROTECTING VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY RESPONDERS ACT OF 2014

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 3979, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       An act (H.R. 3979) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to ensure that emergency services volunteers are not 
     taken into account as employees under the shared 
     responsibility requirements contained in the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Reed) Amendment No. 2874, of a perfecting nature.
       Reid Amendment No. 2875 (to Amendment No. 2874), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid Amendment No. 2876 (to Amendment No. 2875), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid Amendment No. 2877 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by Amendment No. 2874), to change the enactment 
     date.
       Reid Amendment No. 2878 (to Amendment No. 2877), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, 
     with instructions, Reid Amendment No. 2879, to change the 
     enactment date.
       Reid Amendment No. 2880 (to (the instructions) Amendment 
     No. 2879), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid Amendment No. 2881 (to Amendment No. 2880), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 10 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I rise to discuss and present amendment No. 2931 to the bill before 
us. This is a germane amendment. It is all about the substance of the 
bill before us and it is a fully bipartisan proposal, since all of the 
substance of this

[[Page 5423]]

amendment was actually contained in the President's most recent budget 
submission.
  The amendment idea is very simple: It would prohibit unemployment 
insurance and disability double-dipping. Those are two different 
things. One is about somebody who is temporarily unable to find work, 
still looking for work, clearly able to work. That is unemployment 
insurance. Disability is fundamentally different, somebody who is 
disabled and because of that disability cannot work on a long-term 
basis.
  So, as President Obama has proposed, as many Republicans have 
proposed, this would simply prohibit an individual from receiving both 
of those benefits at the same time, and would save about $1 billion 
over 10 years. That is President Obama's own estimation.
  To fully present and consider this, I would ask unanimous consent 
that it be in order for me to offer my amendment No. 2931.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, we have had 
millions of people over the last many months who have lost their 
unemployment benefits. In most instances it is real tragic. Many of the 
people who lost these benefits are past middle age. Because of the 
recession they lost their jobs they had for a long time and they cannot 
find work.
  We have read into the Record the tragic stories about people using 
their Social Security to try to save their son's home. We have the 
woman who is couch surfing. She said, ``I didn't know what the term 
meant. Now I know.'' They have had to struggle without extended 
unemployment benefits.
  The senior Senator from Rhode Island has negotiated a bipartisan fix 
to this. It has basically given the Republicans everything they asked 
for. Everything is paid for. There is no disagreement as to the pay-
fors. It hasn't increased the deficit at all. In fact, it would 
stimulate the economy significantly.
  We have been told by economist Mark Zandi, John McCain's chief 
economic advisor when he ran for President, we have been told by him 
and others that unemployment benefits stimulate the economy quicker and 
faster and more efficiently than any other thing we do, because they 
are desperate for money and they spend it.
  But in spite of the bipartisan agreement negotiated with Senator Jack 
Reed, Senator Heller from Nevada and other Republicans, we have the 
vast majority of Republican Senators doing the same thing they have 
done for a long time. They respond in their usual way. When they face a 
bill they are trying to kill, they try to change the subject--
diversion.
  Now already on this piece of legislation before the Senate today we 
have more than 24 amendments that have been filed by Republicans 
dealing with ObamaCare alone, in spite of the fact--in spite of the 
fact--that yesterday it was announced that there are 7.1 million people 
who have already signed up. That doesn't count the 14 State exchanges 
that will get another 900,000, it is estimated, plus the 2-week 
extension in which hundreds of thousands more will sign up.
  They are tone-deaf. They have got to go to some other issue. But they 
cannot. There are more than two dozen amendments on this bill alone 
dealing with ObamaCare, repealing it in different ways.
  Several other amendments have been singled out that we have before 
the body to attack the administration's efforts to protect the 
environment. The protests of Republican Senators to the contrary 
notwithstanding, these amendments show that the other side of the aisle 
is not serious about unemployment insurance benefits. They are more 
concerned about protecting the Koch brothers. This is the behavior of 
Senators who want to kill something, who want to kick up enough dust so 
they don't get blamed for what they are trying to do. What are they 
trying to do? Kill extended unemployment benefits.
  So I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I am going to repeat my request, because 
apparently the majority leader, based on his comments, didn't 
understand it.
  I have an amendment that is about unemployment insurance. I have an 
amendment that is germane to the bill. It is not about ObamaCare, not 
about EPA, not about the Koch brothers. I have an amendment that is a 
proposal contained in President Obama's last two budgets. My amendment 
has nothing to do with any of the comments and objections he makes. For 
that reason I am trying to clarify that, and I would again ask 
unanimous consent that my germane amendment proposed by President Obama 
in his last two budgets be in order, and it be in order for me to offer 
my amendment No. 2931.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I clearly understood the 
diversion-and-delay tactics of my friend from Louisiana, and I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The objection is heard.
  Mr. VITTER. Well, Mr. President, reclaiming the floor, I think it is 
very unfortunate. I don't know why it is diversionary to talk about the 
substance that is before us in this bill. That is not changing the 
subject, I would say through the Chair to the majority leader; that is 
talking about the subject. I don't know why it is delaying anything to 
consider an amendment during the time set aside for this bill. That is 
not delaying anything. That is doing the business of the Senate by 
bringing valid ideas to the floor and offering them as an amendment, 
and I don't know why it is Republican obstructionism to have an 
amendment that is a proposal contained in President Obama's last two 
budgets.
  So again, I would make the point that everything the majority leader 
said in objecting to my being even able to present my amendment for a 
vote doesn't apply to my amendment. It is complete nonsense. It is just 
talking past the substance of this amendment which is about 
unemployment insurance reform and which is a bipartisan proposal and 
which is included in the President's last two budgets.
  This is an important and commonsense reform. It is common sense 
because eligibility for the two programs we are talking about is 
mutually exclusive. It is apples and oranges. Disability is designed to 
assist folks who are physically or mentally unable to work for a 
significant period of time, sometimes permanently. Unemployment 
insurance, in contrast, is intended to replace some of the earnings for 
those individuals who become unemployed and are unable to find work 
temporarily.
  It is an oversight, a technical imperfection in the law, the fact 
that some limited number of folks can double-dip and get both at the 
same time. This is widely recognized on a bipartisan basis. On the 
Republican side, of course, I have this amendment. Senator Coburn, my 
colleague from Oklahoma, has had similar proposals. Senator Portman, my 
colleague from Ohio, has had similar proposals.
  On the Democratic side, there is no higher ranking Democrat I can 
possibly cite than President Obama. The President has included this 
reform--exactly this reform--in his last two budget proposals. I have 
never heard any articulation from any Democrat or any Member of the 
Senate why this reform doesn't make sense.
  The majority leader, while objecting to my even being able to present 
this amendment for a vote, offered no such rationale. He talked past 
it. He talked about the Koch brothers and he talked about EPA and he 
talked about ObamaCare, instead of talking about my germane, 
commonsense bipartisan reform amendment to this bill, which has been 
included--this proposal--in President Obama's last two budgets.
  So I find this very unfortunate, but I am going to continue to fight 
for a vote on this amendment. It will improve the bill, whatever you 
think about the bill. This will improve it. This will save $1 billion 
over 10 years. This will clear up the double dipping

[[Page 5424]]

which was never intended and contrary to the fundamental different 
purposes of the last of the two programs, and this will advance a 
proposal that has been included in President Obama's last two budgets.
  With that, I will return to promote this amendment, but for now I 
yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
10 minutes as if in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, it has been more than 3 months since 2 
million Americans and nearly 60,000 people in my home State of Ohio and 
tens of thousands of people in the Presiding Officer's State of 
Massachusetts--overwhelmingly most of whom have worked day in and day 
out for most of their lives--have had their unemployment benefits 
expire simply because the House of Representatives and the Senate have 
failed to act.
  This body has tried to act a number of times and a number of times it 
has been filibustered. We could not get 60 votes to move forward. The 
House of Representatives has seemed, frankly, indifferent to these 2 
million people.
  Think about who these people are. This is about unemployment 
insurance. It is called insurance for a reason. Insurance means they 
pay in when they are working, they get benefits when they are laid off, 
but they must be seeking work to qualify and earn--and I underscore 
earn--those benefits. They are not given those benefits. They have 
earned them. They have paid into the unemployment insurance program and 
they get assistance when they lose their jobs.
  Every day and week we fail in this Congress because of Republican 
filibusters and cold indifference in the House of Representatives to 
extend these benefits, more Americans slip into poverty. People are not 
getting rich from unemployment insurance. The average unemployment 
check in Massachusetts and Ohio and across this country is about $300, 
which helps to keep their head above water, avoid foreclosure, put gas 
in their car, look for work--as they are required to do so they can 
receive unemployment--and just keep their family going and reduce 
poverty.
  When they don't get unemployment benefits, they are not spending that 
money in their community. When they do get these benefits, they are 
spending money at the local grocery store in Chillicothe, they are 
going to the local shoe store in Portsmouth or Gallipolis, they are 
going to the car repair shop in Toledo or Lima. They are putting money 
in the economy which generates economic activity which grows jobs.
  Extending unemployment is not just right for families in Dayton, 
Akron, Springfield, OH, and Springfield, MA, it is right for the 
economy because it puts money into the economy and helps to create 
jobs.
  Forget about the statistics. Forget about the numbers--60,000 people 
in Ohio and 2 million people across the country--and instead listen to 
what this does for individual lives. I have three or four stories from 
people around my State. Lori from Montgomery County, which is in 
southwest Ohio and the Dayton area, writes:

       I have worked my entire life, until I lost my job last 
     summer. I now spend 4-5 hours a day looking for jobs, but the 
     positions in my field are limited.
       I'm told I'm either over or under qualified.
       My unemployment benefits aren't much, but it's enough to 
     keep a roof over my head, and allow me to make car payments, 
     so that when I did get a job interview, I have a car to get 
     me there. Please don't let me down.

  Robert from Belmont County, which is on the West Virginia line near 
the Ohio River in eastern Ohio, writes:

       I lost my job in 2012 when my employer, a steel mill, shut 
     down. I was unemployed for more than a year before finding 
     another position.
       I was there for two and a half months before being let go 
     due to the down economy--not enough time for a new claim to 
     get me by.
       I have a family to support and now that the extension is 
     gone, what am I to do until I find a good job to support my 
     family? Do the right thing. Many lives are depending on it.

  The first person said, ``Please don't let me down,'' and the second 
person from Belmont County said, ``Do the right thing.''
  Scott from Union County, which is in central Ohio where they are 
doing a little better overall but still going through tough times, 
writes:

       I was laid off from my job at the beginning of this year. I 
     had only been there for six months, and it was a godsend for 
     me.
       I don't have a college degree, but I was given a chance to 
     show I could do this job, even though a degree was required.
       We went through a round of layoffs in October. My job was 
     saved at the time, but then our company closed its doors in 
     January.
       Now I have nothing.
       Zero income. Zero outside help, and a non-existing 
     savings--not because I didn't save, but because I didn't make 
     enough money to save anything the last few years.
       I joined the military out of high school, and used my GI 
     Bill to put myself through some college. But soon enough, I 
     was just in a mountain of debt from school, and needed to 
     work full-time.
       I wasn't able to save money because I couldn't afford to 
     pay my student loan debt.
       While I'm writing you, I'm sitting here watching my son 
     play, and he is so happy. But he doesn't know why his dad is 
     so sad--nor should he ever.
       I am begging you to get this figured out soon.

  These are veterans and people who have struggled and worked all their 
lives. They are people who have never had it easy, but they do what is 
asked of them. As President Clinton used to say, they play by the 
rules. They take personal responsibility for their lives.
  The Senate, because of the filibuster, has turned its back on these 
workers. The House of Representatives, because of its indifference, has 
shrugged these workers off. It is wrong. It is important that this 
Congress--the House and the Senate--pass the extension of unemployment. 
The President eagerly awaits signing this legislation because it will 
matter to workers in Middletown, Ravenna, Mansfield, and Shelby, OH. 
This legislation is important not only to my State but all over this 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I applaud my colleague from Ohio for his 
stories from his home State on the families who have been dramatically 
impacted by the broken bridge between a lost job and the next job. 
Indeed, in my home State there are about 26,000 folks who are affected 
in this manner. We can think of it as the space between two jobs, as a 
chasm--a chasm that threatens the success of every family. They are 
hoping to make their payment on their light bill. They are hoping to 
make their rent payment or their mortgage payment. But they have to 
make it to that next job, and savings run thin, particularly when 
savings are very hard to come by when our economy is generating fewer 
and fewer living-wage jobs.
  In the last recession of 2008, 60 percent of the jobs lost were 
living-wage jobs. But of the jobs we are getting back, only 40 percent 
are living-wage jobs. Indeed, that means millions of families have gone 
from a strong foundation--the ability to raise children, to buy a 
modest home, perhaps take an annual vacation, perhaps to save a little 
bit of money to help send their kids to college--to struggling and 
chasing minimum wage or near minimum wage jobs, part-time jobs, and 
jobs that often have no benefits. All of those wrestling with this 
situation aren't going to have a big pile of savings to get from one 
position to the next.
  That is why, during periods of high unemployment, we have created a 
longer unemployment insurance bridge to get them successfully to that 
next job. When people fall into the chasm between one job and the next, 
it is not just the family that is hurt; it is not just the worker who 
is hurt. Our entire society is impacted. It is impacted in

[[Page 5425]]

several ways. First we have the situation where people go through 
foreclosure, and that is devastating to the family, devastating to the 
children, and certainly it also impacts the value of every home on the 
street. We have the situation of families who lose their home, who lose 
their rental home and become homeless. It isn't just the parents who 
are impacted. The children are deeply impacted, and they go through a 
traumatic event. That is certainly a terrible situation to endure and 
mal effects throughout. Indeed, of those 26,000 families in Oregon, 
right now there is a couple sitting at their kitchen table trying to 
figure out just how many meals they are going to skip in order to make 
their next rent payment, or they are struggling with how long they can 
defer a health care bill while they make their mortgage payment. These 
are tough decisions.
  This is why we developed a bipartisan agreement under President Bush 
that during periods of high unemployment, we would have a longer bridge 
to the next job. The logic is very simple. The logic is that during 
periods of high unemployment, the average time between jobs is longer 
and the chasm is wider, so people need a longer bridge to get there. 
This is a program that automatically pulls itself back in, retires 
itself, as the unemployment rate drops. As the unemployment rate drops, 
the number of extra weeks become fewer and fewer. That is why there is 
so much logic behind it. That is why there was no partisan divide.
  Today we are going to vote, again, on whether to keep this logical, 
bipartisan, self-retiring, critical bridge in place, and I hope we have 
a broad bipartisan vote to support it. Then we need to say to the House 
of Representatives: This is not another bill we can lock in the 
basement and throw away the key. This is a fundamental piece of 
legislation that affects the welfare of our families, the health of our 
economy, the strength of our communities, and it merits a vote on the 
floor of the House of Representatives. It is certainly a reasonable 
expectation that everyone in America should see where their Congressman 
or their Congresswoman stands on such a vital economic strategy for 
individual families and for the broader community.
  So let us not disappoint those 26,000 families in Oregon. Let us not 
disappoint those 1.7 million families across America that have counted 
on problem-solving common sense rather than partisan warfare to address 
this issue.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Cloture motion

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been 
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the 
motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the substitute 
     amendment No. 2874 to H.R. 3979, an act to amend the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that emergency services 
     volunteers are not taken into account as employees under the 
     shared responsibility requirements contained in the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act.
         Harry Reid, Jack Reed, Patrick J. Leahy, Thomas R. 
           Carper, Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Baldwin, Edward J. 
           Markey, Christopher A. Coons, Tom Harkin, Cory A. 
           Booker, Tom Udall, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Barbara 
           Boxer, Angus S. King, Jr., Christopher Murphy, Al 
           Franken, Bernard Sanders.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory 
quorum call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 2874 to H.R. 3979, an act to amend the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 to ensure that emergency services volunteers are not taken 
into account as employees under the shared responsibility requirements 
contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 61, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 96 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--38

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Cruz
       
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote the yeas are 61 and 
the nays are 38. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Cloture having been invoked on amendment No. 2874, the motion to 
commit falls as being inconsistent with cloture.
  The Chair further announces that amendment Nos. 2878, 2877, and 2876 
also fall as they were not in order to be offered and their pendency is 
inconsistent with the Senate's precedents with respect to the offering 
of amendments, their number, degree, and kind.
  The Republican whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Before we can have a real debate on how to fix the U.S. 
economy, which is experiencing the slowest recovery following a 
recession of any time since World War II, we have to agree on what the 
problem is and what we are actually trying to solve.
  On this side of the aisle, we believe the problem is a shortage of 
full-time jobs, and we believe our main economic priority should be to 
facilitate or to create circumstances under which the private sector 
can create more full-time jobs. That is why we have offered a series of 
amendments to the pending legislation that would help do that. It would 
help grow the economy and help get people back to work--not just pay 
people who are, unfortunately, unemployed but actually help create jobs 
so they can find work and help provide for their families, which is 
what the vast majority of people want to do.
  Currently, we have pending about 70 different amendments from this 
side of the aisle that would actually improve the underlying 
legislation. Among other things, our amendments would repeal job-
killing taxes, improve congressional safeguards against overregulation, 
and restore the traditional 40-hour workweek, which is a particular 
subject of concern to organized labor, which recently sent a letter to 
the White House and said that ObamaCare was incentivizing employers to 
take full-time work and make it part-time work. They called it a 
nightmare.
  We also need to modernize our work-training programs. I have traveled 
to a number of locations in Texas, for example, where, as a result of 
the shale gas renaissance, we have had a number

[[Page 5426]]

of manufacturing companies move back onshore because of this 
inexpensive energy supply, creating thousands of new jobs, and there 
are thousands more to come.
  Thank goodness our community colleges are working with industry in 
these areas because what we find is that when people graduate from high 
school or maybe even college, they don't necessarily have the skills to 
qualify for these good, high-paying jobs. If there is one aspect we 
ought to all be able to agree on, it is that we need to modernize our 
work-training programs so that we can help people gain those skills so 
they can earn a good income as a result.
  We also need to expedite natural gas exports, and that is not only 
for economic reasons and job-creating reasons at home. We have seen 
Russia using natural gas--and the stranglehold it has on Ukraine--as a 
weapon. One of the things we can do to help the people of Ukraine and 
to help our allies in Europe is to provide a long-term source of energy 
through another route other than through Russian pipelines.
  We also should approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, which will complete 
this pipeline from Canada all the way across the United States. The 
terminus would be in southeast Texas, where that oil would be refined 
into gasoline and jet fuel and create a lot of jobs in the process. 
Then we need to consider proposals that would incentivize American 
businesses, small and large, to hire veterans.
  I have been discussing these amendments all week, and I have been 
calling on the majority leader to allow these amendments to come to the 
floor and to provide an opportunity for a vote. As I said, there are 
now currently more than 70 different amendments and ideas that have 
been filed that are just waiting on the majority leader, who is the one 
who basically has complete discretion over whether or not those votes 
will actually occur. We have been imploring him to allow a vote on 
these amendments, but it appears--and I don't know if there is really 
any other conclusion you can draw--the majority leader has a different 
priority. His top priority, it appears, is for show votes on bills that 
either aren't going to go anywhere, because they are not going to be 
taken up by the House of Representatives, or that really treat the 
symptom rather than solve the underlying problem.
  As we read in the New York Times and elsewhere, it is the intention 
of the majority leader and the Democratic leadership in the Senate to 
schedule a series of show votes that basically are designed to change 
the subject from the failed policies of this administration--notably 
ObamaCare. Of course, one of those is going to be to make it easier for 
the trial bar to file class action lawsuits when it comes to gender pay 
disparity, something that is already against the law. The majority 
leader and his allies are going to lift the cap on damages and subject 
small and large businesses alike to class action lawsuits.
  You don't have to take my word for it. All you have to do is read the 
New York Times. Here is what they reported last week:

       The proposals have little chance of passing. But Democrats 
     concede that making new laws is not really the point. Rather, 
     they are trying to force Republicans to vote against them.

  For that matter, the majority leader himself has acknowledged that 
these ideas were developed in collaboration with the Democratic 
Senatorial Campaign Committee, the political arm of our Democrat 
friends in the Senate.
  So it is pretty clear what is happening here. This is not a majority 
leader--or a majority, for that matter--in search of solutions to the 
problems that plague our country, particularly slow economic growth and 
high joblessness, and the highest percentage of people who have dropped 
out of the workforce since World War II. This has nothing to do with 
helping the American people. What it does have to do with is making 
proposals that would actually make the economy worse.
  For example, the Congressional Budget Office said the proposed 
minimum wage increase--a 40-percent increase in the minimum wage--would 
likely destroy \1/2\ million to 1 million jobs because the money has to 
come from somewhere. Small businesses, if they are going to be forced 
to pay 40 percent more for their workforce, are going to have to cut 
somewhere else, and what they are going to cut is jobs.
  Needless to say, notwithstanding the fact that we are seeing the 
majority leader and the majority party engaged in pure political 
posturing, what they are actually proposing is going to make things 
worse, not better.
  There is also the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act, which really 
should be called the ``Trial Lawyers Bonanza'' bill. This is nothing 
more than a gift to the trial bar. As I said earlier, gender-based pay 
discrimination was outlawed a half century ago. It is illegal already. 
President Obama, more recently, signed something called the Lilly 
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act just a few days after taking office in January 
of 2009. Here is what he said at that time. In 2009, he said that the 
Ledbetter act ``ensures equal pay for equal work.''
  If that is true--and I believe it is--then why offer this additional 
legislation, unless it is purely a political exercise designed to 
posture and perhaps distract people from the things they are upset 
about, such as ObamaCare, leading into the midterm elections. We are 
now being told that unless we pass the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act, 
or the ``Trial Lawyer Giveaway,'' employers will be able to 
discriminate against women. Well, that is nonsense. That is not true. I 
don't know how you can say it any more strongly other than to call it 
the lie that it is.
  Even before the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act equal pay for equal work 
has been the law of the land since the 1960s. As the Wall Street 
Journal once observed, the Paycheck Fairness Act should really be 
called the ``Trial Lawyer Paycheck Act'' because that is who would 
benefit from this bill were it to become the law of the land.
  Of course, as I mentioned a moment ago, the majority leader doesn't 
really expect this to pass. It is part of this false narrative we have 
heard before, and we are going to hear it again, that somehow this is 
really about fairness and gender discrimination, when it is about 
nothing of the kind. It is solely about politics. It really is a 
cynical attempt to distract people from what are the most important 
things we could do as a Senate, which is, again, to create 
circumstances under which the economy would grow and jobs would be 
created by the private sector so people could find work and they could 
provide for their families. That is what we ought to be doing.
  Our Democratic friends claim this political agenda they announced 
last week, in conjunction with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign 
Committee, is all about giving Americans a fair shot. Yet the majority 
leader is refusing to give them a fair shot at finding a full-time job, 
and he is refusing to give my constituents in Texas--26 million of 
them--an opportunity to get some of their ideas heard and voted on on 
the Senate Floor.
  As I said once, and I will say it again, there are more than 70 
different amendments that have been filed to this underlying 
legislation that would actually provide a solution rather than a 
political stunt which will do nothing to solve the underlying problem. 
The purpose of these amendments is to help millions of people who 
remain unemployed or underemployed, including the 3.8 million Americans 
who have been unemployed for more than 6 months--3.8 million Americans 
out of work for more than 6 months.
  This legislation does nothing to help those people, other than 
perhaps to help pay them for a period of time they are continuing 
unsuccessfully to find work. There are also 7.2 million Americans who 
are working part-time who would like to work full time.
  If the majority leader wants to argue our amendments are a bad idea, 
let him do it. We will have that debate on the merits. If he wants to 
promote alternative options for growing the economy and creating jobs, 
we will be happy to consider those and perhaps even agree with him on 
some of them. But to simply refuse to allow a vote on these 70-some-odd 
amendments is a

[[Page 5427]]

profound insult, not to us but to our constituents and the millions of 
Americans who continue to suffer through the longest period of high 
unemployment since the Great Depression.
  We can do better. We need to do better. The American people deserve 
better than this cheap political stunt.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, we have before us a bipartisan piece of 
legislation designed to provide very limited assistance to millions of 
Americans who have lost their unemployment compensation benefits. On 
December 28, the long-term unemployment insurance benefits terminated. 
At that point it was 1.3 million Americans; today it is 2.3 million 
Americans, and it is growing.
  Since December 28, we have, on a bipartisan basis, been endeavoring 
to bring to this floor for a final vote a 5-month extension, some of 
which--in fact, with each passing day more of which--is retroactive 
rather than prospective. This bill is designed to help people.
  In fact, this bill will provide them the benefits they were receiving 
based upon their work record because the only way you can receive 
unemployment insurance benefits is to lose a job through no fault of 
your own and continue to search for a job.
  These are working Americans. The benefits we are talking about are 
roughly $300 a week. What does that do? For some people it helps them 
keep their home. It pays the rent. For some others it provides food for 
their families. For others it provides them the ability to have a cell 
phone that is plugged in, literally, because they need one when they 
get, they hope, the offer for a job interview or for a job. So contrary 
to doing nothing to help Americans, this does a great deal for people 
who have earned these benefits through their toil and effort and their 
continued efforts to look for jobs.
  We have an obligation, a great obligation to increase the growth in 
this country, and to do it in a way that will allow people to find 
jobs. In my home State of Rhode Island, there are at least two 
applicants for every job--in many cases, three applicants. There is a 
disconnect in many cases between the skills they have had over decades 
of work and the skills that employers are looking for today. And we 
have to address that.
  But, to prevent this legislation from going through is to deny 
millions of working Americans the support they need to get through a 
very difficult period. That is why, on a bipartisan basis, we have come 
together. We have 5 months fully paid for. This is a fiscally sound 
piece of legislation which benefits men and women across this country 
based upon their work record. I don't think there is a more important 
thing we can do at this moment, and to delay it would be a disservice 
to the people.
  I think something else is important too. When we talk about economic 
growth, let us recognize this legislation will help growth in the 
United States. There have been estimates if we had a full-year 
extension of the unemployment insurance program it would generate 
200,000 jobs. Those are significant numbers. That is roughly about 1 
month's job growth over the last several years. If we don't do this, 
then we won't get that growth.
  So not only is this a fundamentally sound, fair, and thoughtful thing 
to do for millions of American families, it is also good for our 
economy. It does provide the growth my colleagues are talking about 
when they say we have to grow this economy.
  There is much more that we could do. Many of my Republican 
colleagues, who have come to provide their insights and support, have 
suggested longer term ways in which we could deal with the unemployment 
crisis--better training programs, et cetera. Indeed, we have a 
bipartisan Workforce Investment Act reauthorization that is in the HELP 
Committee that I hope we can get to the floor quickly because we have 
to reform our overall job training program in this country. As I go out 
and talk to businessmen and women in Rhode Island, they say there is a 
disconnect between the skill set many people have and the skills they 
need for their workplace.
  There is another aspect of this situation. The long-term unemployed 
numbers in this country today are twice as high as they are typically 
when we have ended unemployment benefits previously. We have a 
significant problem and a growing problem of the long-term unemployed.
  Again, we will wait for the data to be conclusive and decisive, but 
my sense is, going back to Rhode Island, many of these individuals are 
in their middle ages--they are 40 and 50 years old. They have worked 
for 20 years. They have good work records, but the skills that 
employers are looking for right now are not immediately those skills 
that they have. Of course, there are job training options available, 
but all of these things require support. Again, if you are juggling 
family responsibilities and trying to get job training, that $300 a 
week benefit check you have earned through your previous work is very 
helpful as you prepare yourself for a new job.
  This legislation can't be delayed any longer. This is not about some 
political demonstration or some political messaging point; this is 
about getting aid and assistance to 2.3 million Americans today. And 
that number will grow with each passing day. It is about helping people 
who earned this benefit through their work.
  I can't think of anything more important that we can do--and do it in 
a timely and prompt manner. That is why I hope we can move forward as 
quickly as possible on a bipartisan basis with fully paid for 
legislation which is fiscally responsible, which will provide 
assistance for millions of deserving Americans and in addition provide 
further stimulus to our economy.
  A final point. Why does this provide a stimulus to the economy? 
Because these types of benefits go to a former worker, someone looking 
for work, and they go right back in the economy. This is not a 
sophisticated tax break that will allow someone to put some money aside 
for a rainy day. This goes right to the families, right to the 
economy--to the local grocery store, to the local gas station for the 
repairs of a car, to pay for daycare that is necessary for children--to 
do those things that will go right back and stimulate further growth in 
our economy.
  For reasons both of fundamental fairness and individual recognition 
that these people deserve a break in a tough economy and the very real 
fact that this dramatically benefits our overall economy, I think we 
have to move.
  I am pleased and proud that we have had the support of our colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to move forward procedurally. I hope we can 
finish this debate promptly, move this over to the House, and then 
begin to work with the House so they recognize the same reality that on 
a bipartisan basis we have recognized here.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, yesterday President Obama held an 
event at the White House to talk about his health care law. The 
President said:

       The debate over repealing this law is over--the Affordable 
     Care Act is here to stay.

