[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5946-5965]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 345, S. 
2199, the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by 
title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to S. 2199, a bill to amend the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective 
     remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages 
     on the basis of sex, and for other purposes.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, following my remarks and those of Senator 
McConnell, the time will be equally divided and controlled until 11 
a.m., and at that time there will be a cloture vote on the motion to 
proceed with the legislation now before us.
  Additional votes are expected today on confirmation of nominations. 
Floor staff is working to come up with convenient times for everyone in 
that regard and will notify Senators when we have those votes 
scheduled.
  Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on whether to end debate on 
the paycheck fairness legislation. This much needed legislation 
provides important protections for women. It addresses wage disparity, 
helping women negotiate for equal pay, and it empowers workers to fight 
back against wage discrimination--women in particular.
  It is a good and important bill, and it helps American women in many 
different ways, but for reasons known only to them, Senate Republicans 
don't appear to be interested in closing the wage gap for working 
women, such as my daughter and my grandchildren, the Presiding 
Officer's wife and daughter, friends and neighbors.
  Four years ago the Republicans filibustered this exact same 
legislation. Two years later the Republicans filibustered this 
legislation. Now for a third time the Paycheck Fairness Act is before 
us and it appears it is going to be filibustered again. They have 
indicated that they will likely not let us begin work on this important 
piece of legislation or this debate.
  If they are ideologically opposed to equal pay for equal work, they 
are free to vote against paycheck fairness, come down here and give 
speeches as to why it is such a bad idea, but we haven't heard any.
  Today's vote is simply to begin debate on the bill. Are they so 
repulsed by equal pay for hard-working American women they again will 
not debate equal pay for equal work, but they will obstruct equal pay 
for equal work?
  The Republicans come to the floor and try to offer amendments that 
have nothing to do with equal pay--nothing. I am at a loss as to why 
anyone would decline to debate this important issue or, if you don't 
like it, come and tell us why. Debate is what this institution is all 
about. It is the U.S. Senate.
  Hubert Humphrey said once: ``Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of 
discussion, dissent and debate.'' That is what he said. So we should 
debate this bill. Together we can find a solution to this unfair wage 
disparity that costs average working women $464,324 over a lifetime, on 
average.
  American families want us to debate and hopefully pass this 
legislation. This legislation overwhelmingly is supported by the 
American people. People in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act are 
calling on us to pass this legislation. They are writing letters, they 
are posting on social media, and they are attending rallies. Our 
constituents have made their feelings known, but the Republicans have 
not gotten the message.
  Henry David Thoreau said:

       It takes two to speak the truth. One to speak and another 
     to listen.

  The Senate Democrats have heard the truth about giving women a fair 
shot at equal pay for equal work. The truth is that working women make 
an average of 77 cents for every dollar their male colleagues make for 
doing the exact same work. That is not fair.
  Today we will see if Republicans will give working women and their 
families a fair shot when voting on debate for this important 
legislation. Millions of American women and men--everyone in America--
are hoping that a third time will be the charm for Senate Republicans.

[[Page 5947]]




                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.