  That is what President Obama said yesterday. Of course, last October 
President Obama said his health care law was ``the law of the land.'' 
Then he went ahead and changed or delayed the law more than 20 times 
after that--on his own, without coming to Congress. If it is the law of 
the land, how does he get to change the law of the land 20 times?
  Back on March 6, President Obama said the Democrats' health care law 
is ``working the way it should.'' Well, if the law is working the way 
it should, why do people in Wyoming keep telling me how bad the law is 
for them personally?
  Just the other day I heard from a woman in Rawlins, WY. She wrote:

       My husband has been self-employed at a small truck driving 
     company servicing the oil and gas fields in [Wyoming] for 
     over 13 years. We have always purchased individual healthcare 
     coverage for our family of five. We currently pay $906.87 for 
     that coverage.


[[Page 5428]]


  She said:

       The lowest priced ACA Bronze plan will increase our premium 
     to $1359 per month, an increase of $452 per month--an amount 
     we cannot currently absorb. This is not affordable. Why is 
     [President] Obama doing this to us?

  That is a good question. Why are Democrats here in Washington doing 
this to families such as this woman's family in Wyoming? Why does 
President Obama think his law is working the way it should?
  Well, the Senate Democratic majority leader, Senator Reid, said here 
on the floor of the Senate back on February 26 that the law is going 
great. The majority leader said, ``Despite all the good news, there's 
plenty of horror stories being told.'' He went on to say: ``All are 
untrue, but they're being told all over America.''
  ``All are untrue,'' he said here on the floor.
  The majority leader added that all of the stories were ``made up from 
whole cloth, lies distorted by the Republicans to grab headlines or 
make political advertisements.''
  Why does Senator Reid think this woman in Rawlins, WY, is making up a 
story out of whole cloth?
  Remember, the President also said that if you like your insurance, 
you can keep it. He said that if you like your doctor, you can keep 
your doctor. He said people's health care costs were going to be $2,500 
lower by now. So the President has said a lot of things that turned out 
not to be accurate. Now the President says his health care law is here 
to stay.
  Given the President's history, I think it is fair to get a second 
opinion. As a doctor who has practiced medicine for 25 years, taking 
care of families in Wyoming, I come to the floor to tell you that I 
bring my medical experience, along with my colleague's experience, 
Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma. He and I have put together a report 
that looks at some of the promises Democrats have made about the law 
and some of the things Republicans have said about it. The report is 
called ``Prognosis.'' It came out April 2014 and is available today on 
Senator Coburn's Web site at www.coburn.senate.gov or on my site at 
www.barrasso.senate.gov.
  What we have done is come out with a report going through three 
different previous reports that, as doctors, we have put out watching 
the health care law as it has been developing. Each of the reports--one 
called ``Bad Medicine,'' one called ``Grim Diagnosis,'' and one called 
``Warning: Side Effects''--was released between 2010 and 2012. We grade 
ourselves now on how the predictions we have made over the last 4 years 
have turned out.
  In the first prediction we made--report No. 1, ``Bad Medicine''--we 
warned that millions of Americans could lose their health insurance 
plans.
  The headlines all across the country show that over 5 million 
Americans did, in fact, get letters that they lost their health 
insurance plan--health insurance which they liked, which worked for 
them, something they chose and they lost because the President said it 
wasn't good enough. He said he knew more about what they needed for 
themselves and their families than they did. So we predicted 4 years 
ago that millions would lose their health insurance plans, and millions 
did.
  We warned that the law's new mandates would increase health costs and 
obviously increase the cost of insurance. That original diagnosis is 
confirmed as well.
  Like the letter I just read from the family in Rawlins, WY, families 
all across Wyoming and all across the country are seeing incredible 
increases in the cost of their insurance. They are paying more, and in 
their opinion they are getting worse insurance--the President said 
better; I say worse--because they are having to pay for a lot of things 
that they don't need, don't want, and will never use. Yet the President 
says he knows better than they do about what kind of insurance they 
need and what is best for them and their families. They are also being 
faced with higher copays, higher deductibles, and higher out-of-pocket 
costs.
  We warned additionally that short-term fixes threaten seniors' long-
term access to care.
  That is actually exactly what happened. The health care law took $500 
billion out of the Medicare Program--a program to take care of our 
seniors--not to strengthen Medicare, not to help our seniors, but to 
start a whole new government program for other people. For those 14 
million Americans on Medicare Advantage, a program for which there are 
advantages--preventive care, coordinated care, things one would want--
well, that has been dramatically hurt by the President's decision to 
take money away from the very popular Medicare Advantage plan.
  We warned that patients with preexisting conditions would still face 
care restrictions.
  I listened to the President's speech. I read editorials written by 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle as recently as last week that 
said people with preexisting conditions are all being protected. That 
is not true. We know of patients who because of their condition have 
had to leave the State in which they live to get specialty care in 
other States. And when they lost their insurance and bought insurance 
through the plans of their State, their children with cystic fibrosis 
seeking specialty care in Boston are excluded from doing that under the 
plan because the insurance was bought in the State in which they live 
and the insurance they got did not cover any out-of-State physicians. 
So children have been hurt by the President's health care law, and we 
can identify those young victims of the President's health care law.
  We warned that the individual mandate would fail with the IRS as an 
enforcer.
  The IRS even admits they don't have a whole mechanism put together to 
make sure the mandate to fine Americans for not buying a government-
approved product would be collected by the IRS.
  We warned that new IRS taxes would harm small businesses.
  That initial diagnosis is now confirmed. Small businesses are 
impacted all across the country by additional expenses and costs, 
making it much harder for them to provide insurance to their workers. 
Many looking at this are saying that it might be cheaper to pay the 
fine than to do what we would like to do and have done in the past, 
which is provide insurance that worked for those employers and their 
employees but perhaps doesn't meet the President's recommendations of 
what many people say is much more insurance than they will ever need, 
want, use, or can afford.
  The second report we came out with a number of years ago is called 
``Grim Diagnosis.'' In that, we went through a number of concerns we 
had about the health care law after the initial report ``Bad 
Medicine.''
  ``Grim Diagnosis'' provided warnings that the employer mandate would 
lower incomes and result in hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost.
  We are still watching that one very carefully because we do know that 
with the employer mandate, there have been stories of businesses with 
50 employees saying: We are going to have to get below 50. We are not 
going to hire more people. We have to get below that number.
  The President is working to maybe make that a higher number, but no 
matter where that number line is drawn, people are finding that from a 
business standpoint, there are advantages to being below a certain 
number of employees and then not having to comply with the expensive 
mandates of the law.
  We warned that the law included a risky insurance scheme that would 
cost taxpayers dearly.
  That original diagnosis is confirmed as well with something called 
the CLASS Act. Folks who looked at it carefully on both sides of the 
aisle called it a Ponzi scheme--a Ponzi scheme--that would never work, 
could not be afforded. They said it was something Bernie Madoff would 
even be proud of. Yet the Democrats forced it into the health care law 
in spite of warnings against it.
  Our final report was called ``Warning: Side Effects,'' released in 
2012. We started talking about the side effects of the health care law. 
We warned that

[[Page 5429]]

the law includes hundreds of billions of dollars of tax hikes.
  Well, that has been confirmed. All one has to do is look at the list 
of new taxes brought on by the health care law. It goes on and on with 
one new tax after another. These are taxes on real people that get 
passed on to others if they are applied to a business, totaling $1 
trillion in gross tax increases over the next 10 years, from 2013 to 
2022.
  We warned that the new insurance cooperatives would waste taxpayer 
dollars.
  That is exactly what this report confirms. It goes State by State, 
where we see significant wasting of money, as reported in the 
Washington Post and in USA TODAY.
  We warned that the medical device tax would stifle innovation.
  That original diagnosis has been confirmed as well. We see the 
medical device tax, which, when we talked about it as part of a budget 
amendment, there was bipartisan support for repealing it. Why aren't we 
voting to repeal it when it matters, when we could actually get this 
repealed? The Senate majority leader continues to block a vote on that.
  So I come to the floor, the day after the President held his 
``mission accomplished'' speech at the White House, to say that the 
prognosis for this health care law continues to be grim, the points we 
have made throughout continue to be true, and the people all across the 
country are experiencing it day-to-day.
  They are experiencing it in their lives. They are experiencing it 
when they try to continue health insurance that works for their family. 
They are paying more out of pocket. Their premiums are higher. They may 
not be able to keep the doctor they had and liked. They may not be able 
to go to the hospital they had gone to previously.
  It is interesting that in the State of New Hampshire where there are 
28 hospitals, 10 of them are excluded--10 of the 28 hospitals in the 
State of New Hampshire are excluded--from the insurance being offered 
on that State's exchange to be sold in that State. Even the doctor who 
is the chief of staff of one of those hospitals--well, her insurance 
does not permit her to go to the very hospital where she is the chief 
of staff. Is this what the Democrats had in mind when they passed this 
health care law, people paying more in premiums, people losing their 
doctors, not having access to the hospitals in their community, higher 
copays, higher deductibles? That is what the American people are 
facing.
  It is time for the President of the United States to acknowledge the 
pain that his health care law has caused people across the country. I 
know he watches the polls, and the polls continue to show that for 
every one person who says they may have been helped by the health care 
law there are more than two people who say they have been harmed.
  People knew we needed health care reform in this country, and they 
knew the reason. People knew what they wanted. They wanted the care 
they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs.
  This health care law has failed to deliver to the American people 
what they wanted, what they asked for, and instead is trying to deal 
day-to-day with something the Democrats in this Senate and in the House 
shoved down the throats of the American people.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 30 minutes as if in morning business and to engage in a colloquy 
with the Senator from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COONS. Madam President, I come to the floor again today to talk 
about good jobs and how we can work together in a responsible and 
bipartisan way to create high-quality and lasting middle-class jobs. 
All of us hear from our home States about how they want us to work 
together to produce for America today and America tomorrow.
  As someone who worked for 8 years for a manufacturing company in the 
private sector before going into public service, I can tell you we can 
win in manufacturing. We can learn from our competitors, we can 
strengthen our workforce, we can strengthen our access to foreign 
markets, and we can strengthen our access to credit. We can do all of 
it and we can compete and win in advanced manufacturing in the United 
States.
  One of the aspects of my own experience in the private sector that 
has stayed with me is that more of our manufacturing employment was in 
Germany than any other single country, and that often seems unlikely 
given that Germany actually has higher labor costs, labor protections, 
environmental protections, and in many ways a higher cost of doing 
business than almost any other advanced country. So how is it possible 
they are so successful? In fact, more than twice the percentage of 
their GDP is in manufacturing than is the case in the United States.
  Why would we fight for manufacturing jobs? Why would we fight to 
emulate Germany's example? Because manufacturing jobs are great jobs. 
As the Presiding Officer and our colleague from Maine know, 
manufacturing jobs are high skill, high wage, high benefit, and have a 
positive impact on their surrounding community. They also need 
something. They need ongoing R&D, cutting-edge research, continuous 
improvement and innovations in order to remain at the cutting edge of 
productivity.
  What we are going to talk about on the floor today is a bill that 
learns from the lessons of our most successful European competitor, 
Germany. Germany has more than 60 manufacturing hubs located all over 
their country. These manufacturing hubs are in places where 
universities are doing cutting-edge technical research and companies 
are beginning to deploy these new technologies in manufacturing and the 
workforce that are needed to acquire the skills to be successful in 
these new areas of manufacturing all work in coordination. That is 
something we can, by working in a bipartisan way here in this Senate, 
advance, and advance rapidly, here in the United States.
  The Senator from Maine and I are going to talk about a bill--the 
Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act--which has 14 
cosponsors and is an indication of its broad base of bipartisan 
support. It has long been led by Senators Brown of Ohio and Blunt of 
Missouri, a bipartisan team, and to that they have added a great 
initial leadership team with Senator Stabenow, Senator Levin, Senator 
Reed, and Senator Schumer, all Democrats, as well as Senator Graham, 
Senator Kirk, Senator Collins, Senator Wicker, and Senator Boozman, all 
Republicans. Most recently our wonderful colleague, Senator Angus King 
of Maine, an Independent, has joined us.
  This bill has been endorsed by folks ranging from the National 
Association of Manufacturers to the U.S. Conference of Mayors to the 
United Auto Workers, and many more organizations at the national and 
local level, which is another indicator of how diverse its support is 
from across the country and many different sectors. This is a bill I 
have reason to hope can not just get a lot of endorsements from the 
private sector and not just a lot of endorsements from cosponsors here 
in the Senate but can actually move through regular order to be taken 
up and considered by the committee of jurisdiction, to be taken up here 
on the floor, and actually signed into law by the President of the 
United States. I am hopeful that could happen partly because this is 
good policy.
  There are already a number of hubs that have been established by 
Federal agencies spending money that has already been authorized and 
appropriated for specific research areas where the

[[Page 5430]]

Department of Energy and the Department of Defense need to do work to 
develop cutting-edge manufacturing capacity in the United States.
  I think if this law gets taken up on a bipartisan basis and is 
improved, refined, and debated in committee and here on the floor, we 
actually have a shot at advancing a process that will be wide open and 
will allow elements of the Federal Government, in partnership with the 
private sector, to leverage cutting-edge research and deploy whole new 
technologies across this country.
  I am excited by it, and I know my colleague is as well. I will 
briefly state why Senator King is a great colleague to join all of us 
who have served as sponsors on this bill. He has previously worked in 
the private sector in clean energy. He has previously served as the 
Governor of the State of Maine and worked closely with the University 
of Maine and has a sense of how publicly funded research at a cutting-
edge university, investment in workforce skills, and the deployment of 
new and innovative technologies in clean energy can work together to 
grow manufacturing, grow job opportunities, and grow our economy.
  I invite my colleague to address his experience in Maine and why he 
has joined this broad group of cosponsors on this promising and 
bipartisan manufacturing bill.
  Mr. KING. I thank my colleague from Delaware for his leadership on 
this issue. He has been indefatigable. He has been very strong on this 
issue. I think it is one of the most important issues that faces us.
  I am not an economist; I am a country lawyer from Maine, but one of 
the things I know about any economy is you can't build an economy by 
taking in each other's laundry. Somebody somewhere has to make 
something, and that is the basis of wealth creation. Somehow in the 
1980s, 1990s, and the early part of this century, we sort of lost sight 
of that and manufacturing took an enormous hit. We lost 32 percent of 
our manufacturing jobs in the decade from 2000 to 2010. We lost 42,000 
factories--not people, 42,000 factories. Manufacturing was literally 
withering away in this country.
  I think a lot of people sort of wrung their hands and said: Oh, well, 
I guess that is just the way of the world. It is all going to Asia, 
China, and Mexico. It is going to low-wage countries, and that is just 
the way it works.
  The problem is, as my colleague from Delaware pointed out, Germany 
has gone in the opposite direction, and their country has the same 
standard of living, the same labor standards, the same employment cost 
levels, and yet 20 percent of their economy is based upon 
manufacturing; whereas, it is only 10 or 11 percent in this country. So 
that tells me it is not impossible. It tells me there is an opportunity 
here and that we can't just lay back and say: Well, I guess that is 
going to go away. Woe is us. That is never the way to seize the future.
  Why do it? The Senator from Delaware said it: Better pay. In Maine, 
in looking at the data, employees in manufacturing on average make 
twice as much as employees in other areas--twice as much. There is a 
tremendous difference in pay, and of course a better difference in 
benefits. There is also a bigger multiplier for manufacturing. 
Manufacturing creates more jobs down the line and around a 
manufacturing facility. It is important for national security.
  We are in danger of losing our industrial base, which is part of our 
national security infrastructure. If we can no longer make things--
whether it is destroyers at Bath Iron Works or jet airplanes or 
uniforms or boots or other things that are necessary to support our 
national security apparatus--we are in trouble, and that is a danger to 
our country. That is a national security danger because if we are 
dependent upon other countries that may or may not be our friends for 
essential components of our national security infrastructure, that is a 
very dangerous and risky place to be. That is not often talked about, 
but the maintenance of manufacturing jobs in the United States is a 
critical part of our industrial base and a part of our national 
security strategy.
  Manufacturing allows for more exporting. It brings money into our 
country. Eighty-three percent of the exports from Maine come out of the 
manufacturing sector, and that is bringing money into our country 
rather than sending it out to other countries.
  Also, I think it is very important to remember that this is a way of 
dealing with what I think is one of the most serious issues of our 
time, which is income inequality. It is the widening gap between those 
at the top and those at the bottom, and what is really a concern is the 
stagnation, and, in fact, the decline of the American middle class.
  Manufacturing was the path into the middle class for our parents and 
grandparents. The manufacturing resurgence after World War II--by the 
way, part of that resurgence was based upon the GI bill, probably the 
greatest economic development program ever fostered by any government 
anywhere in the world--which helped to create the middle class is in 
danger. One of the ways to preserve and strengthen the middle class--
and to deal with this problem of income inequality--is more 
manufacturing and more of those good jobs.
  This is the 100th anniversary of one of the most amazing and 
transformative actions in American corporate history. The year was 1914 
when Henry Ford doubled the pay of all of his workers. Everybody was 
astonished. His competitors were aghast. The advocates of unbridled 
capitalism said: How can he do this? Henry Ford was a genius in many 
ways. But one of his insights was he wanted his workers to be able to 
buy his products, and one of the problems in our economy today is a 
lack of demand. The people of the middle class don't have enough income 
to buy the products and it becomes a downward spiral. It is a lack of 
demand that is truly at the heart of the weakness of the current 
economy, and it is because people don't have good enough jobs and they 
are not being paid enough.
  Henry Ford realized if he paid his workers more--and, by the way, 
that munificent sum in 1914 was $5 a day, but it was a doubling of what 
the rate of pay was everywhere else in American society at that time. 
That was a huge breakthrough intellectually, economically, and socially 
for this country.
  OK. We talked about the losses. There is some good news. In the last 
2\1/2\ years we have gained 500,000 jobs. We lost 6 million in that 
decade, but now we have gained 500,000 back. So something is happening. 
A lot of different things are happening. The low price of natural gas I 
think is helping to rejuvenate manufacturing. I know it is in Maine. I 
think there is more innovation happening around the country. People are 
realizing--I have talked to manufacturers who have been offshore and 
have come back because they said the offshore factory was a little 
cheaper, the labor costs were less, but the hassle factor was higher, 
and what I have learned is I can control costs, I can control 
transportation, I can control time limits better if the manufacturing 
is in the United States.
  So what do we do? What do we do if we want to increase manufacturing? 
We can't wave a wand here in Washington. We can't say, well, go out and 
create jobs. We have to create an atmosphere where we can create jobs.
  When my little girl Molly, who is not so little anymore, was in the 
third grade, I used to teach her things with pneumonics. I would say 
the three Xs or the three Ys or whatever. In this case, if she were 
here and she were still in the third grade, I would say it is the four 
Ps, Molly. It is the four Ps that are going to make this happen. The 
first is a plan. Nothing happens without a strategy or a vision or a 
plan. This bill has a vision of how to link innovation and the American 
economy and manufacturing in such a way as to create and rejuvenate 
this sector. A plan--we have to start with a plan or a vision.
  The second P is partnerships, and this bill is based on partnerships. 
Nothing good happens without partnerships. It is based upon linking the 
academic world with the manufacturing world with government; putting 
those partnerships together, mostly universities

[[Page 5431]]

and manufacturing, to create innovation, to create new jobs, to create 
new ways of building wealth. We don't have to look much further than 
Silicon Valley in California. That is a perfect example of a natural 
born innovation hub built around several knowledge factories: Stanford 
University, University of California, University of San Francisco. 
Knowledge factories, together with manufacturers, created one of the 
greatest hotbeds--probably the greatest hotbed--of innovation, 
creativity, and new wealth creation in the history of this country and 
perhaps in the history of the world. We want to create these kinds of 
hubs all over the country, putting together the academic community and 
the business community to develop the capacity for innovation and 
creativity.
  I should mention--it is not part of this bill, but the other thing I 
think we have to do a lot of thinking about is the skills gap. I got a 
call right after my election from a chamber of commerce director in 
southern Maine and he said: Senator, we want you to come down and talk 
about jobs.
  I said: Oh, OK. I will. And I was prepared to talk about how to 
create jobs and add jobs.
  He said: No, no, it is not that. The problem is we have 500 jobs and 
we can't fill them. These are good-paying jobs in manufacturing, and we 
can't fill them because the people we need aren't available with the 
skills we need. There is a mismatch.
  I believe one of the things we have to do around here is think hard 
about all the programs--I think there are something like 59 different 
Federal job training programs--how to integrate them, coordinate them, 
and focus them on business-ready jobs, not 10-years-ago jobs but the 
jobs of today. Therefore, I think the coordination and cooperation 
between business and the job training infrastructure has to be much 
closer than it is today.
  That gets me to S. 1468. I think it is a wonderful idea. One of the 
best parts of it is that it is bipartisan. This is an idea that is 
supported--Sherrod Brown and Roy Blunt were the spearheads of it, and 
then we have people such as Roger Wicker, the Senator from Mississippi, 
and the Senator from Delaware; we have a good bipartisan group from 
around the country geographically and across party lines. This is what 
we have to do. Why is it so important? Because what drives new 
manufacturing jobs is innovation.
  When I was Governor of Maine, somebody gave me a cap and on it it 
said ``innovate or die.'' Bill Gates once famously said: Every product 
we make today is going to be obsolete in 5 years. The only question is 
whether we make it obsolete or someone else does.
  Innovation is the heart of this economy. That is why we have to put 
together the knowledge factories with the production factories--the 
knowledge factories, the universities, such as the University of Maine, 
that has the advanced composites lab that has created amazing new ways 
to deal with composites. One of their creations is the bridge and a 
backpack. The bridge and a backpack is a composite system which I have 
seen in action. They are long tubes made of fiberglass. You spread the 
tubes out, fill them with concrete, mold them into the shape you want, 
and in about 3 or 4 days you have a bridge, and you put the deck over 
it. It is a wonderful system. It came out of the University of Maine 
and now it is being used across the country.
  The other piece I like about this is that it isn't a government 
program. Government is the catalyst, the convener, the pulling together 
of these hubs, and that is, I think, our function. We shouldn't be 
doing it. We shouldn't be steering it, but we should be launching it, 
and that is what this bill is all about. Does it solve all the problems 
of manufacturing? Of course not. There are dozens of things we have to 
do in order to support this industry, whether it is tax reform, job 
training or innovation hubs and more support for R&D. All of those we 
have to do, but I think this is one of the most important, and we don't 
have to guess about it. It works in Germany. They have twice the role 
for manufacturing in their economy as we do. It works. So let's see 
what we can do here with the same idea.
  I compliment the Senator from Delaware and the others who have led 
this bill, and I am delighted to be able to tag along. I think this is 
a great idea. It truly can make a difference, and I think we will see 
that difference in the coming years.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COONS. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Maine for 
sharing his personal experience both as Governor and for his work and 
partnership with the University of Maine and their composites center 
and his understanding of the importance of a modern, skilled workforce 
in order to take advantage of the work we are hoping to catalyze 
through this bill.
  I wish to summarize across three large areas. This bill, if enacted, 
would take advantage of linkages, leverage, and labor in a way that 
would grow lasting middle-class jobs. All of us want to work together 
to find a way to give American workers and families a fair shot, to 
give them a fair shot at the kind of middle-class quality of life that 
dominated over the last 50 years. As my colleague said, it was because 
of the GI bill and its investment in education, it was because of 
innovation and competitiveness, and it was because of a skilled 
workforce that we were able to dominate the world in manufacturing for 
much of the last 50 years of the last century. If we are to seize this 
moment and regain our global leadership not just in the productivity 
sector of our manufacturing but also in the base, in the employment of 
our manufacturing, we have to do the sorts of things this bill 
imagines.
  We have research being done in national labs, in federally funded 
national labs--fundamental research. That is wonderful. We have applied 
research on composites being done at the University of Delaware and at 
the University of Maine and every other State university that does 
higher research. We have manufacturers trying to take advantage of new 
technologies and new opportunities. This bill will link them all 
together to create regional hubs that allow the researchers, the 
private sector, and the new employees to all come together.
  It also, as my colleague mentioned, leverages private sector funds. 
Every one of the four hubs announced to date is a more than a 1-to-1 
match; 2 or 4 or, in one case, 8-to-1 match of private sector dollars 
to public sector dollars.
  Last, it invests heavily in training and in skills and making sure 
the workforce is ready as these new technologies get out there.
  I wish to describe the reach of some of these linkages and 
partnerships for a moment. Let me take a second and take a walking 
tour, if I could, of the four hubs that have been finalized so far.
  For example, the one in Youngstown, OH, deals with 3D manufacturing. 
This is a relatively new, cutting-edge technology that radically alters 
the scale of early stage manufacturing and what is possible in terms of 
prototyping, and then, I think fairly soon, what is possible in terms 
of customized, unit-by-unit manufacturing. It has enormous promise. But 
if we are going to stay competitive globally in manufacturing, when 
there is something new invented in the United States, we have to also 
make sure it is made in the United States. So this is the sort of hub 
that makes that possible.
  There are four hubs, and I will mention them briefly: the one in 
Ohio, the one in Raleigh, NC, the one in Detroit, and the one in 
Chicago. But they don't just engage the universities and the workforce 
and the companies right in that immediate community. They benefit from 
national networks. For example, General Dynamics and Honeywell are two 
of the very large national footprint firms partnering with the 
Youngstown hub. Universities from Arizona State to Florida State are 
collaborating in the wide bandgap semiconductor work in Raleigh, NC. 
Researchers from the University of Kentucky, the University of 
Tennessee, Notre Dame, and Ohio State are partners with the hub that is 
in Detroit. There are researchers from Boulder, Indiana, Notre Dame, 
Louisville, Iowa,

[[Page 5432]]

Nebraska, UT, Austin, and Wisconsin that are partnering with the hub in 
Chicago.
  So what are these hubs? Are they just some diffuse academic teams 
that share names and a little bit of data with each other? No. If there 
were, for example, to be a hub in Maine on composites, we would find 
researchers at the University of Delaware who have done great work in 
composites and companies doing work in composites partnering with the 
fundamental research being done, let's say, hypothetically, at the 
University of Maine, and learning about how to deploy that new 
technology in ways that would benefit the local workforce and the local 
manufacturers.
  That is why there is so much leverage coming out of these linkages. 
That is why these hubs have been so generative and so powerful in 
Germany's experience. It is a way to harness our Federal investment in 
research by the national labs and by State universities with the energy 
of the private sector and the capacity of our manufacturers to 
relentlessly innovate.
  We have a very broad menu of bipartisan manufacturing bills that have 
been taken up and discussed in this Chamber. This one--this 
manufacturing hubs bill--has some of the broadest support and I think 
some of the best reasons for it to be considered in committee and taken 
up on this floor later this spring. It is my real hope our colleagues 
will join us in doing so.
  Let me yield back to my colleague from Maine.
  Mr. KING. I like the Senator's suggestion of a hub in Maine involving 
composites. Could we write that in the bill? I wouldn't object to that 
amendment.
  Mr. COONS. If there is a footnote that says ``and Delaware.''
  Mr. KING. I think this is such an important idea, and in my comments 
I outlined how we get here. We start with a vision or a plan which the 
bill entails, and we start with partnerships, which is truly the 
essence of the bill, but there are two more pieces. There are two more 
Ps. One is perseverance. Any Member of this body knows about 
perseverance. That is what this place is all about. We have to stick to 
it. We have to not take no for an answer. We have to listen to our 
colleagues to find out how they feel about the bill and try to form a 
consensus and then move this bill through.
  Last Friday was the 100th birthday of Ed Muskie of Maine. Ed Muskie 
was the father of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. Talk about 
perseverance. He spent 2 years, hundreds of hearings, hundreds of hours 
of markup and ended up with that bill passing the Senate unanimously--
unanimously. That is a monument to perseverance.
  Normally, I would say those are the three Ps: plan, partnership, and 
perseverance, but I think there is one more, and I am sure my colleague 
from Delaware agrees with me.
  Nothing is going to happen without passion. We have to care about 
this. The people of America have to care about this. We have to say 
that this is something we are going to do. We are going to rebuild the 
manufacturing centers that made this country what it was--a sector that 
made this country what it was. We are going to have to do it with 
passion and commitment. I believe this bill is an opportunity to 
restart that process.
  It will, and as I mentioned earlier, it can change us and provide 
benefits everywhere from higher wages to better national security to a 
stronger middle class. A plan, a partnership, perseverance, and 
passion--that is what changes the world.
  Mr. COONS. I thank my colleague for joining me in this colloquy on 
manufacturing, both broadly and more specifically on this bill. I am 
grateful for the leadership that Senator Stabenow and Senator Graham, 
as the cochairs of the Senate Manufacturing Caucus, have shown on this 
particular bill and the passion and the perseverance that Senators 
Brown and Blunt have shown in bringing this great idea into legislative 
form and in advancing it.
  There are so many other bills that we can and should take up that 
will bring strength and vitality to the American manufacturing sector. 
But it is my real hope that S. 1468, the Revitalize American 
Manufacturing and Innovation Act will be the next in a series of 
important bipartisan manufacturing bills that we will take up to make 
sure we are doing our job to help grow high quality American jobs.
  I yield the floor.


                         Reinstated Amendments

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair was in error in striking down 
amendments Nos. 2877 and 2878. Those amendments are reinstated.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to talk a little bit today about 
the Affordable Care Act and its benefit to America's women. I want to 
thank Senators Murphy, Boxer, and Whitehouse who have organized a few 
of us to come to the floor today. They will be on the floor later this 
afternoon.
  But with so much discussion in the news about the recent completion 
of the March enrollment period--over 7 million people enrolled in the 
Affordable Care Act through the exchanges--I feel it is a good time to 
look at some of the benefits of the ACA, but also where there is more 
work to do.
  I know the Presiding Officer has been very focused on ``where there 
is more work to do.'' I applaud the Presiding Officer for that. I will 
talk about some of those issues as well. But first, let me start with a 
couple of Virginia stories because we hear stories from our 
constituents about the Affordable Care Act.
  There is a 27-year-old woman in Charlottesville who was diagnosed 
with uterine cancer. Before the ACA, her previous insurance plan 
refused to cover her surgery because cancer was a preexisting 
condition. She is now enrolled in a health plan under the ACA, and her 
doctor and hospital where she is planning the surgery were confirmed to 
be in the provider network.
  In Alexandria, VA, there is a woman by the name of Aqualyn Laury. She 
is 43 years old. She suffered a stroke and a heart attack at a young 
age and had been on a preexisting condition insurance plan that was 
extremely expensive for some time. With her coverage scheduled to end, 
Aqualyn recently enrolled in coverage through the health insurance 
marketplace. She found a plan through the marketplace with a reputable 
company with a premium of approximately $245 a month, with copays and 
deductibles that were easy to understand.
  Angelette Harrell from Norfolk was able to purchase a plan on the 
exchange. Now, she had a problem with ACA because she could not work 
the Web site. But she did not give up. She called the phone number. She 
was able to find a plan that is $85 a month with a tax credit. She 
works in a care facility for adults with autism. She says she could not 
afford a plan that would have been $280 a month without the tax credit. 
Because she is under 200 percent of the poverty level, she gets a 
credit, and she gets a plan for $85 a month. That makes her a more 
reliable employee. She said: ``It felt great. I finally got insured.''
  She was able to enroll. I will tell a story about another great 
Virginia woman, my wife, and her experience with the Affordable Care 
Act. We had to buy insurance on the open market for the first time as a 
family in the summer of 2012. Like any good husband who wants to get 
something done right, I asked my wife to do it.
  My wife comparison shopped with a couple of insurance companies. Two 
insurance companies told my wife: We can give you insurance, but we can 
only give you insurance for four of your five family members because of 
preexisting conditions--one because of me and one because of one of my 
kids. We have to be about the healthiest family in the United States. 
The only hospitalizations our family of five have ever had are the 
three times for child birth for my wife.
  Yet insurance companies told her when she called in that we--boy, I 
tell you, do not tell my wife we can insure four of your five family 
members--an important safety tip. They told her that. She said: That is 
now against the law.
  The company said: No, it is not. This is what we do.

[[Page 5433]]

  Well, talk to your supervisor and call me back. It is against the 
law.
  The company had to call back in both instances within a few hours and 
say: You are right. It is against the law. Here is a quote for your 
entire family.
  The ACA is helping women and families in all circumstances, people 
who are working in low-income jobs and cannot afford insurance or 
people who are well off like me but need protection from the former 
practice of denying people for preexisting conditions.
  Here are some ways the ACA works for women in particular. The law 
eliminates the ability of insurers to charge higher rates due to 
gender. Do you know that the unfair practice of charging women more, a 
gender rating system, was resulting in women in this country paying $1 
billion more in annual premiums than men prior to the passing of the 
ACA. That is now illegal. Nearly 30 million women are receiving free 
coverage for comprehensive women's preventive services, including 
diabetes, cancer screening, contraception, and family planning. That is 
an important benefit for women.
  Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, both women and men are free from 
lifetime annual limits on insurance coverage in 10 essential health 
benefits, like hospital visits and prescription drugs. It is not only 
about health, the ACA is also helping the financial health of women and 
families. Insurance companies under the ACA are now subject to a 
national rate review provision if they want to increase premiums higher 
than 10 percent. In 2012 alone, those rate reviews saved 6.8 million 
Americans an estimated $1.2 billion in premiums just in 1 year.
  Insurance companies are also required to spend their premium dollars 
in a smart way. They have to spend at least 80 percent of premium 
dollars on patient care and quality improvement. That is at least 85 
percent for large insurers. In 2013--just in calendar year 2013--8.5 
million Americans received rebates averaging $100 per family because of 
this particular provision.
  An estimated 3.1 million young Americans are able to stay on family 
policies--that is also affecting my family in a positive way--up until 
age 26. Families with incomes between 100 and 400 percent of the 
poverty line are eligible for tax credits. So as an example, a family 
of four in Virginia making $50,000 can access a health plan with 
premiums as low as $48 a month--health care for your family for less 
than your cell phone bill, for less than your cable bill. This is 
remarkable. Plans are required to limit family's out-of-pocket health 
care costs to less than $12,700 a year.
  Like the Presiding Officer, I am a fixer; I am not a repealer. I 
think there are a lot of fixings that are still needed in the 
Affordable Care Act and, frankly, in our health care system generally, 
not just in the ACA. There is more that we can do to make the ACA work 
better for women and families.
  Medicaid expansion is an example, a critical step that my State, 
Virginia, has yet to take. Without Medicaid expansion, uninsured women 
will face a coverage gap. With Medicaid expansion, over 400,000 
Virginians will receive health care coverage. The ACA was designed to 
provide subsidies and tax credits to individuals and families who are 
making between 138 and 400 percent of the poverty level. But without 
Medicaid expansion, it is these families--working people--who remain 
uninsured.
  We also have to work on some proposals to continue to improve 
affordability and choice for all consumers. The Presiding Officer has 
led an effort with others to put a number of positive reforms on the 
table. Let me mention a couple that I am very excited about: The 
Expanded Consumer Choice Act, S. 1729, would create a new tier of 
coverage, copper plans, and would give people shopping for health 
insurance more options to meet their family's needs.
  Everybody's financial and health situation is different. So more 
options are great because that gives people more ability to meet their 
particular needs. That is a very important piece of legislation. The 
Presiding Officer played a leadership role in it.
  I supported expanding the small business tax credit to incentivize 
more businesses to participate in the tax credit program, to make it 
easier to access and easier for the small businesses to use. One I am 
particularly focused on is that we need to close the family glitch 
loophole. That is not a technical term, the family glitch loophole. The 
Affordable Care Act says an employee is eligible for subsidized health 
coverage through the new exchanges if their employer does not offer 
``affordable coverage'', which is defined as more than 9.5 percent of 
the employee's household income.
  But the way the law is written, the affordability definition only 
applies to the price for the employee, not for the family coverage that 
an employer may offer. So if an employer does not offer affordable 
family coverage, there is no eligibility for a subsidy for that 
particular very important coverage, since most people's families are 
covered through their employer plan. I think that is an important thing 
we should fix.
  So look. There are plenty of things to fix. There are plenty of 
things about our health care system outside of the Affordable Care Act 
that we ought to be focusing on and fixing. But repealing the 
Affordable Care Act, as some colleagues in this body and in the House 
continue to advocate, would mean turning back on all of these advances: 
Letting women be discriminated against because of gender, letting 
families be turned away because of preexisting conditions, saying to 
folks: Do not worry, you are not going to get a rebate; we can charge 
whatever premium we want.
  The last thing we need to do is repeal the ACA or to go into the 
homes of nearly 10 million Americans who have received coverage and 
yank that coverage back from them and put them back out into the 
wilderness of the individual market where they were not protected 
before. What we need to do is to be embrace the good and embrace the 
fixes to make it better. That is what I certainly intend to do working 
with my colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator 
from Virginia. I think they were timely and important. I wanted to add 
one note. The Senator and I were in a hearing yesterday in the Budget 
Committee with three eminent economists--one was a Noble Prize winner--
talking about income inequality and the status of our economy and where 
we are going.
  But there was one aspect of the Affordable Care Act that came up in a 
discussion that really has gotten essentially no play whatsoever, no 
discussion in the press or in the media. I think in the long run it may 
turn out to be one of the most important aspects of the Affordable Care 
Act. It came home to me 2 weeks ago. Every Wednesday morning I have a 
coffee in my office here in the Senate office building for anybody from 
Maine that happens to be in town, whatever reason they are here, 
whether they are touring or have business in Washington. They can come 
in and have some blueberry muffins and some Maine coffee.
  I met a couple there. The woman, in talking to us--she was down 
touring and everything. She said: By the way, thanks for supporting the 
Affordable Care Act.
  I said: Oh, well, that is great. I appreciate that. Why do you say 
that?
  She said: Because I have been in a job for a number of years that I 
do not like. But I could not leave it because it was how I got my 
health insurance. My husband does not have health insurance. So I had 
to stay in the job in order to keep the health insurance. She said: Now 
under the Affordable Care Act, I have an option to get health insurance 
at a reasonable price so I can leave this job and start my own 
business.
  After I had this discussion, I did a little research. It turns out 
there is an economic term for this. It is called job lock. All over the 
country there are thousands, perhaps even millions, of people who are 
locked into a job where

[[Page 5434]]

they are not feeling very appreciated, where they are not really 
enjoying it, where they are not expressing their productivity and their 
talents fully because they could not leave their insurance.
  Now they can. There is a lot of talk around here about job creators. 
The job creators are the people that start businesses, the 
entrepreneurs. Those are the job creators. This is going to lead to an 
explosion of new businesses, of people who do not have to stay in the 
job that they are in simply because of their health insurance but have 
the option to go out and start a business of their own because they can 
get their health insurance at a reasonable price through the Affordable 
Care Act.
  So there is a lot to discuss about the Affordable Care Act. But this 
is one of the aspects of it that has been underappreciated. As the 
years go on, we are going to see a decrease in people uninsured--which 
we are already starting to see--and we are going to see an increase in 
small businesses because people no longer have to stay in their jobs 
simply to maintain their insurance.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. HATCH. I rise to speak once again about the process we have been 
following in the Senate when it comes to major pieces of legislation.
  The Senate has been called the world's greatest deliberative body. 
However, if you look at how it operates these days, I don't think 
anyone would say that anymore unless they were being sarcastic. We no 
longer have real debate. Most bills don't go through committee, where 
they can be refined and improved.
  When the Senate Democratic leadership decides to bring a bill to the 
floor, far more often than not we are blocked from offering any 
amendments. The unemployment insurance legislation before us today is a 
good example. Republicans have filed dozens of amendments to this bill. 
Some of them would definitely improve the UI legislation. Others would 
address the underlying problems that have led some to call for another 
extension of Federal unemployment benefits--namely, the stagnant growth 
in our economy and jobs. Yet it appears that none of these amendments 
will get a vote because the Senate Democratic leadership has decided it 
is more important to protect their Members from having to take 
difficult votes than it is to actually legislate.
  I filed several amendments. Two of them in particular would help to 
create jobs and prevent further job losses. One of those amendments 
would repeal the ObamaCare tax on medical devices. We had 79 votes for 
that. Yet we can't get a vehicle that will put it through. The House 
will overwhelmingly vote for it. Yet we can't even get time on the 
floor to take care of it. That shouldn't even be considered 
controversial. Indeed, a large majority of Senators have already voted 
in favor of repealing this job-killing tax and protecting an important 
American industry--I should say important American industries because 
there are a lot of industries in this area. Repeal of the medical 
device tax has bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate, as 
I have mentioned.
  I have another amendment that would repeal the ObamaCare employer 
mandate. On the face of this, this may seem more controversial, but it 
shouldn't be. After all, the Obama administration has already delayed 
the mandate for 2 years. If the mandate is so harmful that the 
administration is afraid to let it go into effect, why don't we simply 
do away with it altogether and ensure that it doesn't kill any more 
jobs?
  These are reasonable amendments. They deserve a vote. Therefore, I 
ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer my amendment 
No. 2905.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, reserving my right to object, the 
underlying emergency bipartisan legislation is critical to helping 2.7 
million Americans, and I would hope we could expeditiously move to that 
legislation. Therefore, I would object to the unanimous consent request 
by the distinguished Senator from Utah with respect to his amendment 
No. 2905.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HATCH. You can imagine how disappointed I am in that.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer my 
amendment No. 2906.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, the same logic--given the emergency nature 
of the legislation before us, I would urge immediate action. Therefore, 
I would object to the senior Senator's unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, the Senate didn't used to operate this 
way.
  I have been to the floor many times over the past few years to talk 
about the deterioration of the Senate procedures under the current 
majority and to call for a return to the deliberative traditions of 
this Chamber. Many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have done 
the same. Sadly, it appears our calls have fallen on deaf ears.
  I have been in the Senate a long time, and I have never seen it worse 
than it is right now. There have been some very rough times in the 
Senate over the years, but I have never seen it worse. Over the past 
number of years, the majority has called up a bill and then immediately 
filed cloture as if we were filibustering, when we don't have any 
intention to filibuster. All we want is to be able to call up 
amendments. But, in addition to filing cloture, the majority will fill 
the tree, making impossible for anyone to call up an amendment.
  Frankly, this is not the way to run the Senate.
  All I can say is that the Senate is not being run the way it should 
be run.
  I have no objection to filling the tree after a full and extended 
debate when people have an opportunity to bring up their amendments, 
full-blooded Senators here on the floor, who have the right to bring up 
those amendments.
  I have no problem with amendments that I totally disagree with being 
brought up, but you can't even do that most of the time on these bills 
unless, basically, the leadership on the Democratic side approves. 
Until recently, this body has always had the position that we can call 
up germane and nongermane amendments. That is what makes this body 
great. It is what has given it such prestige over the years. Now, with 
it being run this way, we've just become a rubberstamp for the 
leadership. That can work both ways. I think it is a bad thing to do. 
However, the principle has been started and the precedent has been set.
  I lament this because I have been here long enough to see some of the 
greatest debates in the history of the Senate done right here on this 
floor. Some were initiated by Democrats who wanted their right to be 
able to bring up everything and to really have it debated--whether it 
was germane or nongermane--and assert their rights on the floor. Others 
were brought up by Republicans filing amendments that Democrats didn't 
like. But the Democratic leadership in the past acknowledged that, my 
gosh, you have the right to do that in the most deliberative body in 
the world. But we have made it anything but the most deliberative body 
in the world with this type of procedure.
  It is my hope that the Republicans will be able to take over the 
Senate in 2014. Perhaps that won't happen, but I would like to see it 
happen. If it does, I think my friends on the other side are going to 
feel very badly if this same type of maneuvering is done to prevent 
them from bringing up the amendments they would like to bring up. But, 
I personally believe that, with Republicans in the majority, we would 
get back to the regular order that the rules were before these types of 
shenanigans took place.
  This is important stuff, and there is a lot of concern on our side 
regarding how the Senate is currently being run. As the most senior 
Republican in this

[[Page 5435]]

body, I understand those feelings. I have them too.
  It is wrong, certainly not right, and we need to change this. We need 
to make it back to the most deliberative body in the world. Should we 
do that, I think everybody here will breathe a sigh of relief and say: 
My gosh, each side will have these rights restored that have been so 
distorted during the last number of years.
  I am sorry I couldn't get these two amendments. One of them was the 
medical device tax repeal. We brought it up before during the debate 
over the budget. Seventy-nine of our colleagues--79 of us--voted for 
that amendment. It was a bipartisan vote, a vote that had tremendous 
leadership on the Democratic side through the distinguished Senator 
from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, who has been a wonderful leader on 
that issue. If it wasn't bipartisan, maybe I would understand it, but 
it is not only bipartisan, it is crucial to all of the medical device 
companies throughout the United States that have set the standard for 
the whole world.
  We are going to get that passed sooner or later, but in the meantime 
we are having medical device companies leaving the United States 
because of that stupid gross tax on gross sales, if you can believe it. 
There is only one reason it was put into the health care legislation, 
and that was because they needed about $30 billion--with a ``b''--for 
ObamaCare. It was basically a phony approach to come up with $30 
billion that has deliberately hurt one of the greatest budding 
industries in America.
  I can't think of a more stupid tax than one that taxes the gross 
sales of these companies. That is a dangerous, debilitating, 
disgusting, wrongful tax. Yet we can't even get a vehicle over here to 
put it on--the other body would pass it quickly--so that we can get rid 
of it.
  All I can say is that I am very disappointed, but I do understand how 
this body works.
  With that, 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. CARDIN. Madam 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. Madam President, the numbers are in--over 7 million 
Americans have enrolled through the health exchanges around the Nation.
  When we passed the Affordable Care Act 4 years ago, projections were 
that we would hit the 7 million mark of enrollees at the close of the 
first year of enrollment. We have exceeded those numbers. We have 
exceeded those numbers even though we had a very rough rollout of the 
exchanges and people were frustrated when they couldn't get information 
as quickly as they wanted. But Americans wanted insurance, and they 
knew they could get affordable coverage, so they stuck with it and now 
we know that, in fact, over 7 million have enrolled.
  When we see the final numbers, those numbers are going to go up 
because there were a lot of people in the process of signing up online 
on March 31 and the processing has not been completed. So we will see 
more. Plus, we have the Medicaid expansion, which is going to bring 
millions more with health insurance coverage than we had before.
  Over the last 4 years we have seen incredible progress and help going 
out to all Americans with their health coverage and their health costs. 
No longer do we have preexisting conditions. A family who has a child 
with asthma doesn't have to worry whether that asthma will be 
considered a preexisting condition to full coverage. A woman does not 
have to worry about having a child being a preexisting condition to 
full coverage. Parents can keep their adult children on their insurance 
policies until the age of 26. There are no longer any caps on 
insurance. Many Americans thought they had insurance coverage only to 
go through a serious illness and find their insurance had a cap that 
did not cover all the expenses. No longer do families have to worry 
about being forced into bankruptcy because of an illness or an injury.
  Our seniors now have much stronger coverage under Medicare, with 
preventive care covered without any deductibles. Prescription drug 
coverage is now more complete with that so-called doughnut hole--that 
coverage gap--being filled. And the solvency of the Medicare trust fund 
has been extended by a decade.
  Small business owners have a choice of the types of plans they want. 
They do not have to worry about one person in their employment getting 
sick during the year and causing an astronomical increase in their 
premiums. They also have help and affordability in paying for their 
health insurance for their employees.
  Community health centers have been expanded and offer such coverage 
as prenatal care. In my own State of Maryland we are seeing the low 
birth weight baby numbers declining and infant mortality rates going 
down. We are now providing more pediatric dental services within the 
community. That is all as a result of the Affordable Care Act.
  So we now have passed the March 31 date and the first year of 
enrollment. Many Americans now have affordable quality health care and 
a choice. They have a good product at a reasonable cost.
  Everybody hears the numbers, but I want to go through a few--and I 
have literally hundreds--of the letters I have received from real 
people whose real lives have been affected. They are one of those 7.1 
million people, and we could read millions of accounts just like this. 
This is from Dr. Michael L. of Cecil County in a letter to the 
Baltimore Sun. He said:

       My wife and I would like to thank President Barack Obama 
     for helping us save almost $4,000 a year on health care. I am 
     61 years old with a preexisting condition of asthma, which is 
     under control with medication. Yet before the Affordable Care 
     Act, my insurance company felt it necessary to charge me 25 
     percent more for my insurance coverage. I'm sure there are 
     many others like myself with preexisting conditions who will 
     see a savings on their coverage. The public should know that 
     since Fox News and the GOP would have us believe ObamaCare 
     helps no one and will cost everyone more.

  This is from Colleen F. of Anne Arundel County, and she posted on our 
Facebook.

       Senator--I am 26 years old and have been on COBRA paying 
     $570 a month for coverage because of a pre-existing 
     condition--asthma. I want to thank you for fighting for the 
     ACA!! I applied recently . . . and was accepted into the 
     program. I now pay $243 a month with a $500 deductible! Thank 
     you thank you thank you! Affordable health care is a human 
     right--thank you for fighting on my behalf!

  Kelly ``M'' wrote:

       I have a new plan. I haven't had insurance for years. When 
     I applied for insurance before, I was denied for pre-existing 
     conditions, even for plans with huge deductibles. I signed up 
     on the Maryland Healthcare Exchange back in October, and by 
     January 1st, I was holding an insurance card from Carefirst 
     Blueshield and have already had my first doctor's 
     appointment. It works. I am proof. And I'm so grateful that I 
     can take care of myself with dignity without having to go to 
     the ER whenever I'm sick or have to spend half my paycheck at 
     an urgent care center. I can do all of the preventative 
     measures that I have been putting off, and get back on the 
     road to health. It's a good feeling.

  Pam S. of Frederick County, MD, wrote:

       My daughter and I met with a Navigator from the ``Door to 
     HealthCare'' . . . to discuss applying for health care. We 
     had been having problems with the enrollment process. I had 
     been paying for a separate plan for her and now she is paying 
     $55 less per month. Now my daughter gets to have a 
     comprehensive plan, cheaper than before and without any 
     interruption on her coverage. Thank you!

  Ryan, from Prince George's County, has aged out of her parents' 
insurance. Ryan was suffering from asthma and a sinus infection, but 
she was unable to afford a doctor's visit on her own. After attending a 
local Affordable Care Act information session, she logged onto the 
Maryland Health Benefit Exchange and was able to go through the entire 
process and pick an affordable health plan. She is now insured and able 
to get the treatment she needs.

[[Page 5436]]

  Ryan is 26 years old. Those under 26 can be on their parents' policy. 
We talk about young people who think they will never need insurance. I 
was in downtown Baltimore over the weekend at a fair where we were 
enrolling people in the Affordable Care Act. I saw many people of 
Ryan's age--young people over 26 years of age, who were there to find 
out whether this was right for them. When they left, they held an 
insurance card. They had enrolled because they found out how reasonable 
the price was for a young person to get comprehensive coverage.
  I have quite a few more, and maybe on a later date I will come back 
and read some of the other letters I have received. But the point I 
want to bring up is we have fundamentally changed the health care 
system from a system that was basically a sick system--only if you got 
sick, figured out how to pay your bills, maybe you went through 
bankruptcy--to a health care system where we keep people healthy, where 
we provide for comprehensive preventive health care so people can stay 
out of emergency rooms and hospitals.
  Yes, we have benefited those who had no health insurance. Millions of 
people now have coverage who didn't have coverage before the Affordable 
Care Act. We have brought them into the system. They don't have to fear 
bankruptcy. They can take care of themselves, and they can do it in a 
more cost-effective way for all of us.
  We have helped our seniors. No question about it. They now have more 
comprehensive benefits, and they have a system that is on a more stable 
financial footing.
  But we also have helped those who already had insurance. We have 
helped them by giving them a better product, by making sure the 
premiums insurance companies charge are used for patients' benefits and 
not excessive profits. They must spend 80 to 85 percent; otherwise, 
they have to give a rebate.
  We have gotten people out of the emergency room. I was asked on C-
SPAN today: Well, aren't we helping the providers? After all, people 
who go to hospitals now are more likely to pay their bills. Absolutely 
right. But guess who paid for that uncompensated care. Those of us who 
had insurance. Our premiums were higher as a result of people not 
paying their bills. Well, now they are going to be paying their bills. 
First of all, they are going to stay out of the hospital which will 
save us all money. But if they need to be in the hospital, they will 
have the insurance coverage to pay for it.
  The Affordable Care Act has worked for all of us by bringing down the 
growth rate of health care costs, by making the system more efficient. 
Today I think we can acknowledge the fundamentals are sound. People are 
taking advantage of it. We hope, as we go forward, more and more will.
  One final point. When Medicare Part D was passed and we projected the 
number of seniors who would take advantage of it, we hit about 70 
percent of our projection in the first year. On the Affordable Care Act 
and the health exchanges, we are over 100 percent. This program is 
working. People know it. The more they know about it, the more they 
like what they see.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I rise today to speak about a 
critical disaster relief bill I recently introduced here in the Senate.
  In the West, we have a saying that ``Mother Nature bats last.'' For 
millions of Americans, that saying is a reminder that often entire 
communities are at the mercy of the raw force of nature and natural 
disasters. Sadly, we are reminded of this truism every year with 
wildfires in the West, hurricanes in the South, and ice storms along 
the Atlantic seaboard. The devastating and tragic mudslides that have 
recently devastated Oso, WA, are the latest example.
  First, and most importantly, I wish to express my deepest and most 
heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims of this tragedy in 
Washington State. I assure the people of Washington that Coloradans 
stand ready to assist in whatever way we can with a recovery process we 
know all too well ourselves. We are all in this together.
  In times of disasters such as these, I believe there are no Democrats 
or Republicans. We put aside partisan divides to unite in the face of 
tragedy. When confronted by these dire situations, we stand united to 
support our fellow Americans who have been shaken by the destructive 
forces of Mother Nature.
  When the Northeast was rocked by Superstorm Sandy in 2012, a majority 
of the Congress stood together to fund relief and recovery efforts, not 
because it benefited their State or because they expected anything in 
return, but because it was simply the right thing to do. Similarly, 
when Hurricane Katrina devastated the gulf coast in 2005, we united to 
support our fellow Americans who lost their homes and livelihoods in 
the hurricane and its aftermath. And when ice jams just last year 
caused the Yukon River to spill its banks, flooding Galena, AK, and the 
surrounding towns, Congress stood as one to provide aid and assistance 
for those in need.
  My State too has felt the pain of destructive and unprecedented 
natural disasters in recent years. In fact, many parts of Colorado are 
still reeling from the September 2013 floods that resulted in 10 
deaths, washed away homes and businesses, and literally redrew the map 
across parts of my State. In my travels to places such as Evans, 
Jamestown, and Estes Park, I witnessed firsthand how thousands were 
impacted by this disaster, which spanned 200 square miles and 15 
counties.
  Fortunately, in spite of a destructive and partisan government 
shutdown that forced all of us to scramble just days after the 
flooding, many of the 18,000 evacuees in my State have returned home 
and are working on rebuilding their lives and their communities. This 
is thanks to the assistance from Federal and State agencies, including 
important relief funding made possible by the Superstorm Sandy relief 
package we passed here in Congress in a bipartisan manner.
  In sum, we in Colorado are on the road to recovery thanks to the 
tremendous efforts of thousands of people, including many of our 
colleagues here in the Senate. But as my colleagues who have dealt with 
their own natural disasters know all too well, the initial relief 
efforts are only the first step.
  Looking ahead over the next couple of months, Colorado--like many 
other Western States--may be facing another round of devastating 
floods, wildfires, and mudslides. Why? Colorado, like Washington, has 
received an above-average snowpack this year. We have more snow than 
normal and we are expecting 127 percent of average snowmelt this 
spring. So when we combine this increased snowpack and the impending 
spring runoff with streambeds still jammed full of debris, crumbling 
riverbanks, and waterways that the flood rerouted out of their original 
path, Colorado still has a recipe for disaster on our hands.
  I will share a photograph of what happened in one of our communities. 
We can see the culvert washed out, the vehicles embedded in the cobbles 
and sand and boulders of the riverbed. The riverbed itself was 
completely rerouted during the flooding when it took out the road in 
that particular area. The good news is, as we look at the potential for 
additional disaster, we have the power here in Congress to confront the 
disaster before it has a chance to occur.
  I wish to speak to the history of what Congress did. Congress 
recognized the importance of stabilizing waterbanks, preventing soil 
erosion, and clearing debris from waterways back in 1978 through the 
Agricultural Credit Act. As part of that important law, Congress 
authorized the Emergency Watershed Protection Program--or EWP for 
short. As many of my colleagues know well, EWP provides critical 
disaster relief assistance for families and communities which have 
suffered severe damages from flood, fire, drought, or other natural 
disasters.
  The EWP Program focuses on funding critical emergency recovery 
measures for runoff mitigation and erosion prevention that will relieve 
imminent hazards to life and property presented by natural disasters. 
Protecting and repairing these watersheds, wherever