                              The Economy

  Mr. McCONNELL. The Obama economy has had a devastating impact on the 
people we represent. It has hurt millions in the middle class and 
people from every region of the country in almost every walk of life. 
When we consider the debate in the Senate, a few statistics jump out in 
particular.
  Under this President's watch more than 3.7 million American women 
have fallen into poverty. The average American woman now makes about 
$730 less than when the President took office. If she is a college 
graduate, she has actually seen her income shrink by about double that 
amount. In other words, when it comes to American women overall, what 
we have seen over the past 5\1/2\ years is less income and more 
poverty. That is the story Senate Democrats don't want to talk about.
  Perhaps that is why for weeks now they have blocked the efforts 
Republicans have made to improve the picture. Senate Democrats want to 
control this debate from start to finish and basically do nothing to 
help with our efforts to expand opportunity and jobs for women and for 
men. It would appear, as some have put it, they have no interest in 
solutions or any concern for the consequences of their actions. We see 
that in how uninterested they seem to be in the statistics I just 
mentioned, and we can see it in some other policies they have been 
defending literally for months.
  Take Obama's 30-hour workweek rule, which is basically forcing 
employers to slash workers' hours. Who is impacted the most by it? As 
one study pointed out, it is women. Nearly two-thirds of those 
adversely impacted by this arbitrary provision of ObamaCare are women, 
but Washington Democrats don't seem to care about that. They don't seem 
to care about the ways people we represent are being hurt by their 
policies.
  As I said, they continue to block all the innovative ideas that 
Republicans have been offering to turn the tide. Just look at what 
happened on the Senate floor yesterday. I, along with several other 
Republican colleagues, offered a series of measures that would not only 
have helped the jobs picture in our country, it would have provided 
greater opportunities for men, women, and families desperate to get 
ahead. Had Democratic Senators not blocked these ideas, they would have 
passed.
  Why did Senate Democrats object to Senator Collins' proposal to 
restore the 40-hour workweek? Do they think it is fair that Obama's 30-
hour workweek discriminates against working women? Do Democrats think 
it is fair to protect the rules that disproportionately reduce their 
wages?
  Why do they object to the workplace flexibility proposal that Senator 
Ayotte and I offered? Here is legislation that would have given working 
moms and dads the option to take time off to help them find a better 
work-life balance--flexibility that is more critical than ever now that 
ObamaCare's 30-hour work rule is forcing people to pick up a second or 
third job just to scrape by.
  Why are Democrats so opposed to a policy that a lot of working women 
say they want, a policy that is tailored to the needs of the modern 
workforce and that many government employees already enjoy?
  Why do Senate Democrats object to our job creation legislation, which 
includes so many smart ideas from so many different Senators? Here is a 
bill that strikes right at the heart of what has ailed our country for 
5\1/2\ years, a lack of jobs and opportunity. Passing it should have 
been a no-brainer.
  But Senate Democrats blocked all of it, every last one of our 
proposals, just like they shut down the proworker legislation Senator 
Paul and I offered last week. The Right to Work Act is smart policy 
that promises to boost competitiveness while advancing workers' rights, 
ensuring they are not limited by the dictates of a union.
  It is similar to another bill I am proud to cosponsor: Senator 
Rubio's RAISE Act, which would allow workers to get a raise even if 
union bosses didn't want them to. Take for instance a worker who 
outperforms her colleagues and then is told by a union boss to sit down 
and accept less pay than she deserves--not a dime more than the 
coworker she is outperforming. It is completely and totally unfair, and 
workers such as she shouldn't be penalized by some archaic rule dreamt 
up before the age of ``Mad Men.''
  These are the ideas that everyone who claims to stand for workplace 
fairness should want to help us pass. Yet Washington Democrats always 
seem to find some excuse not to. Maybe the Big Labor bosses they are 
answering to are telling them they cannot. Who knows. Or maybe it is 
the trial lawyers they seem to be so attentive to these days.
  It makes sense when we consider what Senate Democrats have been 
talking about this week, a bill that even publications such as the 
Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, and the Boston Globe have said is 
bad policy. At a time when the Obama economy is already hurting women 
so much, this legislation would double down on job loss, all while 
lining the pockets of trial lawyers. In other words, it is just another 
Democratic idea that threatens to hurt the very people it claims to 
help.
  It is time for Washington Democrats to stop protecting trial lawyers 
and start focusing on actually helping the people we were sent to 
represent. We have already seen what 5\1/2\ years of Washington 
Democratic control has meant: more poverty and lower wages for women. 
So they need to stop blocking innovative ideas that would move us 
further along the path to opportunity because, look, the college 
graduate who has seen her annual paycheck decline by $1,400 over the 
past several years is counting on Senate Democrats to change their game 
plan. The part-time worker who cannot imagine how she is going to make 
ends meet under ObamaCare's 30-hour work rule is counting on Democrats 
to think outside the box.
  The American people are tired of Washington Democrats' 5\1/2\ years 
of failed policies and all the political games that helped us get here 
in the first place. Americans actually want solutions and they want 
them now and we owe it to them to start passing the kinds of innovative 
ideas Republicans are committed to pursuing, no matter how many times 
the majority tries to shut us down.
  I yield the floor.


                       Reservation Of Leader Time

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 11 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees. Under the previous order, the leadership 
time is reserved.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. 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.