[[Page 5437]]

they may be, is critical in preventing the type of erosion that leads 
to massive mudslides and future disasters.
  Unfortunately, even though our country is rocked by these natural 
disasters every year, the critical EWP Program does not receive 
consistent funding. The sporadic and inconsistent way we fund it--via 
ad hoc supplemental bills--has created a backlog in need of over $120 
million nationally.
  For my colleagues in the Chamber who may not immediately recognize 
the importance of EWP and the program attached to it, let me make clear 
that there are 14 States which have projects left unfunded because of 
this backlog, meaning there are up to 28 Senators who could see relief 
in their home States if we pass this bill.
  This backlog is unacceptable. It is preventing us from funding dozens 
of projects that can help reduce the frequency and severity of 
mudslides, projects that can protect our watersheds, and projects that 
can save lives.
  So with this in mind, I rise today to ask this Congress to come 
together yet again and pass legislation, which I introduced last week, 
supporting a more permanent funding stream for the EWP Program. I have 
introduced the bill with my home State colleague, Senator Bennet, and 
it has been cosponsored by the senior Senator from Washington, Patty 
Murray.
  It will not cost a dime, but it will finally change the way we 
structurally fund the EWP Program by creating a common, unified account 
to provide support to families and communities around the country.
  This commonsense legislation would also free up dollars that have 
already been appropriated in the past but have not been used. Unlocking 
these dollars will not create additional spending but will infuse this 
newly created account with seed funding to begin clearing out the 
backlog and helping States such as Colorado finance critical projects 
that can save lives.
  Moving forward, my bill sets up a system where appropriators and 
States impacted in the future can ensure that every dollar made 
available to the EWP Program is used when needed, and put back into 
this important, permanent fund when it is not, reducing the threat and 
the cost of future disasters.
  As an avid outdoorsman, I am well aware of the dangers presented by 
the forces of nature. I have been a long-time supporter of EWP and its 
vital relief efforts. The importance of this program was only further 
emphasized to me last September when boulders, water, and debris came 
roaring through Eldorado Canyon, which is just a short mile from my 
home, and there were scenes like this as well near my home.
  It has become very clear that every moment we spend trying to piece 
together ad hoc funding for this program every year--after these 
disasters have already occurred--is another moment that could be spent 
rebuilding the homes and the livelihoods of Americans who have been 
struck by Mother Nature.
  Americans should not be forced to wonder or worry about partisan 
divides undermining their ability to access critical resources and 
services. They shouldn't have to face the uncertainty of whether 
Congress will pass supplemental funding to support their families and 
communities after a devastating event such as the one we see here that 
forever changes their lives. And they certainly shouldn't have to wait 
for Congress in order to access essential and proven services from the 
EWP Program when a disaster leaves their homes and communities in 
shambles. Unfortunately, some in this Congress have shown that they are 
incapable of rising above partisan posturing to help those in need. The 
reckless partisanship of these individuals nearly prevented us from 
passing a bill to help the storm-ravaged States affected by Hurricane 
Sandy and kept the government shut down 16 days, even as we in Colorado 
were struggling to take the important first steps toward recovering 
from our historic fall flooding.
  We cannot let funding as critical as EWP be subjected to this kind of 
rancor, which is why my bill is so important. That is why it is long 
past time EWP receives a solid, dependable funding stream. I hope my 
colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation, and I look 
forward to working with Senate appropriators to actively finance this 
fund for years to come.
  With the funding structure created by my bill in place, communities 
around the country that have been knocked off their feet by brutal and 
unanticipated disasters will be able to count on this program to 
immediately help them get back up and onto the road to recovery. This 
is not only responsible to do, it is right to do.
  I wish to briefly touch on a slightly different topic but one that is 
also very important specifically to Colorado; that is, the national 
security, economic, and job-boosting potential of exporting liquid 
natural gas or LNG.
  This is a topic which I and many Senators from both sides of the 
aisle have been talking about over the recent weeks, particularly in 
light of the ongoing crisis in Ukraine and Russia's use of its natural 
gas exports as a weapon. Russian aggression and its incursion into the 
Crimean peninsula illustrates precisely the reason we cannot wait any 
longer to responsibly develop our natural gas reserves and to export 
this resource abroad.
  Unfortunately, new facilities to export LNG are on hold right now 
waiting for approval at the U.S. Department of Energy. While the 
Department of Energy approval is only one step in a complex process to 
construct a new export facility--a process that includes environmental 
access and public input--it has become an unacceptable logjam. That is 
why I introduced a bill a few weeks ago that would break the logjam and 
pave the way for approval of LNG exports to World Trade Organization 
nations, in effect approving the pending applications in the queue.
  My bill is bipartisan and bicameral, and it would send a signal to 
international markets that the days of Russia's monopolistic 
stranglehold on energy supplies is waning. My bill would pave the way 
for more American jobs and provide a shot in the arm to our economy. 
That is why I was disappointed to learn that several of my colleagues 
have decided that another political vote is more important than good 
policy and decided to push an LNG amendment tied to the approval of the 
controversial Keystone XL Pipeline.
  I voted against both Republican and Democratic Keystone Pipeline 
amendments because I believe these political votes by both sides only 
set back progress on the real review process. Tying good LNG policy to 
a political vote about an unrelated topic doesn't lead to progress on 
either issue. Instead, it shows the political motivations of those who 
are deciding to go this route.
  My friend from Wyoming, Senator Barrasso, has a strong bill that 
would open LNG exports to a targeted group of countries in Europe, 
which he tried to attach to the Ukraine aid bill. I agreed with that 
effort. He also filed my bill, which opens LNG more broadly, as an 
amendment to that same legislation during the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee markup. Both of these approaches have bipartisan support, 
both of them would make a difference, and both of them are worthy of 
consideration.
  So I invite all of us who want to get something done to abandon 
election or political gains and focus on what matters. We can leverage 
our natural resources to promote global security, create jobs, and 
prevent power-hungry leaders such as Putin from using energy supplies 
as a weapon. Let's get this done and work together to find a real way 
forward, and let's have a vote.
  Madam President, thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I see Senator Blunt. I ask unanimous 
consent that at the conclusion of Senator Blunt's remarks, I be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order for me to offer my amendment on this bill, No. 2885.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page 5438]]

  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, because of the emergency nature of the 
underlying bipartisan bill to aid about 2.7 million Americans, I would 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, let me talk about why I think we should 
have this and other amendments on this bill.
  My friend from Colorado just talked about an amendment that he said 
he supported last week. Of course, none of us got to support it on the 
Ukrainian bill because it wasn't allowed to come up, just like on this 
issue of talking about unemployment extension or the other things that 
our friends on the other side have announced in a pretty aggressive way 
that they intend to bring up because they just hope to have a political 
issue rather than a process that will actually work.
  I believe we should have these energy amendments such as the one I am 
proposing on this bill because getting people back to work and being 
concerned about people's take-home pay, being concerned about what 
people get to keep of what they earn is an important part of this whole 
process.
  So the amendment my friend objected to would be an amendment that 
would make it very difficult--it would establish another hurdle before 
anyone could have a carbon tax. This amendment is similar to the one I 
offered during the budget debate this year, and 53 of my colleagues 
supported it, so a majority of the Members of the Senate are for this 
but just not the majority it would take in the Senate to get it done.
  A carbon tax would force families to pay more at the pump. What is a 
carbon tax? It is a tax on fuels that have some carbon component, and 
that means fuels such as gasoline, coal-based electricity, and other 
fossil fuels. For this component, you would have to pay more at the gas 
pump, you would have to pay more for your heating, more for your 
cooling, more for virtually every product we make in America.
  The energy bill, the utility bill is a big component of what we make 
in the country today, and it could be one of our huge advantages in 
manufacturing and job creation, but we are headed in a direction with 
our view of energy that is not the most focused on more American energy 
and that doesn't take advantage of the moment we could be in.
  Areas where I live in Missouri, people in the South and Midwest--
frankly, from about the middle of Pennsylvania to the western edge of 
Wyoming--are heavily dependent on coal for electricity. About 50 
percent of all the electricity in that vast majority of the land mass 
of America is from coal. Eighty-two percent of the electricity produced 
in Missouri is from coal. There are at least five States that have a 
higher dependency on coal than we do. If we had a cap-and-trade bill, 
the estimates are that our bill would have gone up about 40 percent 
since 2013.
  A carbon tax is disproportionately impactful on people who are 
struggling to get by. If you want to really do things that impact the 
vulnerable in our society, make the utility bill higher. If you want to 
really do things that impact the vulnerable in our society who are 
looking for work, make it harder to put those jobs in the United States 
of America.
  About 40 million U.S. households that currently earn less than 
$30,000 per year spend almost 20 percent of their income already on 
energy. Why would we want that percentage to be higher. What you make 
is not nearly as important as what you are able to use to advance your 
family. If the utility bill is 30 percent of what you make or 40 
percent of what you make instead of 20 percent, obviously the other 
things you would have done with that money could not have been done.
  These are the households that can least afford to have the new 
energy-efficient refrigerators. These are the last households to get 
the better windows, the last houses to get more insulation in the 
ceiling and the walls, the first houses where people have to think 
about, What room do we shut off this winter because we cannot use all 
the rooms in the house in the way we would like to? It would be nice to 
be able to fill up your tank rather than stand at the gas pump and 
wonder, Can I possibly afford to put more gas in than that pump has 
already shown on prices that are already too high.
  There are lots of amendments on this bill about energy, none of 
which, I am told, will be allowed, and I think that is a tragedy.
  A 2013 study by the National Association of Manufacturers found that 
the overall effect of a carbon tax on American jobs would be 
staggering, with a loss of worker income equivalent to about $13 
million and 1.5 million jobs. Why would we want to take that out of our 
economy when we can not only keep it there, but by enhancing more 
American energy, we could expand it?
  The utility bill is an increasingly important part of job creation. 
Energy-sensitive industries such as chemicals, auto manufacturing, iron 
and steel manufacturing, cement, mining, and refining sectors are the 
hardest hit by a carbon tax, and these sectors would see a big drop in 
their manufacturing output.
  So if we had the kind of debate we ought to have, it would be a 
debate about how we get people back to work rather than how we continue 
to extend benefits in a policy that was never intended to have never-
ending benefits. This system doesn't work. It doesn't work for people 
who pay into the system or draw out of the system if we abuse it.
  I think we all know this is not the debate we should be having this 
week, and I would like to see us have a debate on how we could improve 
the economy while we deal with this so-called immediate need that we 
are talking about on the floor instead of the things we ought to be 
talking about.
  I wish to talk for a few minutes about the announcements yesterday 
about how many people have signed up for the President's health care 
plan. As I said when the Web site wouldn't work, it is not about 
whether the Web site works. Frankly, it is not even about how many 
people sign up. This is about whether this is the right direction for 
us to go as a country. Is this health care more affordable, and will 
more people be insured, and will the people who are insured be insured 
with policies they can afford and coverage they want?
  The President, of course, and everybody understands the Web site had 
its problems. I think we would be really remiss if we decided--if 
making the Web site work was the test of the program or, frankly, 
making people sign up was the test of the program.
  This debate is not over. It shouldn't be over. We need to continue to 
look for ways to try to make this work better because I certainly 
continue to hear from Missourians who tell me that the course they are 
on is hurting their families, hurting their job opportunities.
  The law of unintended consequences appears to be the law here that is 
most likely to be applied, the unintended consequences of people who 
are going to work part time, the unintended consequences of people who 
are looking at a job that used to be a full-time job but now the 
government said: You don't have to provide benefits unless somebody 
works 30 hours a week. I guess what the government really said was that 
you have to provide benefits when they do work 30 hours a week. But 
people immediately look at that and the society adjusts to that 
government determination. So suddenly people are working 28 and 29 and 
20 hours without benefits where they might have been working those same 
hours before with some level of benefits or might have--more 
importantly for their families--been working full time before.
  We are going to continue to talk about this law and how it serves 
people. Let me give a couple of quick examples as I conclude this 
morning.
  I had a person in the office this morning who was here for another 
purpose. He is a radiologist from Cape Girardeau, MO, and he said he 
received notice that his insurance was going to go up $500 a month for 
the same coverage until the President made the decision to suspend the 
law, which is a

[[Page 5439]]

totally different debate topic, whether the President can do that. But 
when the President suspended the application of this law, which 
everybody is supposed to be so excited about, they were able to keep 
the policy they had for another year, and it was $500 a month less--
$6,000 a year less for that family.
  Here is some information I got today from Sherry in Shelbyville, MO, 
who said that her 18-year-old son has had cerebral palsy his whole 
life. They had a medicine that works that allows him to deal with this. 
Last year a 3-month supply of this particular medicine went from $125 
to $1,086--almost a $1,000 increase. But that may or may not be 
impacted by what is happening with overall health care policies. What 
was impacted this year was her family's deductible. Their deductible 
went from $500 to $5,000. They were paying $500 on a 3-month supply of 
medicine. A 1-year supply of that medicine cost a little over $4,000. 
They were paying $500 of that, and now they are paying all of that.
  Her view--which would be the view of most working families--is: We 
had insurance we could afford, we had insurance that met our needs, and 
now we are paying $3,500 more than we were paying. For almost any 
family, $300 a month makes a big difference. It particularly makes a 
difference for families who are struggling and already dealing with a 
health problem.
  Pete from Jackson, MO, receives health care benefits through his 
employer, but his wife and two children had health insurance through an 
independent carrier. His wife and children's plan will be dropped 
November 30 of this year. Their new plan will cost $1,200 per month 
instead of $530 for similar coverage they have right now.
  By the way, these are just a few of the letters from the top of the 
list. If I had more time, I could certainly read more letters.
  I have a letter from Greg who is from St. Joseph. His out-of-pocket 
expenses went from $2,500 per year to $10,000 per year. He is paying 
that by going into his 401(k) retirement plan. If anybody thinks Greg 
and his family are better off from this new change in the law by paying 
$10,000 out of pocket instead of the $2,500 out of pocket--and he is 
having to dip into his retirement plan to help pay for his health 
insurance--I would like to hear from them.
  There are people who had insurance before this new law, and although 
they have insurance now through the exchange, they just happen to be 
paying in many cases a lot more and have a deductible that is a lot 
higher. I think that would be a great debate for us to have on the 
floor now that we know, as a country, what is at stake.
  What do we do to be sure the best health care system in the world 
works better for everybody? How do we make changes so that those who 
are outside of the system have a better chance to be a part of that 
system rather than penalizing everybody who had insurance they thought 
was working for them?
  I yield the floor to my friend from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the underlying 
legislation, which is so critical. It is an emergency. On December 28, 
we stopped extending unemployment benefits for at that point 1.3 
million Americans. These are individuals who were working and who are 
looking for work, since that is the only way you can collect these 
benefits.
  Since that time, they have been without the very modest support that 
emergency unemployment insurance provides. It provides about $300 a 
week. We are trying, on a bipartisan basis, to move this legislation 
through this body and get it to the House so these people can get some 
help and support as they continue to look for work.
  This legislation will support a program that is vital to 2.7 million 
Americans, and it is a bipartisan compromise. This is not something 
that is being jammed through exclusively at the will of the majority. 
This has been an effort that began months ago. First we worked with 
Senator Heller and then other colleagues--Senator Collins, Senator 
Murkowski, Senator Portman, and Senator Kirk.
  We listened to their suggestions and incorporated them so we could 
move forward on a bipartisan basis as we have done on so many different 
topics. We would like to have a vote, move it to the House, and have it 
signed by the President so we can get the relief, support, and 
assistance to these Americans. Again, I have to emphasize that they are 
only qualified for this program because they lost their jobs through no 
fault of their own, and they are continuing to look for work in a very 
difficult economy.
  The one other thing I wanted to mention, which is very important, is 
we are building on significant changes to the unemployment compensation 
laws that were passed in 2012. At that time the chairman of the Ways 
and Means Committee in the House of Representatives, Chairman Dave Camp 
of Michigan, described these as historic reforms. Our goal, as I said 
many times during the past few weeks and months, and prior to and since 
the ending of these benefits on December 28, is to find a path forward 
to a rather straightforward extension of the benefits. Again, this is a 
temporary extension. It is a 5-month total window, but with each day 
more of it is retroactive. The reason we wanted to look for a very 
straightforward proposal is that, first, it would recognize the 
important changes and reforms that were made in 2012. Many of the ideas 
I have seen and heard discussed around here actually were considered 
thoughtfully in 2012 and incorporated in many cases--not all cases--
into the legislation.
  The other thing we want to do is make this as administratively 
feasible as possible to implement by the State agencies. Adding 
significant changes, such as adding a training component that didn't 
exist before, not only complicated the implementation, but when you 
stop and step back, it usually costs money.
  One of the underlying premises, particularly from my colleagues who 
worked with us from the Republican side, is that this whole effort has 
to be fully funded. This bill is fully offset during this ten year 
budgetary window. This is paid for, it incorporates the ideas and 
suggestions from my colleagues on the other side, and it is now time to 
move for passage.
  I recognize there are many issues we could deal with in the Senate. 
Many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have come to us with 
their issues. But to do that would undercut the ability to, in timely 
manner,--today or I hope tomorrow, but certainly this week--pass this 
legislation and move forward.
  Millions of Americans are facing a crisis. They are out of work and 
looking for a job. In my State there are probably two applicants for 
every job, and in many cases there are probably three or four 
applicants for every job. We also recognize this is a long-term 
unemployed population that is different in some respects than previous 
episodes of unemployment. There are indications and suggestions that 
they are older on average. They are also facing a situation where the 
economy has been very difficult for many years.
  Many of them are homeowners who can't sell their house because of the 
market so they can't move to an area where there is work. Many of them, 
particularly if they are middle-aged, have responsibilities to mothers 
and fathers who may have health issues, and children they have to 
support. The overall situation is that these individuals are facing a 
very difficult challenge.
  There is a very thoughtful paper by the former chair of the 
President's Council of Economic Advisers, Alan Krueger, and his 
colleagues. They described the difficulty of these unemployed Americans 
in this economy, particularly for the long-term unemployed.
  We have seen periods of significant unemployment. I can recall the 
1980s, when unemployment hit 10 percent, but normally there is a 
relatively fast response once the right fiscal and monetary policies 
are put in place. Some of that was because of the mobility of the 
American people back then, contrasted

[[Page 5440]]

to people who are now tied to their home because they can't sell it, 
and some of it is due to the relative age of the unemployed back then 
where the mobility was not as much of a factor as it is today.
  We are trying to help these people who have, in many cases, worked 
for decades and now for the first time find themselves in a very 
difficult situation.
  If you look overall, there are 10.4 million Americans who are out of 
work but are looking for that job--for that fair shot--so they have a 
chance to move on and be a part of the American economy. Extending 
emergency unemployment benefits to these 2.7 million people is just one 
part of the efforts we have to undertake. No one should be under the 
impression that this is a solution. No. This is just a response to the 
incredible need of these very worthwhile Americans who are looking for 
work.
  I do note that this aid is very targeted. I cannot repeat it enough. 
There is this sort of notion out there that this is sort of a giveaway 
to people who are undeserving. Well, the benefits are targeted to 
people who meet very specific criteria and, most importantly, they have 
to have an adequate work history to be eligible for unemployment 
insurance in the first place. They have to be workers. We are trying to 
help workers. They have to have lost their job through no fault of 
their own--they were laid off. It is not as though they didn't like 
their job and left, or had problems in the workplace and were not 
fitting in. These are people who want to work, and they were told they 
cannot work any longer. They were downsized, they were outsourced--all 
the 10K euphemisms for saying, ``We don't need you anymore.'' Well, 
they are important people who want to work, and they have to actively 
look for work in order to qualify for benefits. This is not an open-
ended benefit to individuals who have no end in sight. They are either 
going to find a job or exhaust these benefits.
  One of the reforms we did in 2012, frankly, was to shrink the period 
of time. Previous to 2012, there were 73 weeks of emergency extended 
benefits. We shrunk that down to 47 weeks. So this notion that this is 
an unending, indefinite, long-term benefit to people who don't earn it 
is completely incorrect.
  This program has been in effect for a very long time. Indeed, some 
form of it has been put in place since 2008 when George W. Bush was the 
President, when we first started seeing the signs of increasing 
unemployment. This was in conjunction with the near collapse of many 
financial institutions, in 2007 and 2008. The housing market was 
literally coming off the tracks. The consequences for the American 
economy at that time were probably the most severe since the Great 
Depression. One of the ways we have been dealing with these issues 
began with President Bush, and continuing now with President Obama, is 
emergency unemployment compensation benefits for Americans.
  I think we have to look at and be conscious of all of the facts and 
data. We are also at a point where we have to recognize there are two 
programs. There is a State program, which covers the first 26 weeks, 
and then there is the emergency Federal unemployment benefits program.
  This emergency program, in some respects, is becoming much more 
critical, because what we find now is that the long-term unemployed are 
probably twice the number you would typically associate with an economy 
such as ours at the present moment. We have unemployment rates that 
range from the high--unfortunately Rhode Island is at 9 percent--to the 
very low. There are some States because of the commodities--
particularly energy commodities--that virtually have no unemployment.
  At this point we should not see the kind of long-term unemployed we 
are seeing. The Federal program--not the State program, which is the 
first 26 weeks--is going to help these people who are particularly 
struggling. It is a targeted program--very much targeted--but it has an 
outsized impact. Not only are the workers who are receiving this very 
modest weekly stipend of roughly $300 a week able to pay for 
essentials, but it has a very positive effect on our overall economy.
  All of my colleagues are here today saying, listen, not only do we 
have to help these people, but more importantly, we have to grow this 
economy. Well, by the way, the legislation we are proposing does both. 
These emergency benefits have been repeatedly analyzed by economists, 
and they have been determined to provide a significantly greater bang 
for the buck than many other programs being talked about today on the 
floor that are being suggested as alternatives or complements to what 
we are talking about. That is why the Congressional Budget Office, in a 
very modest and conservative analysis, projected that if we fail to 
extend these emergency benefits through 2014--through the whole year--
it would cost our economy 200,000 jobs. So those people who are 
opposing these benefits are basically saying we are not interested in 
at least part of these 200,000 jobs.
  It is not, as they often say, rocket science. What happens to this 
money is it goes to a family who desperately needs it immediately to 
repair the car, to buy groceries, to take care of the necessities of 
life. So this money is not going to be put aside for a rainy day. It is 
not going to be exported overseas for a venture some place. It is going 
to be used locally in the economy--at the grocery store, at the service 
station, at the dry cleaners, and to pay for the cell phone so a person 
can stay in touch to see if they get that job and if they are offered a 
job. That effect of immediately putting money in the economy 
immediately generates more economic activity. It is the fact that at 
the local coffee shop a person will come in and get a cup of coffee and 
maybe be able to afford something else too. That goes to the ability of 
that local coffee shop to keep some more people on to work the 
counters. It has a cumulative effect.
  The economists have measured it, and it is much more than the dollars 
we are putting into it. It has a multiplier effect. So what we are 
doing is not only providing the necessary support for these deserving 
families; we are providing an injection of economic activity into our 
economy--precisely what all of my colleagues are saying we have to do. 
Let's do it. We can do it. We are very close. On a bipartisan basis, we 
are hopefully hours away, I hope, from getting this done, and then 
sending it over to the House.
  Then, we need to ask our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol 
to consider not only the bipartisan nature of this bill but also the 
fact that it not only provides economic stimulus, but it also is 
fiscally responsible. We have paid for these efforts. That was insisted 
upon, and we have certainly acceded to that request by so many of our 
colleagues.
  Now, with respect to reforms of the temporary program, and even the 
permanent State program, as I said before, we made significant reforms 
in 2012. I was a member of the conference committee, at the request of 
the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee to participate, 
particularly in the deliberations about the unemployment insurance 
compensation program. These 2012 reforms go a long way to make the 
system better. Can we make more improvements? Of course. Can we shift 
to a related but an important topic, which is job training, through the 
Workforce Investment Act? Yes, we can, and we should. But we shouldn't 
hold this legislation hostage to training improvements and to 
additional reform.
  One of the reforms which we worked to enhance in the bill before us 
today, which was implemented in 2012, is the Reemployment Service and 
Reemployment Eligibility Assessment, or the RES and REA. I have to 
thank Senator Collins, particularly. She was insistent that we provide 
a way to better link up individuals looking for work and the jobs that 
are available. This is a mechanism that does this. This is an evidence-
based reform that has been successful in getting individuals back to 
work sooner. It also helps to ensure individuals are receiving the 
proper benefit. It addresses one of the major

[[Page 5441]]

concerns we received from the House Ways and Means Committee 
Republicans with respect to overpayments. Essentially, what it does is 
it requires--there is one assessment in the program right now--a second 
assessment at a certain period during the extended benefits. So an 
individual would have to come in and essentially be counseled. They 
would also verify the person is searching for work, that the benefits 
are appropriate, and also give the kind of counseling and assistance 
and help that is shown by evidence to be effective in linking job 
seekers to jobs. We are very committed to this improvement. This is one 
of the improvements we put into the legislation. We have provided the 
funding for State agencies to take care of it.
  So this is something we think is going to be a direct beneficial 
solution to a legitimate issue raised by so many. How do we connect 
those who are unemployed today with the jobs that are out there?
  I will say something else, too, about this. There has been some 
suggestion that there are a lot of overpayments in the system and that 
people are really getting more than they should. Well RESs and REAs 
play an important program integrity role, not just providing counsel to 
the individual. They also have to ensure that the people are, in fact, 
actively seeking work. This legislation is saying these individuals 
have to physically come to the State agency, not just at the first 
tier, when they start it, but at the third tier--that is the way we 
break it up--several weeks into the process of emergency unemployment 
benefits. Doing that--their physical presence in the office, talking to 
a counselor--helps the system be more legitimate, and it helps the 
accountability because the individual State counselor will be able to 
check on how faithful they are to the program and how consistent their 
benefits are. That double check is part of the legislation which I 
think will be effective and efficient. We want both effectiveness and 
efficiency. As I indicated before, it is fully paid for, so it is not 
an additional burden to States.
  In the 2012 reforms, we also included my work-sharing initiative. 
This is critical. I have heard from so many companies in Rhode Island 
that before the 2012 legislation, there were a few States--Rhode Island 
was one--that were actually doing something very creative. They said 
that instead of laying a person off totally, if you keep the person 
employed for a certain number of days and provide their benefits, we 
will pay for the one or two days they don't work. It is a partial 
payment. That has been able to allow companies to really keep their 
core group of workers together. Instead of throwing someone out and 
saying they are sorry, as well as losing their expertise and losing 
their skills, they have been able to keep their operation moving. It is 
a smart way of doing it. It has been very successful in Rhode Island, 
and it is now a national option. That is because of an initiative from 
2012 that was a good reform and a smart, efficient way to use the 
taxpayers' dollars.
  With respect to work search generally, the 2012 reforms for the first 
time created a uniform standard for both the State-based program and 
the temporary emergency program to ensure that States require that in 
order to be eligible, individuals need to be ``able, available, and 
actively seek[ing] work.'' We also passed a reform to better recover 
improper payments by requiring States to offset their current State 
benefits in order to recover overpayments owed to other States and the 
Federal Government. So program integrity, program efficiency, and 
program effectiveness were significantly embodied in the 2012 
amendments.
  We are looking at a program that just 2 years ago has been 
significantly reformed--in fact, as I said, according to the chairman 
of the Republican Ways and Means Committee, historically reformed. So 
this program is one that we can support and we should support.
  Back in 2012 we also provided up to 10 demonstration projects in 
States that could be granted waivers on their State-based unemployment 
insurance program if they could come up with proposals that would 
improve the effectiveness of their reemployment efforts. This was an 
opportunity to give the States flexibility, to test out new ideas. Some 
of the new ideas my colleagues have shared with me--we should do this 
or that--the States--at least 10 States--have that opportunity to apply 
today to do that. I don't think we need to reinvent that opportunity in 
this legislation since it is on an emergency, short-term basis. That 
authority sunsets at the end of 2015. But it is very telling, because 
since 2012, 10 States have had the option, but no States have taken up 
these proposals. So many of the good ideas my colleagues have suggested 
haven't passed muster at the State level. One would think if they were 
that compelling, if they were that efficient, that affordable, that one 
State, at least, would have taken the option, out of 10 available, to 
try these proposals.
  The 2012 reforms also allowed States to drug screen and test 
individuals if they were terminated from prior employment for drug use 
or if they were applying for work for which passing a drug test was a 
standard eligibility requirement. I mention this because we have 
persistently heard proposals--particularly from the other side of the 
Capitol--oh, we have a drug test proposal, et cetera. Guess what. 
States already have the option to do that now. So it is not a reason to 
stop today and say we have to fix this problem.
  I think this whole issue of drug testing, though, deserves a further 
comment. It is somewhat of a presumption that people who are applying 
for these benefits somehow are more susceptible to drug dependency, and 
that is not accurate. In fact, reflecting back to my previous comments, 
there are so many people now, particularly the longer term unemployed, 
who are middle-aged colleagues or slightly younger than I am, who have 
spent 20 or 35 years working, et cetera. They are not the typical 
person who one would suspect of that. But when we looked at data from 
the TANF realm--there were related arguments for testing in TANF--it 
turns out that individuals who are tested in these TANF programs, which 
is a welfare program, actually show an average of slightly less drug 
usage than the average American. So this whole drug issue has to be 
disabused. But, for the record, there are in the 2012 reforms, 
opportunities for States if they feel so compelled to exercise some of 
these options.
  So the record demonstrates clearly that we have made extensive 
reforms. Additionally, as I said, in this legislation, we are requiring 
a second assessment process which I think is going to be very efficient 
and very effective.
  This raises the final point. We have tried to keep this very simple. 
Even so, the State administrators came forward with a letter saying: 
This is going to be very difficult for us. The letter was refuted point 
by point by the Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez. Secretary Perez was the 
former director of these programs for the State of Maryland. He knows 
better than anyone what it takes to make these programs work. He has 
committed that the Department of Labor not only will--but can--be sure 
that these programs, as we have written them today, will be fully and 
effectively implemented.
  So I hope my colleagues really come together. I thank my colleagues 
who already have joined together to get this legislation moving. Time 
is literally ticking. This is a 5-month bill. This is not a long-term, 
indefinite bill. The clock is ticking, so that every day more benefits 
are retroactive than prospective. We want to give people the chance. 
They have worked for it all of their lives--many of them--and now, in 
many cases, this is the first time they have really struggled.
  With that, I yield the floor because I see my colleague, the Senator 
from Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order for me to 
offer an amendment that has been designated No. 2911.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Rhode Island.

[[Page 5442]]


  Mr. REED. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and not 
elaborating much further than the comments I already made, but in order 
to get this bipartisan emergency legislation completed which will 
affect 2.7 million Americans, I would respectfully object to my 
colleague's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, we were here last evening on this topic 
for consideration by the Senate. The amendment I was offering that the 
Senator from Rhode Island has objected to in my view is one of the many 
amendments that could be considered in this legislation--certainly 
should be considered by this Senate. While I am certainly interested 
and willing to have a discussion about the extension of unemployment 
benefits, it seems to me that this Senate ought also to be looking at 
issues that would reduce the chances that individual Americans--workers 
across the country--need that extension. We ought to be doing the 
things we are not doing here in the Senate. In fact, in my view, this 
Senate and this President have done nothing to increase the 
opportunities for Americans to keep their jobs, to increase their 
employment opportunities, to get a higher wage, to expand their 
economic opportunity in this country.
  The amendment I was offering, which has been objected to, is one of 
those many examples of legislation that, once again, gets ignored on 
the Senate floor. It is not considered by any committee and is not 
allowed to be made in order.
  Again, the process in the Senate has broken down so that individual 
Senators who have good ideas, at least who believe they have good ideas 
about how we can make life better for Americans, are not being enabled 
the opportunity to offer those amendments for consideration by the 
Senate.
  In fact, there have now been 70 amendments offered to this 
legislation. It appears that none of those 70 will be considered while 
we consider this issue of extension of unemployment benefits. The 
amendment would, in my view, increase the opportunity for every 
American to find a better job.
  We know that if we are going to increase economic activity, create 
jobs in this country, the statistics show, the facts show, academic and 
real-life experiences demonstrate that entrepreneurs--individuals who 
have a dream to start a business, who work in their garage or their 
backyard or their barn, decide that they have something they can 
contribute to the consumer in this country and they pursue that dream--
have the best opportunity that we have in this country to create jobs 
for other Americans.
  So the amendment I offered would be legislation called Startup Act 
3.0. This is not just the Senator from Kansas or not just a Republican 
Senator in the Senate offering this amendment, it is a bipartisan 
amendment offered by me and one of my Democratic colleagues, but the 
underlying legislation actually has more Democratic sponsors than it 
has Republican sponsors. Again, it is the kind of thing that one would 
expect some consideration in the Senate.
  Unfortunately, this legislation was offered 3 years ago, shortly 
after I came to the Senate. So my frustration is not that just this 
opportunity today is being denied me and my colleagues who support the 
concept of promoting entrepreneurship, but it has been denied for 
certainly more than 2 years, almost 3 years, when we have facts, 
academicians who tell us these are exactly the kind of things that 
would increase the chances that Americans are better off today and in 
the future.
  This legislation deals with the regulatory environment, the Tax Code, 
access to capital, federally funded research put into the hands of the 
private sector more quickly, the opportunity for Americans to better 
compete in the battle for global talent, all things that are just 
common sense and my guess is would be agreed to. If we would ever have 
a vote on the Senate floor about this concept, I would not be surprised 
that overwhelmingly my colleagues would support this.
  There is nothing in here that is a partisan issue. There is nothing 
in here that is significantly controversial. We can argue or debate the 
details, we can improve this legislation, but we are never given the 
chance to pursue that goal. It is certainly disappointing to me that 
once again legislation that would address the underlying problems we 
face in this country, the inability of Americans to keep jobs, improve 
their job circumstance, and create a brighter future for the next 
generation of Americans, is something this Senate, for the last 3 
years, has determined does not have merit for even consideration, 
either in a committee or on the Senate floor.
  For those who are interested in the details of this legislation, I 
would refer them to my remarks on the Senate floor last evening.
  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.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to try to advance important 
legislation to fully authorize 27 Veterans Affairs clinics around the 
country in 18 different States, in communities that desperately need 
these facilities for our veterans, including two in Louisiana, 
Lafayette and Lake Charles.
  These clinics have been on the books, planned for, approved for quite 
a while. Unfortunately, they ran into several bureaucratic glitches and 
hurdles. In the case of our two clinics in Louisiana, the first thing 
was a flatout mistake, a screwup at the VA, which they fully admit to. 
They made some errors in the contract letting process. Because of that, 
they had to stop that entire bidding process and back up and start all 
over.
  That basically cost us 1 year in terms of those vital community-based 
clinics in Lafayette and Lake Charles. Then, as they were into that 
year of delay, out of the blue the Congressional Budget Office decided 
to score these sorts of clinics in a different way than they ever did 
before. That created a scoring issue with regard to all 27 of these 
clinics in 18 States.
  On a bipartisan basis, a number of us went to work on that issue to 
clear that up. We have solved that issue, and the House has put a bill 
together with strong bipartisan support--virtually unanimous support--
and has passed the bill that resolved that issue.
  It came to the Senate. I reached out to all of my colleagues. There 
were a few concerns, and I addressed those concerns proactively by 
finding savings in other parts of the budget to off-balance, counteract 
any possible costs of this bill, and so we added that amendment to that 
proposal. Through all of that hard work, we have addressed all of the 
substantive concerns with moving forward on these 27 clinics.
  I have been trying to pass this bill with an amendment at the desk so 
that these 27 clinics can move forward as expeditiously as possible. As 
I said, every substantive concern about this bill, as it would be 
amended, has been met--everybody's concerns, conservatives, moderates, 
liberals.
  The only objection to the bill now is from the distinguished Senator 
from Vermont, who, quite frankly, wants to hold it hostage, wants to 
object to it, simply to try to advance his much broader veterans bill 
which he brought to the floor and was unsuccessful in passing several 
weeks ago. While I appreciate the Senator's passion on this issue--I 
appreciate his legislation and his focus on it--the problem is that 
legislation does have many Senators with concerns about it, including 
me. Forty-three Senators, forty-three percent of the overall Senate, 43 
out of 100, have serious, substantive concerns with that much broader 
bill.
  In contrast to that, no one in the Senate has substantive concerns 
with my narrower bill with regard to 27 VA clinics around the country.
  I simply suggest that we agree on important matters we can agree on; 
we use that to begin to build consensus to move forward constructively, 
do what

[[Page 5443]]

we can agree on, and continue to work on that on which there is some 
disagreement.
  In that spirit, I come to the floor again to ask unanimous consent 
that the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further 
consideration of the narrow veterans clinics bill I was referring to, 
H.R. 3521, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that 
my amendment, which is at the desk, which I also referred to, be agreed 
to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Reserving the right to object, I thank my colleague from 
Louisiana for coming to the floor today to talk about, in fact, an 
important issue.
  Before I respond to him directly, I did want to comment he is right, 
there were 43 Members of the Senate who voted against what is regarded 
as the most comprehensive veterans legislation to have been introduced 
in several decades, legislation that was supported by virtually every 
veterans organization in the country, including the American Legion, 
Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, Vietnam 
Veterans of America, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the 
Gold Star Wives, and dozens and dozens of other veterans organizations.
  If I might point out that while my colleague from Louisiana is, of 
course, right that there were 43 Senators who voted no, he neglected to 
mention that there were 56 Senators who voted yes. There was one 
Senator who was absent on that day who would have voted yes.
  We are now at the stage where we have 57 Senators, which I would 
suggest to my colleague from Louisiana is significantly more than 43 
percent, it is 57 percent.
  If we could have the cooperation--and I hope we can maybe make some 
progress right here, now, from my colleague from Louisiana who has 
shown interest in veterans issues--do you know what, we can do 
something that millions and millions of veterans and their families 
want us to do.
  If my colleague from Louisiana would allow me, I would like to quote 
from what the Disabled American Veterans, the DAV, has to say about 
this legislation--which, unfortunately my colleague from Louisiana 
voted against. He was one of the 43 who voted against it.
  DAV says:

       This massive omnibus bill, unprecedented in our modern 
     experience, would create, expand, advance, and extend a 
     number of VA benefits, services and programs that are 
     important to the DAV and to our members. For example, 
     responding to a call from DAV as a leading veterans 
     organization, it would create a comprehensive family 
     caregiver support program for all generations of severely 
     wounded, injured and ill veterans. Also, the bill would 
     authorize advance appropriations for VA's mandatory funding 
     accounts to ensure that in any government shutdown 
     environment in the future, veterans benefits payments would 
     not be delayed or put in jeopardy. This measure would also 
     provide additional financial support to survivors of 
     servicemembers who die in the line of duty, as well as 
     expanded access for them to GI Bill educational benefits. A 
     two-plus year stalemate in VA's authority to lease facilities 
     for health care treatment and other purposes would be solved 
     by this bill . . .

  --which, of course, is what the Senator from Louisiana is referring 
to. Then they continue:

       . . . These are but a few of the myriad provisions of this 
     bill that would improve the lives, health, and prospects of 
     veterans--especially the wounded, injured and ill--and their 
     loved ones.

  That is the DAV. I ask my colleague from Louisiana--you are raising 
an important issue, and I agree with you. But what I cannot do is take 
this issue over here, separate it, and that issue over here, because 
tomorrow there will be somebody else coming and saying: You know, 
Senator Sanders, I want you to move forward on this. Then the next day 
somebody else comes forward and says: I want to move forward on that.
  We have a comprehensive piece of legislation, supported by millions 
of veterans, and supported by 57 Members of the Senate. I ask my 
colleague from Louisiana--who is concerned about veterans' issues--work 
with us, support us, give us the three Republican votes we need. We had 
55, 54 Members of the Democratic Caucus. We only had two Republican 
votes. Help me get three more votes. You will get these facilities in 
Louisiana, we will get these facilities all over the country, but we 
will also address many of the major crises facing the veterans 
community.
  With that, Madam President, I would object to my colleague's 
proposal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Reclaiming the floor and reclaiming the time, I find this 
approach very unfortunate. To follow through on the scenario the 
Senator from Vermont himself laid out, yes, we can find agreement here 
on the floor, but then, ``Katy, bar the door.'' That might lead to our 
finding agreement on other important matters that can help veterans, 
and we might be moving forward in this area and that area and the other 
one. God forbid that we make progress to help veterans and actually get 
something done versus having a hostage standoff. God forbid. I think 
the more productive way of working together is to agree on what we can 
agree on and keep talking about those areas where we have disagreement.
  In fact, in the past Senator Sanders has endorsed that approach in 
the area of veterans affairs. He has said, in the past, working on 
another issue in November of 2013:

       I'm happy to tell you that I think that was a concern of 
     his . . .

  This was referring to another Senator. He continues:

       . . . we got that UC'd last night. So we moved that pretty 
     quickly, and I want to try to do those things, where we have 
     agreement, let's move it.

  He agreed on a small focus bill where we did have agreement. He said, 
let's do that by unanimous consent, let's agree where we can agree and 
be constructive and move on. He said, ``I want to try to do those 
things where we have agreement, let's move it.''
  Well, I would say to Senator Sanders, through the Chair, we have 
agreement. This is an important matter. Twenty-seven clinics isn't the 
world, but it is an important matter that affects hundreds of thousands 
of veterans in 18 States, including in my Louisiana communities of 
Lafayette and Lake Charles. We have agreement, so let's move it. I 
agree with that approach. I think that is a constructive approach 
versus saying: I have majority support, but not the 60 required, so I 
am holding everything else veterans-related hostage, I am not agreeing 
to anything else.
  I don't think that is a constructive approach. I don't think that 
reflects the spirit of the American people who want us to try to reach 
agreement where we can reach agreement. I don't think that is a 
constructive way to build goodwill and to build consensus.
  I would urge my colleague, with all due respect, to reconsider. Let's 
agree where we can agree, where we have agreement. Let's move forward 
where we have agreement. Let's move it.
  This isn't the world, but it is meaningful, it is significant, and it 
does not relieve any pressure in terms of the broader veterans 
discussion regarding the Sanders bill or the Burr alternative or 
anything else. Those bills are so much massively larger that these 27 
clinics, being done separately, do not change the discussion or the 
dynamics of this in any way, shape, or form.
  I would urge my colleague to reconsider. I would urge my colleague 
from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, to urge Senator Sanders to 
reconsider, something she has not done to date. A lot of us are waiting 
for her support of these important community-based clinics in Lafayette 
and Lake Charles. She hasn't been on the floor. I urge her to join me 
on the floor to get this done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. First, I would tell you that--two things in terms of 
Senator Landrieu. She has, in fact, spoken to me on numerous occasions 
about her concerns about this issue but, more importantly, she has 
shown a willingness to stand for all veterans in this country, and she 
voted for the legislation

[[Page 5444]]

supported by the American Legion, the DAV, and the Vietnam Veterans of 
America and virtually every veterans organization. So I thank Senator 
Landrieu very much for her support for comprehensive legislation that 
would benefit millions and millions of Americans.
  Essentially, what the Senator from Louisiana is saying is let's work 
together. I agree with him, let us work together. I have 57 votes for 
this piece of legislation. Right now, I ask my friend from Louisiana, 
work with us. What are your objections at a time when we have given 
huge tax breaks to billionaires and millionaires, and when one out of 
four corporations in this country doesn't pay a nickel in Federal 
income taxes. Does my colleague from Louisiana think that in this 
country we should not take care of the men and women who have put their 
lives on the line to defend this country?
  I am prepared, my staff is prepared, to sit down and hear the 
Senator's objections. I am not sure what his objections are. He hasn't 
told me. Is the Senator opposed to an expansion of the caregivers 
program? Is he? So that 70-year-old women who have been taking care of 
their husbands who lost their legs in Vietnam get a modest bit of help? 
Is that an objection the Senator has? Is the Senator objecting to the 
fact that maybe we provide dental care to some veterans whose teeth are 
rotting in their mouths? Is the Senator objecting to advance 
appropriations so we are not in a situation where if we have another 
government shutdown, disabled vets will not get the checks they need? 
Is the Senator objecting to the fact that right now we have young 
veterans who are trying to go to college through the GI bill but can't 
get in-State tuition? Is the Senator objecting to that? Is the Senator 
objecting to helping veterans find jobs in an economy where it is very 
hard to do so?
  I am not quite sure what the Senator's objection is. Tell me. Tell me 
now or sit down with my staff and me, and maybe we can work it out and 
do something of real significance for the veterans of this country.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
the consideration of Calendar No. 297, S. 1950; that a Sanders 
substitute amendment, the text of S. 1982, the Comprehensive Veterans 
Health and Benefits and Military Pay Restoration Act, be agreed to; the 
bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and the motions to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Reserving the right to object, I would again point out 
that I am not only going to object to this, there are 43 Senators who 
have serious substantive concerns with this very broad and expansive 
bill, and those concerns and objections have been laid out. They have 
been laid out by my staff, in meetings with the staff of the Senator 
from Vermont, and they have been laid out by the Republican ranking 
member on the committee, Senator Burr. I share the general concerns of 
Senator Burr about the bill. So if the distinguished Senator from 
Vermont doesn't understand those concerns, quite frankly he hasn't been 
listening very hard. We have laid them out, and they are shared by 43 
Senators, versus a bill, as amended at the desk, with no objections to 
its substance--none, 100 to 0. Big difference. Big difference.
  So on behalf of the total of 43 Senators, I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, retaining the floor, I would also ask 
the distinguished Senator from Vermont through the Chair--because he 
mentioned Senator Landrieu--has Senator Landrieu asked him to remove 
his objection to this bill so we can get a clinic in Lafayette and Lake 
Charles, No. 1; and No. 2, all those veterans groups he mentioned, do 
they oppose moving forward with this bill as it would be amended at the 
desk? Do they publicly oppose moving forward with those 27 veterans 
clinics?
  I would ask those two very important, pertinent questions of the 
Senator from Vermont through the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I believe at this point--please correct 
me if I am wrong--that I control the floor; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SANDERS. While my friend from Louisiana is still here, let me 
answer yes in response to his question. Senator Landrieu has asked me, 
very forcefully, to move forward on this provision on more than one 
occasion, and my response to Senator Landrieu, who voted for the 
comprehensive legislation, unlike Senator Vitter, is the same.
  Secondly, what the veterans organizations of this country want is for 
the Congress to recognize the very serious problems facing the veterans 
community. What I can tell my colleague from Louisiana is that to the 
best of my knowledge the veterans organizations have been to my 
colleague's office, and we are trying to get some specific objections 
as to why he is not supporting this legislation and we have not gotten 
that.
  So I would ask my colleague from Louisiana to come forward and tell 
me what he disagrees with, which he has not done yet, and I look 
forward to working with him. I agree we have to work together. I am 
offering him that opportunity to tell me what he doesn't like. Let's 
get a piece of legislation the veterans of this country need and want 
and that we will be proud of.
  With that, I believe I have the floor; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is correct.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 53 minutes 
remaining in his postcloture time.
  Mr. SANDERS. I will tell my colleague from Louisiana that I don't 
intend to be addressing this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, in that case, I ask unanimous consent to 
wrap up this discussion in about 45 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. I thank my colleague.
  Again, Madam President, I think this is very important. I agree with 
what Senator Sanders said last November--where we have agreement, let's 
move it. We have agreement about these 27 clinics, 18 States, including 
Lafayette and Lake Charles. Let's move it.
  I didn't hear him say that any of those veterans organizations he 
continually cites oppose this because they do not. They take the 
commonsense approach the huge majority of Americans take: Where there 
is agreement and we can constructively move forward for veterans, let's 
do it and let's build on that.
  Finally, if Senator Landrieu has forcefully asked the Senator to 
remove his objection to this, apparently she has not been very 
effective. I think that is very unfortunate because veterans in 
Louisiana are suffering today. They have been waiting for this. They 
have been waiting for years for this, and they still wait, even though 
there is no substantive disagreement with this bill.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, it is not my intention to get involved 
in Louisiana politics, but just let me say that Senator Landrieu has 
voted for this legislation, she has been a champion of veterans rights, 
and I look forward to continuing to work with her on comprehensive 
legislation that will benefit all of the veterans of Louisiana and 
those in the other 49 States.
  Madam President, I wish to change subjects, if I might, and I wish to 
touch upon an issue which I believe is far and away the most 
significant issue facing the American people; that is, a struggle not 
just to make sure we can preserve and expand the vitally important 
programs that are life or death to tens

[[Page 5445]]

of millions of working-class and middle-class families--programs such 
as Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. The issue we are 
discussing now is not just whether we must create the millions and 
millions of jobs that we need. Real unemployment is not 6.8 percent. It 
is close to 12 percent and youth unemployment is close to 20 percent. 
We have to create millions of jobs for our young people and for working 
families around this country.
  We have made some progress with the Affordable Care Act, announced 
just yesterday. About 10 million more Americans will have access to 
health care who formerly did not, but we have to go further. We have to 
join the rest of the industrialized world, all of which have stated--
every country has stated--that health care must be a right and not a 
privilege. When we do that through a Medicare-for-all, single-payer 
program, we can do it much more cost-effectively and end the absurdity 
of the United States spending almost twice as much per capita on health 
care as do the people of any other nation.
  All of those issues, and education and climate change, are all 
enormously important for the future of this Nation. But the issue that 
is even more important than all of those is whether we can prevent this 
country from moving to an oligarchic form of society in which virtually 
all economic and political power rests with a handful of billionaire 
families.
  I know we don't talk about it too much. Most people don't raise that 
issue. Certainly we don't see it in the corporate media. That is the 
reality. Right now in America we have, by far, the most unequal 
distribution of wealth and income of any major country on Earth.
  What we are looking at is the top 1 percent owns 38 percent of the 
financial wealth of America. I have very little doubt the overwhelming 
majority of Americans have no idea what the bottom 60 percent looks 
like. The top 1 percent owns 38 percent of the wealth of America, and 
the bottom 60 percent owns all of 2.3 percent. That gap between the 
very rich and everybody else is growing wider and wider. We have one 
family--one family--the Walton family, who owns Walmart, that owns more 
wealth than the bottom 40 percent of the American people.
  In terms of income, the situation is equally bad. In the last number 
of years since the Wall Street collapse, 95 percent of all new income 
has gone to the top 1 percent.
  So we have an economic situation where the middle class is 
disappearing, and more people are living in poverty than at any time in 
the history of the United States. We have 22 percent of our kids living 
in poverty, the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country 
on Earth. All the while the middle class disappears, more and more 
people are living in poverty, people on top are doing phenomenally 
well. Almost all new income goes to the top 1 percent.
  It is not just a growing disparity in terms of income and wealth--
that is enormously important--but it is what is happening to the 
political foundations of America. What we are now seeing as a result of 
Citizens United--and we are going to see it more as a result of the 
disastrous Supreme Court decision of today in McCutcheon--will enable 
the billionaire class to play an even more prominent role in terms of 
our political process.
  The Koch brothers are worth about $80 billion--$80 billion. They are 
the second wealthiest family in America. Working with other 
billionaires, such as Sheldon Adelson, the Kochs are prepared to spend 
an unlimited sum of money to create an America shaped by their 
rightwing extremist views--and I mean unlimited.
  If your income went up, Madam President--and I know our Presiding 
Officer is not quite there in this status--from $68 billion to $80 
billion in 1 year--a $12 billion increase in your wealth--and you 
believed passionately, as the Koch brothers do, in this rightwing 
agenda, why would you hesitate in spending $1 billion, $2 billion on 
the political process? Last year, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney 
spent a little more than $1 billion for their entire campaigns. These 
guys can take out their checkbook tomorrow and write that check and it 
will be one-twelfth of what their increased wealth was in 1 year. It 
doesn't mean anything to them. It is 50 bucks to you; it is $1 billion 
to them.
  So we have to be very careful that we do not allow this great 
country, where people fought and died to protect American democracy, 
become a plutocracy or an oligarchy, and that, frankly, is the 
direction in which we are moving.
  I suspect that many of our fellow Americans saw a spectacle in Las 
Vegas--and this was not the usual Las Vegas spectacle, with the great 
shows they have there--this was the Sheldon Adelson spectacle. This is 
what the spectacle was just last weekend. Sheldon Adelson said to 
prospective Republican candidates for President: Why don't you come on 
down to Las Vegas and tell me what you could do for me because I am 
only worth $20 billion. I am only the largest gambling mogul in the 
entire world. But $20 billion isn't enough, so I want you to come to 
Las Vegas and tell me what favors you can give me if you happen to be 
elected President and, by the way, if you sound the right note--if you 
kind of do what I like--I may put a few hundred million into your 
campaign. Maybe if I am feeling good, I will throw $1 billion into your 
campaign.
  The media has dubbed this the Adelson primary. What primaries 
generally are about are hundreds of thousands of Republicans getting 
together and they vote on whom they want their candidate to be in a 
State--Democrats do the same--and candidates make an appeal to ordinary 
people to get votes. Some of us are old-fashioned and we kind of see 
that as democracy.
  I come from a State which proudly has town meetings. I have held 
hundreds of town meetings in my State. I know it is old-fashioned. I 
know it is getting out of step, but I actually listen to what people 
have to say. They walk in the door free, occasionally we actually even 
serve some lunch, and they don't have to be a billionaire to ask me a 
question. I answer questions and I talk to people. I understand that is 
old-fashioned, not the way we do it anymore.
  The way we do it now is the Adelson way: walk in the door and I will 
give you hundreds of millions of dollars or come to a campaign 
fundraiser, and if you make the largest contributions--tens of 
thousands of dollars--I will listen to you.
  We have to turn this thing around, because if we don't, we are going 
to end up in a situation where not only the economy of this country is 
going to be controlled by a handful of billionaires and large 
multinational corporations, but we are going to be living in a country 
where the political process is controlled.
  Somebody mentioned to me--and I don't know, maybe I will introduce 
this legislation. We all know what NASCAR is. These guys who drive the 
racing cars have on their coats they are being sponsored by this or 
that oil company or this or that tire company. Maybe we should 
introduce that concept in the Senate. You could have a patch on your 
jacket that says: I am sponsored by the Koch brothers. Eighty-seven 
percent of my funding comes from the Koch brothers.
  Maybe we will give you a special jacket, and then you have the 
Adelson guy or this person or that person. But it might tell the 
American people why we continue as a body to give more tax breaks to 
billionaires and yet we are having a heck of a tough time raising the 
minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. It might tell the American people why 
we do nothing to close corporate loopholes, but we are having a hard 
time addressing pay equity in America so women get the same wages that 
men do.
  I think when we talk about issues such as campaign finance, a lot of 
Americans say: Well, yes, it is a problem, but it doesn't really relate 
to me.
  Let me suggest that it absolutely does relate to every man, woman, 
and child. It is imperative people understand what the agenda is--the 
Koch brothers, for example. These are people