                              Health Care

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, this week President Obama has been 
holding what appear to be made-for-TV events to talk about the economy. 
He has been talking about the policies he wants Congress to enact, 
policies that he says will finally get America's economy going again.
  President Obama has been in the White House now for more than 5 
years, so I think it is fair to ask: What has this administration--the 
Obama administration--been doing for the economy over the past 5 years? 
We know that the recession actually ended almost 5 years ago. Since 
then, our economy has not bounced back the way it should have or the 
way it typically does after a deep recession.
  The Obama administration has spent a lot of money on failed ideas 
such as the so-called stimulus package. Since the recession ended, 
Washington has racked up more than $6 trillion worth of additional 
debt, and it has not gotten us nearly the kind of growth we

[[Page 5948]]

should have had as a result of this spending.
  Now the President has come out with a budget in which he has asked 
for tax increases of over $1.7 trillion--nearly $2 trillion in higher 
taxes over the next decade. Taxes are already too high. When I go home 
to talk to my constituents--as I would think most Members of this body 
hear from their folks at home--they say taxes are already too high.
  Americans are now preparing to file their taxes. Income tax day is 
coming--April 15. As Americans prepare to file their taxes, they are 
getting a reminder of just how much of their hard-earned money 
Washington is taking from them. Next Tuesday, April 15, is the deadline 
for most of us to fill out the forms and send everything off to the 
Internal Revenue Service, the IRS. According to the Tax Foundation, 
Americans will spend more on taxes this year than they spend on food, 
clothing, and housing combined.
  We now know how much President Obama is spending, but what kind of 
effect have his policies been having on our American economy? We know 
that the economy is still not producing the number of jobs we need for 
a real recovery. We know if we want to look for the reasons why that 
seems to be the case, we could talk about the two million jobs 
Democrats are blocking with their restrictive energy policies.
  We could talk about the minimum wage bill that Democrats are pushing 
right now. The Congressional Budget Office says that would reduce 
employment in the United States by one-half million jobs--they say 
maybe as many as 1 million jobs. Yet the majority leader comes here and 
says it is the best thing we can do for the economy. Again, according 
to the Congressional Budget Office, it will cost the economy one-half 
million jobs and maybe up to 1 million jobs.
  But probably the largest and most harmful thing the administration 
has done--not just with regard to the economy, but to other factors, 
including the lives of the American public--is the President's health 
care law. This law is hitting people across the country. There are 
folks who are seeing their premiums go up, losing access to their 
doctor, getting cancellation notices from their insurance companies, 
and it is also having an effect on our economy.
  Today we had our usual Wyoming Wednesday where people from around the 
State of Wyoming come to Washington and meet with their two Senators 
from Wyoming so we can talk to people from our communities. Today I 
heard another horror story related to the President's health care law. 
A family had insurance that worked for them, and it worked for them for 
a long time. It fit their budget, and it fit their needs as a family. 
But, of course, it was canceled as a result of the President's health 
care law and the mandates where the President believes he has a better 
idea of what works for their family than they know in terms of their 
family.
  This husband and wife have a couple of young children, and they lost 
their insurance. They tried and tried again to get reinsured through 
the exchange. It took them months. They finally went with paper forms 
to apply. The stories go on and on, and it is horrible to listen to 
what American families have had to go through as a result of the 
President's health care law. This is a family that was hurt as a result 
of the President's health care law in terms of what they are paying for 
insurance, in terms of the deductibles that are now in place, and in 
terms of not being able to go to the doctor of their choice.