[[Page 5446]]

who have been very clear that they want massive cuts in Social Security 
or the privatization of Social Security. They want massive cuts in 
Medicare or the voucherization of Medicare, and massive cuts in 
Medicaid. As some of the largest polluters in America in terms of 
greenhouse gas emissions, the Koch brothers want to crack down on the 
ability of the EPA to regulate pollution. These guys want to cut back 
on funds for education so our kids can afford to go to college.
  So if we think the issue of campaign finance does not relate to our 
lives, we are very mistaken. We are moving toward a situation where 
people with huge sums of money are going to spend unlimited amounts to 
elect candidates who reflect an extreme rightwing agenda which will 
make the wealthiest people in this country even richer while continuing 
the attacks against the middle class and working families in this 
country.
  I will conclude by saying this--and I mean this quite honestly. As 
somebody who grew up in a family that didn't have a lot of money and as 
somebody who represents the great State of Vermont, where people 
constantly tell me they ask for so little, I have heard veterans say: I 
don't want to use the VA because another veteran really may need it 
more. I don't need this program and somebody else may need it more.
  I don't understand how people worth $80 billion are spending huge 
sums of money to become even richer. They are doing it by trying to 
attack life-and-death programs for the elderly. Why would somebody want 
to cut Social Security when they are worth $80 billion and have more 
money than they can dream of for retirement? Why would somebody want to 
do that when they are worth billions and have the best health care in 
the world? Why do they want to make massive cuts in Medicare or 
Medicaid? What motivates somebody with so much money to go to war 
against working families and the middle class?
  I frankly don't understand it. I can only think that this has to do 
with power--the drive for more and more power, the thrill it must be to 
tell candidates: Do you want my support? This is what you have to do.
  But I think this is just a huge issue that we as a nation have got to 
address. Too many people have given up their lives fighting for 
American democracy to see this great Nation be converted into a 
plutocracy or an oligarchy. We must not allow that to happen.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, can you tell us the order of business 
pending on the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering H.R. 3979.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I start by commending my colleague from 
Vermont.
  What happened today across the street at the Supreme Court will be 
lost on most Americans. They can't understand why they should even care 
about it.
  The Supreme Court was asked whether it was proper under the law to 
limit the number of Federal campaigns and the total dollars an 
individual can give to candidates. To no one's surprise, the Supreme 
Court said there should be no limitation. People can give as much money 
as they want to as many Federal candidates they want with no 
limitation.
  Most Americans will say: So what? You know, these politicians run 
against one another. During the campaign both sides spend too much 
money. I am sick and tired of their ads. I don't care how you pay for 
it; it is all bad.
  But I have to say, Senator Sanders put his finger on it. What is at 
issue here is not just how we finance campaigns. It is who we elect. 
What we are faced with is a Supreme Court across the street which 
celebrates oligarchs. They happen to believe that the wealthiest people 
in America deserve the strongest voice in American politics. I couldn't 
disagree more.
  Sadly, many of us are caught up in this system of campaign financing 
where we literally have to raise millions of dollars to run for 
election and reelection. In my State multimillionaires are running for 
the highest offices against what I consider to be mere mortals--those 
of us who aren't in the multimillionaire class--trying to compete with 
them, always wondering if tomorrow the Koch brothers--with an $80 
billion net worth--will say: Spend $10 million there; spend $20 million 
there.
  I say to my friend from Vermont, as best we can count, in the last 
election cycle the Koch brothers--not to be confused with the soft 
drink--spent over $250 million in ad campaigns. I think the figure, 
frankly, is much higher, and the suggestion is they are going to double 
that spending this time. They have already spent $10 million in the 
State of North Carolina with negative television advertising for 12 
months against the Democratic incumbent Senator Kay Hagan, trying to 
beat her down, so they can defeat her in November.
  Make no mistake. There is a lot of money being spent on both sides. 
But Sheldon Adelson, who--as the Senator from Vermont said--runs one of 
the biggest gambling operations and maybe is the wealthiest man when it 
comes to that in the United States, maybe in the world, has become a 
player. Can you imagine if those who want to run for the Republican 
nomination for President come hat in hand, land at the Las Vegas 
airport, walk into a room and see if they can say something that 
appeals to this man who is worth billions of dollars? Last time he fell 
in love with Newt Gingrich, and he was going to make Newt Gingrich 
President. People in many of the Republican primaries saw it 
differently. Well, this time he wants to pick another horse to run.
  Why are the richest people in America so intent on owning our 
political process? Because they have an agenda. It isn't just because 
they love the Constitution. They have an agenda--an agenda which makes 
the Tax Code work for them, an agenda which makes sure that government 
spending and things that aren't priorities for them are reduced.
  We saw some of that yesterday, when Congressman Paul Ryan in the 
House of Representatives introduced his budget, his vision of what 
America should look like. What is it? It is a budget amendment which 
cuts back on some basic things. One thing the Ryan budget cuts back on 
that everybody listening to this debate ought to take note of is 
domestic discretionary spending for medical research--seriously.
  Today happens to be World Autism Awareness Day. Do you know a family 
with an autistic child? Do you have any idea what they are going 
through? I know a few. Sadly, the number of people suffering from 
autism and the autism spectrum disorder seems to be growing by the day. 
We look at these families struggling to give their son or daughter a 
chance and think: If we only knew a little bit more about this disease, 
if we only knew a little bit more about the human brain, if we only 
could see this coming and do something to avoid it, if we could find a 
way to treat it, what a difference it would make for all of these 
families on World Autism Awareness Day. But the answer from Congressman 
Ryan is to cut back on medical research. That is not the answer. It is 
not the answer for any of us.
  God forbid we go to the doctor's office tomorrow with a child, and 
the doctor says something awful has happened. But the first question we 
would ask the doctor is: Is there something you can do? Is there a 
medicine? Is there a procedure?
  How many families have been in that position where they have asked 
that physician, praying to God that the answer is yes? The answer will 
not be yes when we cut back on medical research. The answer is going to 
be no.
  That is why we have to really reflect on our priorities--not only in 
Congress but in elections. If we are going to let people take over the 
American political scene through the Citizens United

[[Page 5447]]

case across the street or the McCutcheon case which was decided today, 
we are going to turn our government over to people who are totally out 
of touch with the reality of American families and American working 
families. That would be a serious mistake.
  While we are on the subject, these are the first people in line who 
want to eliminate the Affordable Care Act. I was in the Rose Garden 
yesterday, invited by the President with a large group to celebrate the 
announcement that more than 7.1 million Americans have now enrolled by 
the deadline under the Affordable Care Act, and more than 3 million 
young people, fresh out of college, looking for jobs are covered by 
their mom and dad's health insurance while they are looking for work. 
Then add another 8 million people across America who now have health 
insurance protection through Medicaid--meaning their income is so low 
that they qualify for this basic health insurance. Add those numbers 
up, and they come to somewhere in the range of 15 million to 18 million 
people who benefited by the Affordable Care Act--people, who until they 
had this opportunity, some of them, many of them had no insurance. I 
have met them. I have met them across my State. I have met those in 
downstate Illinois who worked all their lives. They are 62 years old.
  A friend of mine never had health insurance one day in her life, 
never missed a day of work in her life. Now she has the protection of 
health insurance at age 62 for the first time--and thank God she does. 
She has just been diagnosed with diabetes. She has a chance now because 
she has health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. So what is the 
response from the other side? Repeal it. Get rid of it. We don't need 
it. It is a waste--too much government.
  We are not going back. We're not repealing. We can make it better, 
and we ought to do it on a bipartisan basis. But we are not repealing 
the Affordable Care Act.
  What would repealing the Affordable Care Act mean to the rest of us 
who have health insurance? The Affordable Care Act guarantees that if 
you have a child or a spouse with a medical condition--a medical 
history of asthma, diabetes, survived cancer--you cannot be 
discriminated against when you buy health insurance. What we are 
talking about here is giving families a fair shot at affordable health 
insurance--giving them a fair shot even if their child is born with a 
serious medical issue.
  Secondly, the Affordable Care Act says: When you sell me a health 
insurance policy, it ought to be worth something when I need it. They 
used to sell these policies and put limits on them. God forbid tomorrow 
you are diagnosed with cancer and facing radiation therapy, 
chemotherapy, surgery, and hospitalizations. But there is a limit on 
your policy, and pretty soon you bust through the limit, and now it is 
all coming out of your meager savings. That is the number one reason 
people declare personal bankruptcy in America--health bills. The 
Affordable Care Act puts an end to that and says that your health 
insurance policy has to be there in an amount when you need it.
  The third thing it says is if you are a senior citizen getting 
prescription drugs--there used to be something called the doughnut 
hole. It was a crazy thing. You couldn't even explain it. I pay for 
prescriptions--no, wait a minute. I don't pay for prescription drugs 
for the first 3 months, and then I pay for them for 4 months, and then 
the government pays for them. It was called the doughnut hole. It made 
no sense at all. We closed the doughnut hole, saying to seniors: We are 
going to make sure that your prescription drugs are covered and you 
don't have to pay out of pocket, and you can get that annual checkup 
that you need to stay healthy. Those who want to repeal the Affordable 
Care Act want to do away with that, and that is just plain wrong.
  As I mentioned earlier, if you happen to be a family with a child 
under the age of 26, you can keep that child on your health insurance 
plan while they are finishing college and looking for a job, maybe 
getting that first job. It may not be the best, may not have benefits. 
They are still covered under your policy.
  Have you as a parent ever called your 24-year-old daughter and asked 
her, as I have: Jenny, do you have health insurance?
  No, Dad. I'm fine. Don't worry about me.
  Right. I will stay up all night worrying about you.
  You don't have to do that anymore under the Affordable Care Act. 
Those who want to repeal it want to go back to those days where young 
people fresh out of college had no health insurance protection. We are 
not going back. We can make this bill stronger and better, and I will 
work to do it. But for the millions of Americans who now have a chance 
at affordable, accessible health insurance, we are not turning the 
clock back.
  There is one other thing worth mentioning. Not only are millions now 
on health insurance, the good news is for the last 5 years since we 
passed this bill, the rate of increase in costs for health insurance 
has been going down--yes, going down. Not as fast as we want it to, but 
it used to be trending up in a way we couldn't even manage or control. 
Now we are moving in the right direction in terms of health care costs. 
So for those who come to the floor of the Senate or the floor of the 
House growling and whining about the Affordable Care Act, the good news 
is that this debate is over in America. The Affordable Care Act is here 
to stay.
  We could make it better. We should work to make it better. We should 
do it on a bipartisan basis. But there are 18 million reasons why we 
are not going to repeal the Affordable Care Act--18 million Americans 
that have peace of mind with health insurance because of this law.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent to offer my amendment No. 2935.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, in order to 
keep this bipartisan emergency legislation pending on the floor and to 
benefit 2.7 million Americans, I respectfully object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
  Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I think it is unfortunate that we are not allowing amendments to be 
offered here for extending unemployment benefits. The least we ought to 
do is make it easier to find a job. Unfortunately, there is no room in 
the legislation to do that.
  I would like to talk about one area where we could offer some help 
and relief. Hearing some of the discussion over the past few minutes in 
this Chamber, it seems that this Chamber has become an echo chamber for 
happy talk about the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, for those who 
talk about figures--enrollment figures and whatever--we seem to forget 
about the number of people who had their health care canceled, who may 
have been able to pick up new coverage under the Affordable Care Act, 
but it is hardly--hardly--affordable. In fact, in most cases the cost 
has gone up significantly.
  So I am here today to join a number of my colleagues who are seeking 
to offer amendments to this legislation, to make it easier for those 
who don't have jobs and who cannot easily access jobs. As we all know, 
the ACA or Affordable Care Act placed requirements on what new plans 
are mandated to cover, including coverage of things--I think they named 
10 essential health care benefits, essential being used loosely--like 
pediatric dentistry, maternity care, mental health.
  We have all heard stories of those squeezed by the ACA's new mandates 
and regulations. For many, if it isn't higher premiums, it is higher 
deductibles, increased copays or even

[[Page 5448]]

greater out-of-pocket costs. That is the case for most but not all. I 
think all of us should freely acknowledge that some people have been 
able to buy more affordable care, but I think those examples are 
overshadowed completely by those who are facing higher costs.
  The Wall Street Journal noted in a March 22 article--they cited an 
eHealth report--that the average premium for an individual health plan 
that meets ACA requirements was $274 a month, up 39 percent from last 
year, before the ACA provisions took effect. The same article reported 
that family plans averaged $663 a month, a 56 percent increase from 
last year. These facts have real world implications and have a bearing 
on both a family's financial realities as well as their employment.
  For instance, I previously referenced a case of Leanne from Eager, 
AZ. Her family is facing what she calls ``sky-high'' rates now. This is 
thanks to the Affordable Care Act. If that isn't bad enough, it looks 
as if she and her husband will have to put off buying their parents' 
business.
  In January I introduced the ReLIEF Act as a response to the 
administration's announcement that those facing health cancellations 
due to the ACA will be able to enroll in catastrophic coverage. The 
relief act would allow health insurance providers to provide 
catastrophic coverage to everyone and would deem these plans as meeting 
the minimal essential coverage requirement. The bottom line is, if we 
are going to delay benefits, delay mandates on the Affordable Care Act 
or delay implementation of certain parts of the Affordable Care Act for 
some, we ought to do it for everyone. I get a real kick out of hearing 
everybody reference the happy talk about the Affordable Care Act, but 
the reality is that much of it has been delayed or postponed or 
changed. If there are no problems with it, why do we keep doing that? 
If we are doing that for some, why don't we delay the mandates for 
everyone or allow others to buy more affordable coverage by giving some 
relief on these mandates?
  This ReLIEF Act that I have introduced will allow health providers to 
offer catastrophic plans that may cost a lot less, that families used 
to be able to access and simply no longer can because too few insurance 
companies will offer them because at a certain point they will have to 
offer compliant plans that are much more expensive. My goal is to 
provide affordable insurance options and to give individuals who don't 
need or don't want more extensive coverage options to purchase these 
plans.
  I applied the relief act to this bill as an amendment. I hope to 
bring that up. That was the purpose of the unanimous consent request 
that was just rejected. Unfortunately, it appears that very few, if 
any, amendments will be allowed to this legislation. I think that is 
unfortunate.
  If we are concerned about the unemployed, as I know we all are, then 
we ought to at least offer them alternatives, offer them ways to more 
easily find employment to give them some more relief.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I come to speak about the economy in 
terms of wages, but I do want to respond to the last discussion in 
terms of health care for a moment. Part of the fair shot is to make 
sure they have a fair shot that they need for their families, and thank 
goodness, under the Affordable Care Act, now folks are going to get 
what they are paying for. They cannot just get dropped if they get sick 
or if their child has juvenile diabetes or they have heart disease or 
some other condition. They are going to be able to know they can get 
insurance without preexisting conditions.
  But it is also going to be incredibly important moving forward for 
women. As the author of the provision to improve maternity care, I do 
want to say to my friend who just spoke that prior to health reform, 
about 60 percent of the plans in the private market wouldn't provide 
maternity care for women, amazingly. Being a woman was viewed as a 
preexisting condition because you might be of childbearing age or maybe 
you are not.
  I remember hearing from one young couple where the husband couldn't 
get insurance because his wife was of childbearing age. They couldn't 
get maternity care. This is not true anymore--not true anymore. Thank 
goodness for the comprehensive care that our friends on the other side 
call regulations on insurance companies--and actually that regulation 
is a requirement--so that women can get maternity care, and there is a 
requirement that we treat mental health and physical health the same in 
terms of insurance, which by the way affects 1 out of 4 people in our 
country. I think that it is a good thing.
  We can always improve on it, and we will, to make it better, listen 
to the concerns and do what needs to be done to make it work better. 
But I think that families now have a fair shot to get health care 
coverage and not as parents go to bed at night worrying about whether 
their kids are going to get sick. It is a good thing, and we will move 
forward in a positive way.
  Mr. President, let me tell you now about a business owner who said 
the minimum wage wasn't good enough--wasn't good enough--and his 
employees needed more. So he doubled everybody's wages. He doubled 
everybody's wages, and people thought he was crazy. He was shunned by 
the business community. People said he would go bankrupt. His name was 
Henry Ford--Henry Ford. Because of his decision to pay his workers $5 a 
day, which was unheard of 100 years ago, he became one of the richest 
men in America.
  When he first announced a $5 workday, not everybody was happy. 
Economists had a fit. Ford's competitors were furious. The Wall Street 
elite were calling the $5 day ``an economic crime.'' They said Ford 
wouldn't be competitive in the economy anymore. They questioned his 
judgment and his business sense.
  They were wrong. His decision to pay his workers $5 a day not only 
was a brilliant business decision, it created the middle class of this 
country. We are very proud in Michigan that it started with us.
  A hundred years ago $5 a day was a lot of money. A loaf of bread cost 
6 cents. A gallon of milk cost about 35 cents. At 3 a.m., the day after 
Henry Ford made his announcement, a bitterly cold day in Detroit, 
something started to happen on Woodward Avenue.
  Picture it. In the middle of a cold night--and we have a lot of cold 
nights in Michigan--people all around Detroit at 3 o'clock in the 
morning began walking through the snow-covered streets to Woodward and 
Manchester, the site of Ford's Highland Park plant. A line was forming, 
getting longer every minute. Tens and then hundreds and then thousands 
of people were getting in line. Traffic came to a standstill. There 
were too many people in the road for the cars to get by.
  The hours passed. The lines got longer. By 10 a.m. there were 12,000 
people standing in line waiting in the freezing cold for the chance to 
get one of those jobs--one of those $5-a-day jobs that Henry Ford was 
offering, to be able to work hard, get that job, and build a better 
life. They were just looking for a fair shot to get ahead, like the 
millions of workers today who work 40 hours a week, such as the single 
mom who scrubs floors and works 40 hours a week and is still living in 
poverty, and the millions of other Americans still looking for work. 
Like most Americans and like those Ford workers 100 years ago, they 
just want a shot to work hard and play by the rules and be able to get 
ahead with their family.
  Henry Ford knew that when his workers had money in their pocket, when 
they had enough money to put food on the table, when they were caught 
up on their bills, it meant they could afford to buy one of those cars 
they were building at the plant.
  In fact, that is what he said when folks called him crazy. He said, 
``I want to make sure I got somebody who can afford to buy my car.''
  For families in 1914, a job in the Ford factory was a ticket to the 
middle class, and that is still true today. Henry Ford knew that paying 
a higher wage would mean happier workers and

[[Page 5449]]

lower turnover, instead of workers who were frustrated about not being 
able to make ends meet. Henry Ford had workers who were proud to work 
for him. This meant greater productivity and greater profits because if 
the workers could make more cars he could sell more cars. If they could 
sell more cars, they could make more cars, so this was a win-win 
situation.
  Henry Ford made more money than he had ever dreamed of, and his 
workers made more money than they had ever dreamed of. The effect this 
new wage had on Ford's employees went deeper than their wallets. In the 
first 3 weeks after the raise began, more than 50 of his employees 
applied for marriage licenses because they said they could now afford 
to get married and start a family. A lot of folks talk about the 
importance of starting a family. Having money in your pocket to be able 
to get started in life is a pretty big deal.
  When the workers made enough money to live on, they were able to 
spread the wealth. Their local grocery stores, restaurants, and 
hardware stores and others also benefited from the increase in wages, 
which was reflected all around the neighborhood and the plant in 1914. 
A sandwich cart operator near the plant was interviewed about the new 
wages by the Detroit News in February of 1914, and he said: ``I'm for 
this raise in wages. I sell nearly twice as much as I did a month 
ago.'' Those who sold food and goods, such as hats, scarves, and gloves 
near the plant said the same thing. One vendor said that if things kept 
going like this, he would have to hire a new employee to help out with 
the new business.
  It is simple: When workers have more money in their pockets, they 
have more money to spend at businesses both large and small. When 
businesses have more customers, they can pay their workers better and 
hire more of them. When the workers have more money in their pocket, 
they can go out and buy more things, and that is called the demand part 
of the economy.
  Our colleagues are always talking about the supply side. They like to 
say: Let's just give it to the top and it will trickle down. Most 
people in Michigan are still holding their breath waiting for it to 
trickle down. We know if you put it in the pocket of workers--people 
who are, frankly, fighting to hold on to stay in the middle class or 
working to get into the middle class--you create the demand side of the 
economy.
  As Henry Ford found out, things started turning. This kind of 
virtuous cycle that Henry Ford helped create in Michigan and in America 
100 years ago is what we need to do today to restore our economy. We 
can't do that with a minimum wage that has lost most of its value in 
the past few decades.
  Those Ford workers worked hard, saved their money, bought homes, 
built communities, and gave their children opportunities, such as being 
able to go to college. In Michigan, you can buy a little cottage up 
north where you can have a boat, a snowmobile, or be able to go out 
hunting on the weekends and enjoy life--that is the middle class.
  Because of what was done by doubling people's wages--when everyone 
said Henry Ford was crazy--created the middle class of this country. 
But today everything the middle class worked for--what they built with 
their bare hands, elbow grease, and blood, sweat, and tears--is at 
risk. The Federal minimum wage has been stuck at $7.25 for nearly 5 
years. That single mom with two kids working for minimum wage today 
earns about $15,000 a year, which is $4,000 below the poverty line. 
That is not right, if you work 40 hours a week and make less than the 
poverty level. That is not how we built the middle class 100 years ago, 
and it is certainly not how we are going to grow it today.
  Too many Americans rightly feel they are trapped in a rigged game 
where heads, the wealthy win, and tails, the rest of us lose. What we 
need is an economy that gives everybody a fair shot. That is what we 
are fighting for, that is what we believe in, and that is what we are 
promoting in everything we are doing. We want a fair shot and a fair 
economy for everybody--not a free shot but a fair shot for everybody 
who works hard. Being rewarded for your hard work is what makes this 
country great. You can take a good idea, you can work hard, you can 
build a better life, and that is the American dream.
  Today there is less opportunity for people who do that, 
unfortunately. People need to have a chance to build something--to 
build a career, a company, and a future--or we will fall behind the 
rest of the world. They need a fair shot. They deserve a fair shot. The 
middle class we built over the last 100 years could cease to exist if 
we don't act together and understand what drives the economy.
  To turn things around, we need to make sure people can get jobs that 
pay a fair wage just as we had 100 years ago. Let's talk about what 
that means. We can start by raising the minimum wage. What is appalling 
to me today is that the $5 a day Henry Ford paid his workers for 8 
hours of work is the equivalent of $14.67 an hour. If we did what Henry 
Ford did 100 years ago by paying $5 to his employees to help drive the 
economy and create the middle class, employees today would have to be 
paid about $14.67 an hour.
  Think about that for a minute. The millions of Americans across this 
country who are working today for a minimum wage are only making the 
equivalent of half of what Henry Ford paid his workers 100 years ago. 
Meanwhile, the average CEO in this country today now makes as much as 
the wages of 933 minimum wage workers combined. I could not fit quite 
that many people in here, but imagine 933 people--all working 40 hours 
a week, making minimum wage, and maybe working 2 or 3 jobs--combined 
equals the average salary of a CEO.
  We are going to move this country and working-class people forward 
again if we understand that people need a fair shot to get ahead and we 
do something about it. That is why we are going to vote soon on the 
Fair Minimum Wage Act which does just what it says. It makes sure all 
of our workers are getting paid a fair wage. An hourly wage of $10.10--
not even as much as I was talking about with Henry Ford--is the right 
number because it gets people out of poverty. That is the number that 
gets people out of poverty.
  Some places across the country are seeking a minimum wage hike that 
is higher than that, while too many States are stuck at $7.25 an hour, 
which is the national average. The bill before us in the Senate strikes 
the right balance by raising the minimum wage to the point where people 
are above the poverty line and have a fair shot to get ahead. If it 
made sense for Henry Ford in 1914, it makes sense for us today in 2014. 
The American people know this, and that is why raising the minimum wage 
enjoys broad bipartisan public support. If the public were voting, this 
would be done.
  Democrats, Republicans, and Independents understand that it makes 
sense, just as Henry Ford realized it 100 years ago. If families are 
making more money, it is better for everybody in the economy, and it is 
better for taxpayers. All of us, as taxpayers, know that higher 
salaries mean we are not spending so much money on food assistance. If 
we can get $10.10 an hour, we are saving money on SNAP and people will 
not need or qualify for food assistance anymore. That is the way to cut 
the food assistance budget the right way. We need to give people access 
to work that pays above poverty line. Give people a handhold on the 
ladder to opportunity.
  This is about the future of our country. If we want to continue to be 
a world leader, we have to make sure everybody has a fair shot at a 
good education, to get a good job, start a business, and make enough 
money. When they can do that, they will be able to support their 
family.
  Nobody who works 40 hours week should live in poverty. Yet that is 
exactly what is happening today. We can change that. We can do what 
Henry Ford did. This man became one of the wealthiest men in the world 
by lifting people up and giving them a fair shot with a fair wage. I 
hope that in a few days we will do that. The American people get it, 
and I hope we will too.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

[[Page 5450]]


  Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I ask to speak in morning business for 
up to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, this morning the Supreme Court 
announced its decision in the McCutcheon v. Federal Election 
Commission, the latest in a series of rulings that have done away with 
any meaningful limits on money in politics. Since the Supreme Court 
issued its ruling in Citizens United in 2010, we have witnessed the 
systematic unraveling of our Nation's campaign finance laws.
  I am sure this is a cause for celebration for some--the superwealthy 
and well-funded corporate interests--because, after all, these rulings 
give them more influence, more access, and more power, as if they need 
it. Then there is everybody else--the everyday folks in Minnesota and 
around the country who don't have the luxury of pouring millions of 
dollars into political campaigns.
  There is the senior on a fixed income who gives $25 to a candidate 
she likes--maybe someone fighting to contain the cost of prescription 
drugs. That $25 donation is real money for that senior, but it is 
nothing compared to the $25 million the pharmaceutical industry can now 
spend to elect the other candidate.
  There is the middle-class mom who has just enough money to buy her 
kids' school clothes, but surely doesn't have enough money left over to 
buy an election too.
  There is the small business owner in the suburbs who is so concerned 
about making payroll that she cannot even begin to think about making a 
huge campaign contribution.
  Our democracy can't function the way it is supposed to when these 
voices are drowned out by a flood of corporate money, so for those who 
believe the measure of democracy's strength is in votes cast, not 
dollars spent, well, for us there is nothing to celebrate today.
  Citizens United was, in my view, one of the worst decisions in the 
history of the Supreme Court. By a 5-4 margin, the Court ruled that 
corporations have a constitutional right to spend as much money as they 
want to influence elections. If Big Oil wants to spend millions of 
dollars to attack the guy who is advocating for more renewable fuels, 
the Supreme Court says: Sure. Go ahead. If huge corporations want to 
run endless radio ads against a candidate who promises to raise the 
minimum wage, the Supreme Court says: Fine. Go ahead. If the Wall 
Street banks want to pour money into a campaign to undo consumer 
protection laws, the Supreme Court says that is their constitutional 
right so there is not much you can do about it. That is the way the 
Court sees it, but it is not the way I see it and it is not the way 
most Minnesotans see it either.
  I think we should be able to say: Enough is enough. There is too much 
corporate money in politics and some reasonable limits on campaign 
spending are not just appropriate, they are necessary. Really, that is 
what Citizens United is all about--the case that got us into this mess. 
It sort of came down to the question: Can we, the people, place any 
real limit on the amount of money corporations can spend on elections? 
The answer should have been, yes, of course we can, but five Supreme 
Court Justices said: No, we can't. Their logic was literally 
unprecedented.
  To reach the result it did, the Supreme Court had to overturn the 
case Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. The decision had been on 
the books for 20 years. Overturning Austin wasn't some minor technical 
change to the law; it was a radical shift, an exercise in pro-corporate 
judicial activism. Just compare what the Court said about campaign 
expenditures in Austin to what it said 20 years later in Citizens 
United. In Austin, the Court refused to strike down a Michigan law that 
limited corporate spending on elections. The Court explained that the 
lawsuit served a ``compelling interest''--namely, preventing 
corporations from gaining an unfair advantage in the political system. 
The Austin Court said that ``corporate wealth can unfairly influence 
elections.'' Those were the Supreme Court's words in 1990, that 
``corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections.'' The Court 
explained that campaign finance laws prevent ``the corrosive and 
distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are 
accumulated with the help of the corporate form.'' In other words, 
there is good reason--no, a compelling reason--to be worried about 
unlimited corporate money in politics.
  Had today's Supreme Court followed the precedent, Citizens United 
would have been an easy case. I mean, I would have written the opinion 
in a couple of minutes. It would have gone something like this: Laws 
limiting corporate campaign expenditures are constitutional. See Austin 
v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. The end.
  Of course, that is not the opinion the Court wrote in Citizens 
United. The Court's opinion was a lot longer and a lot worse.
  Here is the one phrase that sums up the Citizens United decision: 
``We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made 
by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of 
corruption.'' The majority of the Court told us that there is no reason 
at all to be worried about unlimited corporate money in politics 
anymore, that it does not give rise even to the appearance of 
corruption. And, the logic goes, since there is no reason to be 
concerned about it, there is no constitutional basis to regulate it. 
That is what the Court tells us, but we know better. The Court's 
analysis not only is disconnected from precedent, it is disconnected 
from reality.
  The Minnesota League of Women Voters recently issued a report in 
which it concluded that ``the influence of money in politics represents 
a dangerous threat to the health of our democracy in Minnesota and 
nationally.'' That is the Minnesota League of Women Voters. That sounds 
right to me because here is the thing: In our democracy, everyone is 
supposed to have an equal say regardless of his or her wealth. The guy 
in the assembly line gets as many votes as the CEO--one. You don't get 
extra votes just because you have extra money or greater say because of 
greater wealth. It doesn't work that way--or shouldn't.
  Citizens United turned the whole thing on its head and basically said 
that those among us with the most money get the most influence, and not 
only that, there is no limit to the amount of money the wealthy can 
spend or the amount of influence they can buy. I think that is 
inherently corrupting.
  Unfortunately, Citizens United was just the beginning of the story, 
and in the years since we have seen courts across the country strike 
down campaign finance laws, ushering in what are known as super PACs--
wealthy groups that can raise and spend unlimited money to influence 
elections.
  Today, in McCutcheon, the Court took Citizens United a step further, 
striking down a law that limited the amount of money people could give 
directly to candidates and political parties. In doing so, the Court 
overturned a key holding from Buckley v. Valeo, a case from 1976. Until 
today, the law said that direct contributions to candidates, parties, 
and certain PACs could not exceed about $125,000 in the aggregate per 
election cycle. The law was intended to stem the tide of money in 
politics and maintain the integrity of our public institutions. But as 
of this morning, that law has been taken off the books at the Supreme 
Court's direction.
  As Justice Breyer explained in his dissenting opinion in McCutcheon 
today, ``Taken together with Citizens United, today's decision 
eviscerates our Nation's campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant 
incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy 
that those laws were intended to resolve.'' He is right.
  Changing law has real consequences. What happens when we get rid of 
the speed limit? People with fast cars drive faster--as fast as they 
want to drive. What happens when we get rid of campaign finance limits? 
Well, special interests with a lot of money spend more of it on 
politics--as much as they want to spend. That is not a theory; it is 
empirical fact. According to data collected by the Center for 
Responsive

[[Page 5451]]

Politics, spending by outside groups more than tripled from 2008 to 
2012, with overall outside spending topping $1 billion--billion with a 
``b''--for the first time in history. Where is the new money coming 
from? Well, in most cases we don't know. More on that a little later. 
What we do know is pretty much what one would expect. According to one 
study, 60 percent of super PACS' funding in the 2012 election cycle 
came from just 132 donors, each donating at least $1 million. So we 
have a relatively small group of superwealthy people accounting for 
most of the money.
  Remember when the Citizens United court decision assured us that all 
of this new money in politics is OK, that we shouldn't be worried about 
it, that it ``will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our 
democracy''? Wow, were they wrong. People are losing faith in our 
democracy, and can we blame them?
  The system is broken, and we need to fix it. There are a number of 
good proposals out there, and I wish to use this opportunity to mention 
three of them: disclosure, public financing, and a constitutional 
amendment.
  First, we need greater disclosure. The problem in the post-Citizens 
United world isn't just that there is now unlimited money in politics, 
it is also that we have no idea where that money is coming from. 
Billionaires and big corporations want to influence elections by giving 
unlimited money to super PACs, but they don't want anyone to know they 
are the ones pulling the strings, so they do something that looks a lot 
like money laundering--except that it is perfectly legal.
  Let's say there are a bunch of corporations and billionaires out 
there who want to preserve indefensible tax loopholes that really only 
help their bottom lines. Their allies form a super PAC with a mission 
to do just that--preserve their big tax breaks. Now, a super PAC needs 
a name. ``Americans for Indefensible Tax Loopholes'' probably doesn't 
achieve their end, so the super PAC decides to go with something such 
as ``Americans for a Better Tax Code.'' After all, who could be against 
that? Remember, the corporations or the billionaires who are behind 
this whole thing don't want their fingerprints on this, so they pass 
their money through shell corporations before it ends up in the super 
PAC. That way the actual donors don't show up on the Federal disclosure 
forms. So now the TV is flooded with attack ads and something like 
``paid for by Americans for a Better Tax Code,'' but nobody has any 
idea who is actually behind the advertisement and there is no good way 
to find out.
  But hang on. It gets worse. In addition to all of the secret money 
being spent by these super PACs, there are a bunch of nonprofit 
organizations that are using a glitch in the Tax Code to keep all of 
their campaign activities secret. These groups, liberal or 
conservative, don't have to disclose a single penny. Combine them with 
the super PACs, and we have a lot of money and very little information. 
Voters aren't just being flooded, they are being blindfolded too.
  We have a bill called the DISCLOSE Act that would go a long way 
toward fixing this problem. It would put in place a clear set of rules 
requiring disclosure whenever anyone spends more than $10,000 to 
influence an election, even when that money is being funneled through 
back channels. The idea is pretty simple: If someone is going to spend 
that kind of money to influence elections, people should know about it 
so they can make informed decisions and effectively evaluate what a 
candidate has to say. This is all about transparency and 
accountability.
  All of us should be able to get behind that. Indeed, most of us 
already have. The last version of the DISCLOSE Act had support from a 
majority of Senators, and I am proud to have been one of the bill's 
cosponsors. Several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have spoken enthusiastically about greater disclosure. They have said 
things such as ``sunshine is the greatest disinfectant.'' Even the 
Supreme Court has endorsed disclosure laws in both Citizens United and 
in today's decision. Poll after poll shows that the vast majority of 
Americans support greater transparency in campaign financing.
  This is a basic step we should be able to take pretty easily--or one 
would think so. It turns out that one would be wrong. In July 2012 we 
brought the DISCLOSE Act to the Senate floor and Republicans blocked 
it. The bill died before it could get an up-or-down vote. But we are 
not going to give up on it. I will continue to work with my colleagues 
to make the campaign finance system more transparent.
  Here is another thing we can do: Fundamentally change the way 
candidates finance their campaigns. Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois 
recently reintroduced the Fair Elections Now Act, which basically says 
that candidates who refuse to accept contributions of more than $150 
will be eligible for public financing of their campaigns. This would 
level the playing field. Instead of campaigns that are funded by a 
handful of wealthy donors, we will have citizen-funded grassroots 
campaigns where candidates focus their attention on people who donate 
$5, $10, $50, up to $150. We will restore power to that senior who 
makes the $25 donation.
  I have cosponsored the Fair Elections Now Act in the past, and I am 
proud to cosponsor it again in this Congress. This isn't going to solve 
all of the problems created by Citizens United and McCutcheon, but it 
is a step in the right direction.
  Finally, there is something else we can do, and honestly it is the 
one thing we most need to do if we are going to repair all the damage 
the Supreme Court has done; that is, amend the Constitution to reverse 
the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions.
  Let me be clear. Amending the Constitution is not something I take 
lightly. I think it should be done only in extraordinary circumstances. 
But the Supreme Court's decisions present us with one of those 
situations because they erode the very foundation of our democracy.
  I know what my colleagues are thinking: Constitutional amendments are 
really hard to come by. They require agreement by two-thirds of both 
Chambers of Congress, and they have to be ratified by at least three-
quarters of the States.
  It is no wonder that constitutional amendments have been so rare in 
our history.
  Just because a constitutional amendment takes a long time to 
accomplish doesn't mean it is not worth trying. It took a long time--
much longer than it should have--to enshrine women's suffrage into the 
Constitution, but it got done because it would have been an affront to 
our democracy had it been otherwise.
  These things take time and patience and persistence and perseverance, 
but they happen. In fact, there is already momentum building. I am 
proud to cosponsor a constitutional amendment that has been proposed 
here in the Senate that would restore legal authority to the people to 
regulate campaign finance. The States are moving in the right direction 
too. According to Public Citizen, 16 States have already called for a 
constitutional amendment. I believe it is time for us to answer the 
call.
  Mr. President, thank you. I yield the floor for the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Yesterday, the administration announced that 7.1 million people had 
signed up for private health care all across the country in exchanges 
that range from the national exchange down to the State-based 
exchanges. Many of those who signed up are women who are enjoying new 
benefits and new protections under the health care law. So I wanted to 
come down to the floor, as Senator Kaine did earlier today, as Senator 
Boxer will in a few moments, to talk about why women all across this 
country have a completely different health care experience today under 
the Affordable Care Act and why they have no interest in going back to 
the days before the Affordable Care Act, and to talk also about what it 
means to have 7 million people all

[[Page 5452]]

across this country who now have access to private health care 
insurance who did not have it before.
  The story for women all across this country, as Senator Boxer will 
talk about in far more articulate terms than I can, is pretty stunning. 
Mr. President, 8.7 million women will gain maternity coverage in 2014; 
8.7 million women did not have maternity coverage either because they 
did not have coverage to begin with or because they had a plan that did 
not provide maternity coverage. The health care law says if you buy 
insurance, we are going to expect that insurance has just a basic, 
commonsense level of benefits, and I think every American would agree 
with the fact that insurance for a woman should probably cover what for 
many women will be the most expensive intersection with the health care 
system they have in their life: And that is when they get pregnant. For 
families across the country, getting pregnant can bankrupt a family if 
they do not have maternity coverage. That changes with the Affordable 
Care Act.
  Twenty seven million women can receive lifesaving preventive care 
without copays all across this country. A copay for many people is just 
$5 or $10. But for some cancer screenings, it can be a significant 
amount of money, running more than $100. For low-income women, who are 
the primary breadwinner for their family, who are perhaps only making 
about $25,000 a year, that is a barrier for them in seeking this basic 
preventive care, seeking care that could catch a cancer when it can be 
treated before it becomes a killer. Because of the Affordable Care Act, 
27 million women now can receive lifesaving preventive care.
  But maybe the most important statistic for women is this one: zero. 
Zero women can be charged more just for being a woman. The reality was, 
as Senator Boxer will talk about, if you were a woman in this country, 
you were sometimes paying 50 percent more simply because insurance 
companies believed in many cases that being a woman constituted a 
preexisting condition.
  So we have 7.1 million people who are now on these private exchanges. 
Many of them are women who are already enjoying the benefits of the 
Affordable Care Act but now are going to be able to get lifesaving 
treatment because of the ACA.
  There were a lot of people who said this day was not going to happen. 
There were a lot of naysayers out there who said there was no way we 
were ever going to be able to hit the 7 million mark.
  It is kind of interesting to look back now on all of the folks who 
predicted catastrophe for the Affordable Care Act who have been proven 
wrong. Before I yield the floor for Senator Boxer, I want to go through 
a couple of these statements.
  A lot of people in the House of Representatives have spent the 
majority of the last several years trying to destroy the Affordable 
Care Act. I was a Member of that body, and I probably was down on the 
floor of the House of Representatives for about 40 different votes to 
repeal all or part of the Affordable Care Act. I think we are now at 
about 50 or 51 votes.
  But when the Web site ran into some troubles in the beginning of the 
year, they all went down to the floor and went on the cable news 
networks and said this was an example of how bad this law is and there 
is no way to fix the law, there is no way to fix the Web site.
  Representative Bill Johnson of Ohio said this:

       This may be the most stunning example of overpromising and 
     under delivering in recent U.S. history. Based on my review, 
     the problems with the Healthcare.gov website are 
     catastrophic.

  That is a bit of hyperbole to suggest that the problems with the Web 
site were the most stunning example ever in recent U.S. history of 
overpromising and underdelivering. But, of course, the Web site 
problems were fixed. They were fixed within a few months such that we 
have actually gone straight through the CBO's estimate--after the Web 
site troubles--of 6 million people enrolling and we now have 7 million 
people enrolling.
  But as early as this month, Republicans and mass media sources were 
telling us there was no way we were going to hit 7 million or 6 
million. An Associated Press article said:

       . . . the White House needs something close to a miracle to 
     meet its goal of enrolling 6 million people by the end of 
     this month. With open enrollment ending March 31, that means 
     to meet the goal, another 1.8 million people would have to 
     sign up during the month. . . . That's way above the daily 
     averages for January and February. . . . The math seems to be 
     going against the administration.

  Well, what the Associated Press did not get is that there is 
desperation out on the streets. People who have not had insurance for 
years, if not decades, well, they might have taken their time to price 
out the right plan for themselves. Some of them might have simply 
waited until the last minute. But the reality is, the demand there is, 
frankly, almost insatiable, such that the Web site actually came down 
for a portion of time on the 31st because so many people were going to 
it. The number eventually eclipsed even the CBO's rosiest estimate of 
enrollment.
  Bill Kristol said this:

       If the exchanges are permitted to go into effect . . . 
     there will be error, fraud, inefficiency, arbitrariness, and 
     privacy violations aplenty. . . . Just as economic shortages 
     were endemic to Soviet central planning, the coming Obamacare 
     train wreck is endemic to big government liberalism.

  Well, the exchanges are working pretty well, such that we broke 
through the 7 million barrier. In my State of Connecticut, which has 
run a really good exchange, we are coming close to doubling our 
expected enrollment. Senator Boxer will talk about her numbers in 
California. But when you actually work to implement the health care 
law, rather than work to undermine it, as several States are, the 
exchanges work very well.
  So then they turned and said: Well, yes, lots of people are signing 
up, and, yes, the exchanges seem to be working, but the wrong people 
are signing up. So one conservative scholar said:

       They have thrown the entire health-care system into 
     unprecedented chaos for a population--

  The uninsured--

     that is, it seems, staying as far away from it as possible. 
     Little has been fixed. . . .

  Well, Kentucky, just in the first 6 months of implementation, has 
reduced its uninsured population by 40 percent. The RAND Corporation 
said that 9 million Americans who had no health insurance now have 
health insurance. The reality is that people without insurance are 
signing up for the new health care law. Why? Because they can afford it 
and they desperately need it.
  The fact is Republicans are going to continue to attack this law, and 
they are going to continue to change their arguments, they are going to 
continue to be shifting in the messages they send to the American 
people because every time they tell us that something is wrong, they 
are wrong.
  Now they have said--do you know what--that 7 million figure, well, 
that just cannot be right. They are cooking the books. That cannot be 
right. There has to be something wrong with the methodology. Well, it 
is not just the Obama administration that says it is 7 million; it is 
independent analysts who say it is 7 million. And guess what. By the 
end of the year it could be 8 million once people who have had life-
changing events sign up for care, once we incorporate all the State 
numbers.
  Nobody is cooking the books. The uninsured are not staying away. The 
exchanges are not catastrophic. The Web site is not unfixable. All of 
these things have been proven untrue. Yet we still have people come 
down to the floor and tell us why this thing cannot work.
  I listened to one of my colleagues come down to the floor earlier 
today and tell a story about a family in Wyoming. I do not know the 
specifics of the family there. But let's talk about families in a State 
like Wyoming that is on a Federal exchange--the real story of the 
options that are out there for families out there.
  I think my friend from Wyoming was talking about a family of five. 
Again, I cannot know all of the specifics of that family. But let's say 
that family of five in Carbon County, WY, was making $100,000 a year--
which would be about

[[Page 5453]]

twice the average salary in that State and across the country. Well, 
that family of five making $100,000 a year would qualify for a $677 per 
month tax credit. A bronze plan would be about $550 to $750 per month. 
That is about 40 percent cheaper than a lot of private plans that may 
be available today.
  Now let's say that family is actually making the median income in 
Wyoming, which is around $56,000. Well, if you are making $56,000, and 
you are a family of five in Wyoming, all your kids will qualify for 
Medicaid, which is virtually free, and the parents would qualify for a 
tax credit of $528 per month. A bronze plan could be as cheap as $171 
per month.
  That is the reality. That is affordable for a family of five making 
the median income. That is affordable. I understand people are having 
stories that do not match up with the 7 million people who have signed 
up for these plans over the past several months. I get that there is 
bad news out there. But there is a lot of good news out there as well. 
There are a lot of people who could not afford to buy a health 
insurance plan, who now can finally afford health care.
  That is why Senator Boxer and myself and Senator Stabenow and Senator 
Whitehouse and so many others have been coming down to the floor to 
talk about the fact that the Affordable Care Act is working. And for 
all of the naysayers, for all of the people who have predicted that 
this law could not work, well, the example has been set: 7 million 
people and counting signed up for health care exchanges all across this 
country--never mind all of the people who have gotten access to 
Medicaid, never mind all the people who have been able to stay on their 
parents' plan. We do not know what the overall number right now will be 
of people who have qualified for health care under the exchanges, 
Medicaid, and the provisions allowing people to stay on their plans. 
But this number could be 25 million by the time the year is out.
  So I am thrilled to see the success of the Affordable Care Act and 
the number from yesterday. I am thrilled to see the life-changing 
benefits for women all across the country. I am pleased to be joined 
here on the floor by my colleague, Senator Boxer.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is the time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is postcloture on H.R. 3979 and a 
perfecting amendment thereto.
  Mrs. BOXER. Do I need to ask permission to speak on health care?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does need consent.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would so ask.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you so much, Mr. President.
  I want to say a big thank you to Senator Murphy because he has been a 
great leader on this issue. He and I are coming from States where 
people are signing up and signing up and surpassing the goals. The 
stories are incredibly heartwarming and wonderful and are being told on 
the radio and being told on TV. The truth is coming out about the 
Affordable Care Act.
  All of the scares aside, we see now it is working. Why is it working? 
Because there was a very simple premise when we passed this bill 4 
years ago; and that was, people deserve a fair shot at affordable 
health care. That is all it was. They deserve a fair shot at getting 
affordable health care. They deserve affordable health care. They 
deserve to be free from discrimination by the insurance companies.
  So I am so pleased Senator Murphy has taken it upon himself to 
organize a few of us so we do not allow misinformation and lies to be 
spread about the Affordable Care Act.
  What I loved about President Obama's speech yesterday at the Rose 
Garden was that he is so open about it. He said: Yes, we had a flawed 
rollout. We lost time. That was bad. And, yes, no bill is perfect. I 
think it was our colleague Angus King who said it the best. He said: 
The most perfect document in the world is the Constitution, and it has 
been amended 27 times. So is any bill perfect? Is any document perfect? 
Of course not. But I am here to say, given the facts--not the made-up 
stuff--given the facts, I am so proud I was able to vote for the 
Affordable Care Act. I am so proud of that. And I am sad that not one 
Republican joined us in that vote--not one of them, not one of them.
  When you go back to 4 years ago, we saw that millions of our citizens 
were uninsured because they could not afford insurance; or they were 
uninsured because their insurance company walked out on them when they 
were sick; or there were annual limits on their plans, and they simply 
went over that annual limit and they went broke and they could not 
afford insurance. Some had lifetime caps. And it sounded like a lot: 
Oh, you have a cap of a quarter of a million dollars. But then when you 
get cancer, that cap is reached a heck of a lot faster than you 
thought.
  So we had kids kicked off their parents' health insurance at 18, 19 
years old.
  We had people with asthma, diabetes, cancer who could not get 
insurance until the Affordable Care Act passed. Being a woman was 
considered a preexisting condition. If you were a victim of domestic 
violence, forget it. The insurance company wanted no part of your risk. 
So Democrats took action--took action.
  All the Republicans can do is come down here and say: Oh, here is one 
constituent's story. For every one constituent's story that they tell, 
No. 1, doublecheck the facts because sometimes we look at the facts and 
they are not exactly what they say. But I can give 100 stories to their 
1 of people finally getting health care.
  By the way, we can fix this law any day of the week with the help of 
the Republicans if they have an issue they think needs to be addressed. 
But their answer is: repeal, repeal, repeal. Why would they want to 
repeal a law that is helping, I will tell you, over 100 million 
Americans, not 7 million--7 million who are on the exchange--but I will 
show you more than 100 million of our people are getting preventive 
care, free cancer screenings, immunizations, contraception.
  It has made a big difference in their lives. It is making a big 
difference that kids can stay on their parents' policies. Why do they 
want to repeal a law that does that, that gives us a patients' bill of 
rights, so insurance companies cannot look at you when you are sick, in 
your darkest moment and say: Senator or friend or Mr. Jones or Mrs. 
Smith, I am so sorry to tell you that you are not getting any more 
coverage because we just learned you had diabetes. You did not tell us. 
You did not mention it. You are out.
  I do not know why Republicans want to take that away from people, but 
then again history is repeating itself. I tell my friends--I have so 
many friends on the other side of the aisle. We just see the world 
differently. When we go back to Medicare, you should see what the 
Republicans said in this Senate about Medicare: Socialism, let it 
wither on the vine.
  Bob Dole was here. He was so proud he voted against it. He led the 
charge. ``It is terrible.'' Now you have tea party members come with 
signs to rallies that say, ``Don't touch my Medicare.'' They love their 
Medicare. They do not understand it is a government program, Medicare. 
The government is the insurer. Of course, Paul Ryan wants to end it in 
his budget. So I guess nothing changes; it all stays the same. They 
hated Medicare. They still hate it. They wanted it to wither on the 
vine. They totally destroy it in Ryan's budget.
  Social Security. You should see what they said about Social Security. 
It was an abomination. That is what they said. So nothing changes. We 
have different people in different clothes. I look a little different 
than the Democrats in the old days. There were no women here for 
starters. My colleague is very handsome. He had some predecessors that 
looked good, but they all say the same thing: Government should not be 
involved in any of this. It will all be great. You know what. I wish 
they were right. I wish they were right.
  My husband developed a small business. He managed to pay health care

[[Page 5454]]

for his people. He was proud to do it. But you know not every business 
is fair and just and right. So, yes, once in a while we have to say 
let's all work together to make sure people are covered. When I was a 
little kid, my mother used to tell me all the time: Without your health 
care, you have nothing. If you are sick, you got nothing.
  I used to say: Oh, God, I am so tired of hearing that. I remember she 
used to say: You see that beautiful actress over there? She has 
everything, but she got sick so she has nothing. Your health is 
everything, she told me. You have to protect your health. She was 
right.
  How do you protect your health and the health of your family? By 
getting preventive care so you can catch something early. If you do not 
have insurance, you do not get that preventive care. You are in 
trouble. If something happens and you are in an automobile accident and 
you thought you were an invincible young person and nothing would 
happen to you and suddenly you find yourself with broken bones and 
everything else, including a broken heart, and you have no health 
insurance, you can go bankrupt. People did, because it was so hard to 
get affordable insurance before the Affordable Care Act.
  So what you are hearing and will continue to hear are scare tactics, 
stories. I am here to tell you--and I want to say it very clearly--
about the millions and millions of Americans who understand that the 
Affordable Care Act is working for them.
  Yesterday was a historic day. They said: Never would you get 7 
million people to sign up for private insurance on the exchanges--
never. It happened. Why? Because this is a product people need, health 
insurance that is affordable. But that number is the tip of the 
iceberg. I will prove it.
  Medicaid; that is, insurance for the poorest working people. We 
expanded it. We let more people qualify: 4.5 million Americans 
previously uninsured now have coverage through Medicaid. So let's do 
the math. There are 7 million on the exchanges--7.1; 4.5 million on 
Medicaid who did not have it before; 3 million young adults are able to 
stay on their parents' plan who were not able to do that before. How 
about this? Eight million senior citizens who have saved billions of 
dollars because of the fix in the Affordable Care Act that says they 
get more help paying for their prescriptions.
  That adds up to, drum roll, 22.6 million Americans with those very 
important benefits, but then here is the other thing. One hundred 
million Americans are now getting help with preventive services that 
they used to have to pay for: immunizations, mammograms, vaccines, 
annual exams, and other lifesaving preventive care.
  We are talking about millions and millions. Even with private health 
care now, you can have no annual limit, no lifetime limit. They cannot 
be turned away for preexisting conditions. Your insurance company 
cannot break out on them just when they are needing them. So that is 
almost everyone in the country who is benefiting from the law.
  Let me tell you about California. We are the biggest State in the 
Union, 38 million strong. Covered California is the way we set up our 
exchange. It is coveredCA.com. Peter Lee is the head of that. I wish to 
thank Peter Lee today--he does not know I am doing this--for his 
extraordinary leadership.
  Here is what happened. We exceeded our State's goal for enrollment 
through Covered California by not 100,000 people, not 200,000 people, 
not 300,000 or 400,000, but by 500,000 people we exceeded our goal. 
That is bigger than some States. Can you believe it? Half a million 
people, more than we expected.
  I am sure Senator Thune is shocked by this. This is a fact. We 
expected to have 700,000 sign up. Instead we had 1.2 million. That does 
not even include all of those who signed up on Monday or who were still 
in the process of completing enrollment.
  We are going to hear a lot of stories about families who are paying 
what they think is too much--and I want to work with everybody to make 
this law better, believe me--but listen to a couple of my constituents. 
Julie Mims from Sacramento said:

       We no longer have to worry about being ruined physically 
     and financially by a serious health issue. . . . We enrolled 
     in a Bronze 60 plan that will cost us $2 a month.

  This is a working woman who is getting the help she needs to have a 
decent--decent--health care policy.
  Then there is Rebecca Tasker. She runs a small construction business 
in San Diego with her husband. They are saving $1,000 a month. They are 
saving $12,000 a year that they can spend on their family. They can 
spend that in their community boosting this economy.
  She said, ``These savings will help our company grow and might allow 
us to be able to hire our first employee this year.''
  So here is a small businesswoman who had to spend so much on health 
care, and now because of the Affordable Care Act she is able to save 
$1,000 a month and possibly hire her first employee. Have you heard of 
something called job lock? Before the Affordable Care Act, people said: 
I do not want to leave my job because I have health care. I am scared 
to go out on my own. I would not be able to get it. I would not be able 
to afford it. That is why we set up the exchanges. It is freeing people 
to move out of a job that maybe they think is a dead-end and start 
their own business.
  Here is a woman who is going to be able to hire her first employee 
with the money she is saving. There are hundreds more stories. I will 
be coming to talk about those in the coming days and weeks. Stunningly, 
House Republicans keep bragging about their never-ending efforts to 
take health care away from millions of Americans.
  Do you know the House has voted not once, not twice but more than 50 
times to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They are doing it again. If 
they had spent as much energy working with us to make the law better, 
which the President said he is open to, we are open to, just like we 
worked with them on Medicare Part D when they carried that. We worked 
with them to make it better.
  Can you imagine, we would be standing here talking about even more 
millions of people. I have to say and this--I know it might be viewed 
as controversial, but because this law helps women so much with 
mammography, with vaccines, with birth control, with the end of 
discrimination based on gender, with an end of discrimination if you 
have been the victim of violence, with the end of discrimination 
because you could carry a child and have a pregnancy and want coverage, 
this Affordable Care Act helps women.
  So I am going to say this: When you vote 50 times to repeal a law 
that benefits women, you are voting against women. So you can say all 
you want to become--and I know Speaker Boehner said: I want to become 
more sensitive to women. I have an idea: Stop trying to take away 
health care from women and their families and then you will see women 
feel much better about you.
  Women are smart. They know who is on their side. They know who wants 
to give them a fair shot. But it is not people who want to take away 
their health care. That is what you say day in and day out. Remember, 
under the Affordable Care Act, many women were denied health insurance 
because of preexisting illnesses such as breast cancer, depression or, 
again, even being a victim of domestic violence. They were charged more 
than men. Let us be clear. Now we are guaranteed access to free 
preventive care and maternity care. Women are now paying zero dollars 
for a checkup--zero. This is it. Zero dollars to get a test to check 
for cervical cancer, zero dollars for a mammogram, zero dollars for 
FDA-approved contraception. Why do the Republicans want to repeal this 
law and take away mammograms, take away tests for cervical cancer, and 
take away checkups and FDA-approved contraception? Why?
  At the same time, they say they do not understand why women do not 
gravitate to their party. I have to say, we should be celebrating this 
law--yes, fixing it where it needs to be fixed. But I think if 
Republicans would join with us and say let's work together to make this 
a better plan--if you have someone who cannot find their doctor in 
their

[[Page 5455]]

plan, let's try to work together to fix it. If you have someone who you 
think deserves a subsidy, let's work together and try to fix it.
  But let's remember, folks, I just pointed out the millions of people 
who are benefiting.
  House Speaker Boehner called the Affordable Care Act a ``rolling 
calamity.'' House Majority Whip McCarthy said the enrollment numbers 
would be ``staggeringly low.'' Several GOP Members tweeted excitedly 
about how enrollments in their States wouldn't even fill a football 
stadium to capacity, and former Gov. Mike Huckabee said: ``You've got 
more people wanting to go moose hunting in New Hampshire than want 
Obamacare.''
  Wrong. Really wrong--really, really wrong.
  It is time for Republicans to look at the facts. It is time for the 
GOP to accept the reality that this law is helping millions of people: 
seniors, women, men, students, children--all Americans.
  It is time to recognize that one of the biggest problems facing our 
country before the Affordable Care Act was a lack of affordable 
insurance and millions of people are gaining the benefits.
  So we are not going to go back to the days when our people were 
denied health care, where an insurance company would walk out on you, 
where you brought in a child with asthma when they were wheezing and 
the insurance company said: Get out. We can't insure that child.
  I have seen the tears before the ACA when people were forced into 
bankruptcy because they had no insurance, and I have seen the tears of 
joy since the ACA.
  So we will listen to our colleagues tell their tale of horrors, and 
that is fine. They have every right. I respect them. But remember, as 
we hear these stories, go back and make sure that is exactly what you 
thought you heard and then ask them what is their plan. How do they 
want to help women and their families and their children?
  So far, we haven't heard much. All we have heard about is repeal, 
repeal, repeal. That is not a policy. Repealing the Affordable Care Act 
will hurt Americans and not just a few but many millions.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with a 
number of my colleagues for up to 45 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, before I start, I noted that the Senator 
from Connecticut came to the floor in an attempt to debunk a letter 
from one of my constituents to me, a family from Rawlins, WY, whom I 
talked about earlier on the floor.
  It seems the Senator is making the same argument the majority leader 
Senator Reid has made time and time again that these letters are made 
up. That is what seems to be the case. Is that what the Senator from 
Connecticut is saying? These are letters, these are emails, these are 
news articles that are out there coming from our constituents and 
coming from our home States.
  This was all supposed to be about affordable care. Care and 
affordability were the keystones of this entire piece of legislation.
  So I heard the Senator from California talking about people being 
denied care. It is happening now because of the health care law--
because of the health care law people are being denied care.
  Let me reference where my colleague from Connecticut comes from. The 
State of Connecticut, the Hartford Courant, a major newspaper in the 
State of Connecticut, has a report that came out March 17 of this year, 
just a couple of weeks ago: ``Connecticut Is Less Competitive After 
Federal Health Care Reform.''
  I heard the Senator from California saying there are people who have 
been helped, and I believe that, but for every one person who has been 
helped, I believe many have been harmed as a result of the law.
  Let me tell you what our friends from the Hartford Courant wrote:

       The individual health insurance market is less competitive 
     in Connecticut since the implementation of the Affordable 
     Care Act, sometimes called Obamacare, the Kaiser Family 
     Foundation said in a report released Monday.
       Of the seven States to release enrollment data by insurer, 
     Connecticut and Washington had fewer options--

  Fewer options, not more options, as the President of the United 
States has claimed--fewer options. The article continues--

     for people buying health plans on the individual market, 
     according to Kaiser foundation, a non-profit health policy 
     research organization.
       California and New York, the largest States in the study, 
     each has a more competitive insurance market today compared 
     to 2012, Kaiser found.