  We have the effect on the family and the effect on the economy. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the health care law is 
going to lead to 2\1/2\ million fewer people working over the next 
decade. These are not my numbers. These are the Congressional Budget 
Office's numbers. Because of the warped incentives that are built into 
this law, some people will have to choose between working more and 
getting higher wages or working less so they can collect government 
subsidies.
  Remember Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House on the Democratic 
side. When this law was jammed through and down the throats of the 
American people, she was saying: First you have to pass it before you 
get to find out what is in it.
  I actually read the whole thing, and it continues to astonish me how 
few Members of this body and the body across the way actually read it 
and instead just took her for her word. Now what we are seeing are 
these unintended consequences continuing to show up.
  Even some Democrats have had to admit as much about this issue of 
people having to work more and getting higher wages or choosing to work 
less so they can collect greater government subsidies.
  One liberal columnist wrote in the Washington Post back in February 
that ObamaCare is ``a drag on economic growth.'' He said it was ``a 
drag on economic growth.'' It is a drag on economic growth ``as more 
people decide government handouts are more attractive than working more 
and paying higher taxes.'' The President wants higher taxes, but he 
sets into place a health care law that discourages the work and 
additional income because the government subsidies get greater if you 
work less and have a lower income.
  That is one way that the President's health care law has been 
harmful, and there is another way as well. Remember, this law requires 
employers to pay for insurance for anyone working 30 hours per week or 
more. Thirty hours per week or more is considered a full-time job. 
There is bipartisan legislation in an effort to try to actually 
overturn that and get that back to the 40-hour workweek, which is what 
most Americans think of as a full-time job.
  How do people have to respond to the health care law that is out 
there? What are towns doing with their town budgets? What are counties 
doing in States all across the country? What are school districts 
doing? We see what they are doing, and they are talking about it. 
Towns, communities, counties, school districts, and universities are 
cutting back on the hours of their part-time bus drivers, librarians, 
coaches, and other middle-class workers. They are cutting back to get 
them below 30 hours a week so they don't fall into the mandates of the 
President's expensive health care law.
  What does that mean? It means it hurts people's take-home pay. If 
someone is working 32 or 33 hours a week and finds that their hours 
have been cut to 29 hours--regardless of what the majority leader wants 
to do with minimum wage--their paycheck is going to get smaller. Their 
paycheck is going to be smaller because of the health care law. Their 
paycheck will be smaller because of policies that Democrats have voted 
for--many of whom never read it in the first place.
  Is this just a Republican versus a Democratic idea? Not necessarily, 
because a group of labor union leaders who supported the law initially 
have said that this health care law will ``destroy the foundation of 
the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle 
class.''
  The House of Representatives voted last week to do something about 
it. They passed--in a bipartisan vote--a bill that would change the 
definition of full-time work under the health care law from 30 hours to 
40 hours.
  Senator Susan Collins introduced a bill to do the same thing here in 
the Senate. So what has happened with it? Well, the Democratic majority 
leader isn't allowing a vote on that bill.
  This is a commonsense way to reverse some of the harm the President's 
health care law is doing to hard-working Americans--how it is impacting 
their take-home pay, how they are seeing smaller paychecks and 
impacting their quality of life. But the Senate majority leader has 
blocked the vote. So the health care law hurts patients, it hurts 
health care providers, and is hurting the economy.
  It is interesting, because the President said all he wanted to do was 
insure the people who didn't have insurance. So we have an exchange. We 
have turned the whole health care system upside down. We have impacted 
one-sixth of the economy. And the whole purpose: to take people who 
didn't have insurance and get them insured.