  But Connecticut, the State where my colleague had questioned where 
the woman from Wyoming comes from, is less competitive. The article 
continues:

       In 2012, Connecticut's individual health-insurance market 
     was more evenly distributed among a number of insurers.

  They list Aetna, WellPoint/Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 
UnitedHealth Group, EmblemHealth/ConnectiCare. It says:

       Connecticut has fewer insurer options available on Access 
     Health CT, its public health exchange, which was created by 
     the Affordable Care Act.
       As of February 18, two insurers dominated 97 percent of 
     health plans sold through Access Health CT.

  There is a ``less competitive exchange market and'' let me point out 
``higher than average premiums.''
  If that is what my colleague from Connecticut wants to say is a 
success, let him have it, but he has no right, in my opinion, to come 
and say that a woman who wrote to me is either not smart enough to know 
how to figure out how much of her premiums she is being asked to pay 
and what her premiums were prior to her losing insurance because of the 
health care law.
  Then the Senator from California came to the floor to say: Well, 
people aren't losing the care they had.
  NBC Connecticut, again where our colleague is from, says: ``Some 
Connecticut doctors said they will not accept certain health insurance 
plans offered on the state health exchange.'' The story goes on to say: 
``It broke my heart,'' losing the doctor she had been to before whom 
she trusts and has faith in but because of the health care law is 
losing that care.
  I come to the floor to just point out that Republicans have better 
ideas. Republicans have ideas about ways to help work to lower the cost 
of care so patients can get the care they need from a doctor they want 
at lower cost, not the situation we see across the country, where many 
individuals believe and truly feel harmed as a result of the 
President's health care law.
  With that, in response to what my colleagues from Connecticut and 
California have just said, we are here today to talk about jobs, the 
economy, getting people back to work. As a doctor, I will tell you 
long-term unemployment, how it affects someone's life, how it affects, 
I believe, their identity, their self-worth, their dignity, and the way 
they think about themselves, and so it is much more important that we 
get Americans back to work.
  I am on the floor with a number of my colleagues. The Senator from 
South Dakota is on the floor, and he knows as well as anyone the impact 
unemployment has in rural America, in the Western United States and how 
when jobs go away it makes it much harder for other jobs to come. I 
would ask that he share some of those thoughts with us right now.
  Mr. THUNE. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his observations 
about health care and more particularly about jobs.
  We are talking about a 13th extension now of unemployment insurance 
benefits which, in my view, does treat a symptom, but it doesn't do 
anything to address the underlying cause. The cause is we have too many 
people in this country who are out of the work, which means we need to 
create more jobs, and that means making it less expensive and less 
difficult to hire people, not driving up the cost of hiring.

[[Page 5456]]

  The Senator from Wyoming has just touched on one of the issues that 
is affecting hiring in this country; that is, ObamaCare.
  You can say what you want--and the other side may have some stories, 
which we will not dispute, unlike when we come up here and we share the 
stories, the real-life stories of some of our constituents, and then we 
have the majority leader of the Senate say those stories aren't true, 
those stories are all made up. Then he came to the floor last week in 
response to more bad news about ObamaCare and said the reason people 
aren't signing up for it is they just aren't educated enough about the 
Internet.
  What he is essentially saying is that the people of this country, No. 
1, aren't telling the truth and; No. 2, aren't very smart. That is not 
what I believe and I don't think that is what any of my colleagues 
believe.
  We do believe there are things we ought to be doing to get Americans 
back to work. Repealing ObamaCare would be a good place to start 
because it is making the cost of growing your business, expanding your 
business in this country, dramatically higher. It is also raising the 
premiums and the deductibles for people all across this country, for 
middle-class families, and giving them fewer options when it comes to 
doctors and to hospitals.
  I want to talk just briefly, if I might, about the cost of 
overregulation and what it is doing to our economy.
  We have had an opportunity during this discussion on unemployment 
insurance to talk about some of the things that we would do if we would 
be given a chance to offer amendments. Typically, the case around here, 
what happens, the practice and pattern of late is that the majority 
leader fills the tree and blocks us from offering amendments. We have a 
lot of Members on our side who have great ideas about things that would 
actually create jobs, actually grow the economy. One of the things we 
know is costing jobs and hurting the economy is the cost of 
overregulation, destroying jobs and making it more difficult for our 
job creators.
  In fact, the estimate is it is almost one-half trillion dollars in 
the cost of regulations since the President has come to office--almost 
one-half trillion dollars added--added cost in this country. That 
figure is larger than the entire economy of Peru. It is larger than the 
entire economy of Sweden. Think about that. The cost of regulation in 
this country since this President has come to office is larger than the 
entire economies of either Sweden or Peru.
  One of the largest contributors to these new regulations and 
compliance costs is the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency. They 
came out with the Boiler MACT regulations, they came out with the 
Utility MACT regulations, and they came out with tier 3 fuel standards. 
All of these things that the EPA has finalized are some of the most 
costly regulations we have seen from any agency in recent history.
  These rules will impose billions of dollars in costs on energy 
producers and manufacturers, which are going to be passed on to 
consumers in the form of higher prices. Unfortunately, for consumers 
already hurting in the Obama economy, more bad news is on the way. The 
EPA is currently working on regulations for ozone standards, greenhouse 
gas emissions for powerplants, and a dramatic expansion of the Clean 
Water Act that will reach into ditches and gullies all across America.
  I would like to briefly touch on the impacts EPA mandates, including 
greenhouse gas standards, regional haze requirements, Utility MACT, and 
Boiler MACT, are having on energy prices back in my home State of South 
Dakota. Unfortunately, South Dakotans are on the frontlines of this 
administration's war on affordable energy.
  In 2008, then-Senator Obama promised to make energy prices skyrocket. 
Today, in my home State, he is fulfilling that promise. Just Monday 
Black Hills Power, a utility company in western South Dakota, announced 
a proposed rate increase to cover the cost of new EPA mandates. If that 
rate increase is approved, the average customer's rates will increase 
by $130 a year. For a family living in western South Dakota, $130 can 
go a long way toward putting food on the table or making a car payment.
  South Dakota is a rural State with energy-intensive manufacturing and 
agricultural sectors of our economy. Families have to travel long 
distances. We are a cold-weather climate. We see dramatic swings in 
seasonal temperatures that create uncertainty when opening monthly 
utility bills. Unfortunately, the EPA's backdoor energy tax, which is 
already beginning to hit South Dakota's families, is about to get even 
more expensive.
  The tier 3 gasoline standards, greenhouse gas regulations, and new 
ozone rules are a train wreck of new regulations that are going to 
further drive up energy costs and destroy jobs. That is why I have 
offered two commonsense amendments to rein in these costly EPA 
regulations.
  The first amendment would require Congress to approve any EPA 
regulation with a projected cost of more than $50 million a year. If 
Congress rejects that rule, the EPA would be forced to go back to the 
drawing board and pursue less costly alternatives.
  From regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act to 
regulating streams and ditches under the Clean Water Act, this EPA 
stretches authority well beyond what Congress intended when we created 
a Federal-State environment regulatory structure decades ago. This EPA 
needs to be reined in, and the best way to do that is by creating 
congressional oversight of major regulations.
  My second amendment would create another check on the EPA's ever-
expanding regulatory reach. This would require the Department of Energy 
and the Government Accountability Office to conduct a cost-benefit 
analysis of EPA's proposed greenhouse gas regulations on powerplants.
  If, based on this study, the DOE, the Department of Energy, or GAO 
determined that the new regulations would raise energy prices or 
destroy jobs, the new regulations could not take effect. The EPA could 
still propose new regulations on new and existing powerplants, but 
those regulations couldn't be finalized until it certified that those 
new rules would not negatively impact jobs or energy costs.
  We have over 10 million people who remain unemployed. Economic growth 
and job creation remain stagnant and middle-class incomes have dropped 
by $3,000 per family over the past 5 years. The last thing middle-class 
families need is for their pocketbooks to be further stretched by 
misguided government policies that drive up energy costs. It is time to 
put a check on the EPA. It is time to have an open debate, an amendment 
process on commonsense proposals to increase congressional oversight, 
and it is time to put consumers ahead of liberal environmental groups.
  I encourage my colleagues on the floor with me today to continue 
pushing for policies that make energy more abundant and more 
affordable. Unlike the heavyhanded regulations we have seen from the 
Obama administration, these policies will actually create jobs and help 
grow the middle class. I will continue fighting, along with my 
colleagues joining me on the floor today, to make sure we get votes on 
these policies and begin to rein in the out-of-control regulations from 
the Obama administration.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here with my colleagues 
talking about ways we can get people back to work, regulations that 
don't make sense, and energy policies that clearly every economist we 
talk to understands are a key to the future.
  I know the Republican leader has joined us on the floor, and I think 
I will ask him if he has some comments he would like to make, and then 
we can come back to me at the end of his comments.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from Missouri.
  What we have been talking about is how to create jobs. Unfortunately, 
the

[[Page 5457]]

agenda of the Senate Democratic majority does just the opposite. It 
appears as if we are not likely to be able to get any amendments 
offered that would actually create jobs and opportunity for our people.
  One of the things I have been so disturbed about over the years is 
the inability of employees to make a voluntary choice about whether 
they want to belong to a union.
  In addition to the energy jobs measures we are discussing here today, 
I have another related measure I would like to highlight. As I 
mentioned earlier this morning in my opening remarks, enacting national 
right-to-work legislation is just plain common sense. My colleague from 
Kentucky, Senator Paul, has been the leader on this issue.
  This is a fundamental issue of worker freedom. This amendment would 
empower American workers to choose whether they would like to join a 
union. It would protect a worker from getting fired if she would rather 
not pay dues to a union boss who fails to represent her concerns and 
her priorities. According to one survey, 80 percent of unionized 
workers agreed that workers should be able to choose whether to join a 
union.
  It is an issue of upward mobility. A worker should be able to be 
recognized and rewarded for her individual hard work and productivity.
  This is paycheck fairness. A worker should no longer be held back by 
an antiquated system where pay raises are based on seniority rather 
than on merit.
  This is an issue of leveling the playing field. Workers in all States 
would have a more equal chance of finding work in every State, and they 
would no longer see their communities failing to secure new investments 
because their State hasn't passed a right-to-work law.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to 
offer my amendment No. 2910, which I have just described to my 
colleagues here in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, reserving my right to object, the underlying 
measure is a bipartisan response to an emergency in terms of extending 
unemployment for 5 months--a temporary extension. Given the emergency 
nature of the underlying legislation, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, Senator Thune, my friend from South Dakota, 
and I have worked for a long time on the kinds of economic and 
troublesome regulations he talked about earlier. Nobody appears to be 
answerable to the people--those who come forward with these 
regulations. I think he has an amendment on that, and I would afford 
him the chance to talk about that amendment.
  Mr. THUNE. I thank my colleague from Missouri.
  Senator Blunt and I have, as he said, worked very hard when it comes 
to the overreach of government agencies and the burdens of regulations, 
the cost of regulations and what that is doing to a lot of middle-class 
families and their pocketbooks.
  I mentioned earlier a couple of amendments I had filed here that 
pertained to energy costs in my home State of South Dakota, one of 
which sets a $50 million threshold over which a regulation proposed by 
the EPA would have to be voted on by the Congress of the United States, 
and if Congress rejected it, the EPA would have to go back to the 
drawing board to come up with an alternative approach. That amendment 
is amendment No. 2895, and I think it fits perfectly with what we are 
talking about today, which is growing our economy, creating jobs, and 
trying to do what actually would get people back to work. Certainly, 
the burdensome cost of regulation is a tremendous deterrent and 
impediment to job creation in this country.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer my 
amendment No. 2895.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Is there objection?
  The senior Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, reserving my right to object, once again, 
given the emergency nature of this bipartisan legislation to address 
the plight of over 2 million Americans desperately looking for work, I 
object and hope we can press on with the passing of the underlying 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, let's talk about this topic a little 
longer--regulation. Again, in my view--and my friend from South Dakota 
and I have shared this view for a long time--when the Congress passes 
laws--and I think it is appropriate that we are not always in the best 
place to come up with the regulations that put those laws in place--I 
believe the country has clearly come to a place where nobody is then 
answerable for regulations that have a significant impact on our 
economy.
  The Senator from Kentucky Mr. Paul and I have cosponsored the REINS 
Act, which addresses these laws that meet this kind of threshold, and 
it is a bill that was before the Congress, but we can't get that bill 
to the floor.
  Senator Thune and I have worked for a long time on this kind of 
proposal that would simply create opportunity.
  The emergency nature of the opportunity is really a 5-year emergency 
now where we have seen job opportunity after job opportunity go away. 
Part of that is surely because of what were the unintended but clear 
consequences of the Affordable Care Act, and part of it is rules and 
regulations that don't make sense to people who are about to take 
enough of a chance with their creation of opportunity for themselves 
and somebody else without having any idea that someone answerable to 
them is eventually going to have to answer for what the Federal 
Government does. And that is what bringing these regulations to the 
floor would do.
  Nobody is saying Congress should be responsible for implementing 
every law and the goal of law, but we should be responsible for the 
impact of that law and should have the final say on rules and 
regulations that we have essentially started in motion. They should 
come back here.
  If we don't do this on this bill today, we should do this. We should 
have done this years ago. Many of us in this body, in the Congress, 
have believed for a long time that this is one of the major impediments 
to job creation.
  Another impediment is bad energy policy. That is why there are so 
many energy amendments. The amendment I offered where the Congress 
couldn't have a carbon tax unless it passed a threshold of 60 votes was 
offered in the budget debate last year, and 53 of my colleagues--
Democrats and Republicans here on the floor--agreed that, yes, we 
should have a special threshold.
  When we talk about a tax that makes gas at the gasoline pump more 
expensive; that makes diesel fuel that delivers products more 
expensive; that raises the utility bill of everybody who has some 
element of fossil fuel in their utilities, and that is virtually 
everybody; that makes it less likely that people will create 
manufacturing jobs and those kinds of opportunities here, of course we 
ought to be talking about those kinds of policies, whether or not it is 
the carbon tax.
  In Ohio, in Missouri, in Wyoming, in the vast middle of the country, 
our energy comes from fossil fuels. Those are the resources we have. 
Our focus should be on using those more effectively, not figuring out 
ways we shouldn't use them at all or figuring out ways to double the 
utility bill.
  That is the EPA's own estimate of their own rule, that the utility 
bill, they say, will go up 80 percent if the rule is in place. I think 
that is probably a little optimistic on their part. Eighty percent is 
almost doubling your current utility bill. Think about where you work 
or your daughter-in-law works or your son-in-law works or somebody in 
your family works, doubling the utility bill there and wondering if 
there will still be a utility

[[Page 5458]]

there or if that company will decide to go somewhere else. The 
incredibly capable and competitive American workforce is being held 
back by utility policies that stop people from making the investments 
they want to make.
  The energy cost of manufacturing, according to the National 
Association of Manufacturers and others, is a key element now in that 
final decision to decide where you are going to build something, where 
you are going to make something, and, most importantly for families, 
where you are going to create a job that has the kind of take-home pay 
families need.
  When we talk about the Keystone Pipeline, the ability to maximize our 
use of natural gas, of fracking for oil, we are talking about the great 
resources we have, and we should use those resources to our benefit. 
Every other country in the world, when they look at their tableaux of 
natural resources, the first two words that come to mind in every other 
country in the world are ``economic opportunity'' or ``economic 
advantage.'' What does this allow us to do that we couldn't do 
otherwise? What advantage does this give us over our competitors?
  We shouldn't let the first two words that come to mind when we look 
at our natural resources be ``environmental hazard.'' What is the worst 
thing that would happen and what would happen if that happened every 
day? No. 1, the worst thing to happen is something we should think 
about but not be overwhelmed by. We should see that that doesn't 
happen, and if it does happen, what are we immediately prepared to do 
about it so it does not become an ongoing problem? That is the whole 
formula it takes on the energy side, on the natural resources side to 
create opportunity.
  The one thing government policies can do, although they can't create 
jobs, is they can create an environment where people want to create 
private sector jobs. That is and continues to be the No. 1 priority 
domestically this Congress should be focused on--what we do to create 
more private sector jobs. I think energy is a big part of that.
  Certainly, my friend from Wyoming Senator Barrasso who has brought us 
together to talk about this, understands that so well. Energy and 
regulation policies that make sense are the kinds of policies that help 
us create the opportunities that hard-working families need and that 
families who would like to see somebody in their family have that job 
with great take-home pay are focused on.
  I yield for my friend Senator Barrasso.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I thank my colleague, and I appreciate the comments of 
my colleague Senator Blunt, who has been a leader and champion on the 
issue of getting people back to work.
  We heard the Senator from Rhode Island saying there are people out 
there desperately looking for work. What we are doing is bringing to 
the floor amendments to this piece of legislation that will actually 
get people back to work nearly immediately.
  So I rise today to discuss how Congress can actually help the people 
who are unemployed get back to work. We have been debating all week 
whether the Senate should extend unemployment insurance to the long-
term unemployed. And whether or not one supports extending unemployment 
insurance, we can all agree and should all agree that job creation 
should really be the top priority. This, to me, is where the 
unemployment insurance bill, as currently written, falls short. That is 
why I, along with a number of my colleagues, have filed amendments that 
would help create nearly 100,000 jobs.
  Our amendment would do two things, and President Obama has failed to 
do them. The amendment I am here with Senator Hoeven to discuss would 
permit--approve the Keystone XL Pipeline as well as liquefied natural 
gas exports to our allies and strategic partners.
  The Keystone XL Pipeline has been pending for over 5\1/2\ years--over 
5\1/2\ years. During that time the Obama administration has conducted 
five separate environmental reviews of this project--five environmental 
reviews in the last 5\1/2\ years.
  Despite this scrutiny, President Obama continues to delay approving 
the Keystone XL Pipeline even though its construction would support 
over 42,000 jobs. That 42,000 jobs number is not my number. This is the 
jobs estimate from President Obama's own State Department.
  The Keystone XL Pipeline has broad bipartisan support throughout the 
country. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 65 percent 
of Americans support the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. 
Labor unions such as the plumbers and pipefitters, building and 
construction trades, international labor, and the union of operating 
engineers, among others, have all called on the President of the United 
States to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. Just over 1 year ago, 62 
Members of the Senate voted in favor of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  If the Senate is going to extend unemployment insurance, it should 
also help Americans get back to work. We should adopt this amendment 
which approves the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  The other part of the amendment deals with approving LNG exports--
liquefied natural gas--to our allies and strategic partners. Before 
getting into the specifics of that, I ask my colleague and friend from 
North Dakota, Senator Hoeven--who has worked closely with supporters of 
the Keystone XL Pipeline, a man who was Governor of the State of North 
Dakota during the early discussions--to express his thoughts on why we 
think this is important to the economy, to help those people who are 
unemployed, and help getting Americans back to work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the esteemed Senator from Wyoming 
for leading this colloquy.
  Our effort here is to address in real terms the problem--the 
legislation we have on the floor right now is the unemployment 
insurance bill--to truly address the problem, which is getting people 
back to work, rather than additional government payments added onto the 
payments already made.
  What we are trying to do is make sure there are jobs to get people 
back to work. Energy is an incredible opportunity to do just that. So 
when we talk about this energy legislation, it is about producing more 
energy for our country. But it is about jobs, it is about economic 
growth, and it is about national security. So I commend the esteemed 
Senator from Wyoming for leading the charge on legislation which would 
allow us to export liquefied natural gas.
  We currently consume in the United States on an annual basis about 26 
trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year, but we produce 30 trillion 
cubic feet of natural gas a year. So we are already in a situation 
where we are producing more than we consume. We import some from 
Canada, and we are growing in terms of our domestic production in 
States such as Wyoming, my home State, and others. Across the country 
with the shale gas development, we are producing more and more natural 
gas. We need a market for that natural gas, and Europe very much needs 
natural gas so they are not dependent on Russia for their energy. So we 
are talking about an opportunity here at home to actually create more 
economic activity and put people back to work. That is the real 
solution. It doesn't cost the government one penny. Instead, we get 
revenue--not from higher taxes, but from a growing economy and people 
going back to work.
  When we look at this legislation, we have taken legislation led by 
the Senator from Wyoming and we have tied it together with Keystone 
legislation I have submitted. We call it the Energy Security Act, and 
it does those two things--it approves the Keystone XL Pipeline, a $5.3 
billion investment by private companies in our economy. By the Obama 
administration's own estimate, their State Department has said it will 
create more than 40,000 jobs in the construction phase. We tie that 
with legislation which has been put forward by the Senator from 
Wyoming, which I am extremely pleased to cosponsor. We put those two 
together,

[[Page 5459]]

LNG exports with Keystone. We call it the Energy Security Act. We have 
submitted it and we have filed it as amendment No. 2891.
  I therefore ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer 
my amendment No. 2891.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, reserving my right to object, once again, 
the underlying legislation is designed to help 2.7 million Americans 
who need the support. It is a bipartisan agreement. There is a time and 
place to debate all these issues, but I think the time and place now is 
to move forward and vote on the underlying agreement.
  Therefore, I respectfully object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HOEVEN. With due deference to the good Senator, I understand his 
desire to make sure people who are unemployed receive assistance. I 
think he truly is a champion in that effort. I appreciate the 
opportunity to work with him in a bipartisan way. But I would submit 
this very legislation absolutely complements what he is trying to do, 
and does it in a number of ways, first, in terms of a permanent, real, 
long-term solution--meaning getting those people back to work, but, 
second, in terms of paying for it, in terms of actually paying for the 
cost of unemployment insurance, these provisions--this amendment and 
the other amendment we are offering--will actually help create revenue 
to do what the Senator is trying to do.
  For that reason, I think it is absolutely complementary to the 
legislation at hand and will in fact add bipartisan support to passage 
of that legislation.
  I will cite one more extremely compelling study which relates to this 
point before I turn back to the Senator from Wyoming.
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 2011 commissioned a study. They had 
experts do an evaluation of energy projects awaiting approval to 
proceed from the administration--awaiting permits or other requirements 
so they could proceed with these energy projects.
  What I am talking about are energy projects that total billions, even 
hundreds of billions, of dollars where private companies are willing to 
invest their money and develop energy resources across this great 
country.
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce study I cite was performed in 2011. It 
came back and said there are more than 350 energy projects, both 
renewable type energy and traditional energy, that are stalled because 
of bureaucratic redtape on the part of the Federal Government at a cost 
of $1.1 trillion to the American economy and nearly 2 million jobs for 
the American people. Think about that, 2 million jobs for the American 
people, when what we are talking about here today is the unemployed.
  What we are talking about here today is putting people back to work.
  I will cite from that study:

       In aggregate, planning and construction of the subject 
     projects (the ``investment phase'') would generate $577 
     billion in direct investment, calculated in current dollars. 
     The indirect and induced effects (what we term multiplier 
     effects) would generate an approximate $1.1 trillion increase 
     in U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) including $352 billion 
     in employment earnings, based on present discounted value 
     (PDV) over an average construction period of seven years. 
     Furthermore, we estimate that as many as 1.9 million jobs 
     would be required during each year of construction.

  Good-paying construction jobs. The Keystone XL Pipeline is just one 
of those more than 350 projects, and it alone is an investment of $5.3 
billion. It alone, according to the State Department's own estimates, 
will create more than 40,000 jobs.
  What are we trying to do here? I thought it was to put people back to 
work, trying to make sure they have an opportunity--in States such as 
Ohio. Of course, in my State we have an energy boom. We are trying to 
get people. We have more jobs than people because we have unleashed 
this investment in energy. We have done that in our State. Why not do 
it across the country? Why not do it across the country? There is no 
question we can.
  We have offered other amendments as well. The other point I want to 
make is they are bipartisan amendments. They are amendments that don't 
cost the Federal Government any money but create incredible investment 
and incredible opportunity for our people, and they are bipartisan.
  One of the amendments put forward by the Senator from Missouri passed 
through the House with 1 dissenting vote. I don't know if the 1 
dissenting vote was Republican or Democrat, but I don't know how you 
get any more bipartisan than that, because they were one short of 
unanimous. So that is what we are talking about here.
  I know negotiations and discussions are going on as to votes we may 
get on the legislation we are offering as part of this unemployment 
insurance bill. I ask the leadership on the majority side to allow us 
to vote on these amendments. We will accept the verdict of the Senate; 
all 100 get to vote, which is what we were sent here to do.
  I will close with that. This isn't about either the Democratic side 
of the aisle or the Republican side of the aisle. This is about people 
who are unemployed and need an opportunity. We absolutely have the 
ability to give them that opportunity, so let's do it. Let's do it. 
That is what this debate is all about.
  Again, I thank the distinguished Senator from Wyoming for leading the 
discussion. He has been an energy leader as well as a physician, so he 
certainly has been a leader on the health care issue too. But he has 
certainly been an energy leader, and his State is a leading energy-
producing State.
  As I said at the outset, and he has made the point so eloquently, 
this is an opportunity. Energy is an opportunity. It is jobs, it is 
economic growth, it is national security. Let's go. Let's get it done.
  With that, I turn to my colleague from Wyoming and again thank him 
for his leadership of this important discussion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 5 minutes 20 seconds.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friend 
and colleague from North Dakota, a State in which he served as a 
Governor, a business leader in the community, and knows the State very 
well and knows the importance of energy--not just to his State's 
economy but to the economy of the country and the importance for people 
who want work, who want jobs.
  I think bringing together the issues of the Keystone XL Pipeline as 
well as the exportation of liquefied natural gas is what will help get 
Americans back to work.
  Since September of 2010, the Obama administration approved only seven 
applications to export liquefied natural gas. The administration is 
sitting on 24 pending applications. Thirteen of those applications have 
been pending for more than 1 year. Some of these applications have been 
pending for more than 2 years. To put this in context: The United 
States has approved less than half of the LNG export capacity that 
Canada has approved. To me, this administration's delay is unacceptable 
and the excuses have run out.
  I take a look at this from the standpoint of what is happening 
globally as well. Ukraine imports about 60 percent to 70 percent of its 
natural gas from Russia. Nine of our NATO allies import 40 percent or 
more of their natural gas from Russia. Four of our NATO allies import 
100 percent of their natural gas from Russia.
  LNG exports would help our strategic partners and allies free 
themselves from Russian energy. This is why our NATO allies are calling 
on Congress to expedite--expedite--LNG exports.
  LNG exports will give our allies an alternative supply of natural gas 
and enable them to resist Russia's intimidation. LNG exports will also 
help create jobs right here at home.
  In February, The Economist explained that LNG exports ``would 
generate tanker loads of cash'' for the United States.

[[Page 5460]]

  More recently, Nera Economic Consulting suggested that LNG exports 
could help reduce the unemployment rolls by as many as 45,000 over the 
next few years. This is extraordinary. LNG exports would not only 
create new jobs but would employ Americans who cannot find work today.
  LNG exports would help as many as 45,000 Americans find work. 
President Obama through his actions has made it very clear that jobs 
are not his priority. He seems to be more interested in inventing new 
delays and new excuses than in actually creating new jobs. That is why 
the Senate must act today and here in this place. That is why the 
Senate should approve the Keystone XL Pipeline and LNG exports and that 
is why we should adopt the amendment that Senator Hoeven has offered.
  So, Mr. President, I come to the floor today to say Republicans have 
now tried to offer 9 amendments we believe would get this economy 
growing again, amendments we believe would actually create jobs and put 
people back to work.
  Now, to inform my colleagues of what I am about to do, I am going to 
move to table the pending Reid amendment No. 2878, which for everyone's 
information is an amendment which merely changes the date of enactment. 
So Senators voting not to table this amendment would rather change the 
date than vote on amendments that would help put people back to work.
  In order for my colleagues to be able to offer amendments, I move to 
table the pending Reid amendment No. 2878, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), and the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 97 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     King
     Kirk
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--50

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cruz
     Markey
     Rockefeller
     Warren
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I have a germane amendment to this matter, 
which I have been trying to get recognized to present.
  I call up my amendment No. 2931 to the Reid amendment No. 2874.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is not in order to be offered. 
It is inconsistent with Senate precedence with respect to the offering 
of amendments, their numbers, degree, and kind.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, in light of the fact that our practice of 
regularly shutting out Senators from the ability to offer reasonable 
and germane amendments is inconsistent with all of the history and 
traditions of the Senate, I appeal the ruling of the Chair that the 
amendment is not in order and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to table and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), and the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 98 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Isakson
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--29

     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cruz
     Markey
     Rockefeller
     Warren
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table the appeal on the ruling 
of the Chair is agreed to.
  The majority leader.

                          ____________________