[[Page 5949]]

  What does the Wall Street Journal say about it today in the headline 
talking about the newest statistics in the RAND study? They say most 
who bought policies through the new exchanges--most who bought policies 
through the new exchanges--already had insurance. They weren't 
uninsured. These people had insurance already.
  Many lost their insurance because of the President's health care law. 
Yet we have turned upside down one-sixth of the economy in an effort to 
help some but have hurt so many in the process. That is one of the 
fundamental flaws and problems of a health care law where the President 
promised, if you like your coverage, you can keep it; if you like your 
doctor, you can keep him or her. Now we have millions of people whose 
coverage has been canceled. We have many people who can't keep their 
doctor, can't go to their hospital. They are seeing higher premiums, 
higher copays, higher deductibles, more pain because of what the 
President and the Democrats have forced through the Congress, forced 
through the House, forced through the Senate.
  The American people wanted to change the health care system in this 
country and they knew what they wanted. They wanted the care they need 
from a doctor they choose at lower cost. They didn't get that in this 
health care law. Many Americans have seen their costs go up--their 
initial out-of-pocket costs--to buy the insurance on the exchange. They 
have seen their copays go up. They have seen their deductibles go up. 
And they can't keep the doctor of their choice. So they know what they 
wanted, and this is not what they wanted, but it is what they have 
gotten instead. People understand that.
  That is why this health care law is still so very unpopular across 
the country. People see how bad this health care law is in terms of 
their own lives and how bad it is for the American economy. They see 
how 5 years of this administration and the policies have held back our 
economic recovery.
  Tax day, April 15, coming next week, will be another opportunity for 
Americans to reflect on how much of their money Washington has been 
taking from them and what they have gotten in return. I would say, as 
they reflect upon that, they will continue to say they are not getting 
value for their money. They are not getting value for their money.
  Polling shows that--and I hear this at home in Wyoming--for every 
dollar people send to the government, they think they are getting less 
than 50 cents on the dollar in value. They don't like it because it 
means when the government takes more, they have less to spend.
  The government is deciding where the money is spent, not families. 
And it is families who want to make decisions for themselves about 
their freedoms, about their health care, about their financial 
choices--what they want, what they need, and what works best for them.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of 
a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. What is now the pending business on the floor?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion to proceed to S. 2199.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I believe the number of that bill refers to the 
paycheck fairness bill; is that correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, what a bloodless way to talk about such 
an important public policy issue--to use the motion to proceed--and 
very few people realize this. To simply get a bill on the Senate floor, 
we have to vote on a motion to proceed on whether we are going to take 
it up. And because this is now going to require a 60-vote majority, 
because of the invocation of this fog of filibuster, we can't even get 
to a majority vote on how to make sure women get equal pay for equal 
work.
  No wonder people are fed up with us. They wonder why, when all is 
said and done, more gets said than gets done. I travel the State of 
Maryland in the United States of America, and people want us to do our 
job, to work on a bipartisan basis, hands across the aisle, work across 
the dome, to solve national problems.
  We heard this morning the talk about the economy. One way to help the 
economy is for people to make more money. Do we know what is one of the 
best ways to make more money? Pay women equal pay for equal work. Also, 
enforce the law, the Equal Pay Act, that was passed in 1963. But we 
haven't been able to do it for several reasons, and this is what the 
paycheck fairness bill deals with.
  Right now, there is a veil of secrecy in businesses all over 
America--a veil of secrecy about the fact that an employee cannot ask a 
fellow employee what they are making. An employee is not supposed to 
talk about their salary. They can talk about anything, but they can't 
talk about what the person next to them is making.
  The second issue is if an employee in any way, particularly if that 
employee is a woman, tries to speak up for their rights to get equal 
pay for the same job--same pay, same job--an employee is often 
retaliated against. Then, businesses come up with lots of loopholes, 
which are bad. They use business explanations as bad excuses to avoid 
paying equal pay for equal work.
  We want to pass this legislation to end the retaliation, close the 
loopholes, and lift the veil of secrecy. This, in many ways, will give 
American women not a raise but what justice demands.
  I am here this morning to keep up the momentum which we have been 
able to maintain in this Senate. I am very proud of the fact that in 
2009 we passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act which opened the courthouse 
doors to women. Now, as we continue 5 years later, we are listening to 
stories--terrible stories--about what has happened.
  There was Kerri Sleeman--a mechanical engineer in Michigan--who was 
told that men had to be paid more in her company because they were 
breadwinners. She was a mechanical engineer doing the same job.
  Latoya Weaver, a Marylander who wrote me, learned that the males at 
the hotel where she worked were being paid $2 more an hour than she 
was, which meant a total of several hundred dollars a year.
  We want to end that discrimination--no retaliation, no loopholes, no 
veil of secrecy.
  This has been going on a long time. In 1964, President Lyndon 
Johnson, as part of the great civil rights movement that was sweeping 
our country, wanted to pass three civil rights bills: the Equal Pay 
Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act.
  He started with the Equal Pay Act because he thought it would be the 
easiest to pass and the easiest to enforce. Fifty years later, we are 
still fighting the battles on all three of those pieces of legislation, 
and today we are talking about equal pay.
  (Ms. HEITKAMP assumed the Chair.)
  Right now women are an emerging force in the workplace. Way back in 
the 1950s, only 11 percent of women were in the workplace, although 
many had been there during World War II as Rosies and kept our economy 
going. Now they are the breadwinners in 40 percent of households. Women 
make up 40 percent of the households in which she is the head of the 
house or the prime or the breadwinner, and it is time to make the labor 
market reflect that--most of all the pay market.
  When the Equal Pay Act was signed in 1963, guess what women made. 
Five cents for every $1 men made. Everybody said: We have to fight 
that. Fifty years later--now--women make 77 cents for every $1 men 
make. Over a 50-year period we closed the gap by 18 cents. Now what do 
you think about that? I think that is pretty unjust. I do not think it 
is even American.
  We like to say: If you work hard and play by the rules, America will 
work

[[Page 5950]]

for you. Well, women work hard. They play by the rules. Yet they work 
but America does not work for them.
  For women of color, it is even worse. If you are an African-American 
woman, you earn 64 cents for every $1 a man earns. If you are an 
Hispanic woman, you earn 54 cents for every $1 a man earns.
  You like to hear: Oh, you've come a long way. But I do not think we 
have come a long way with an 18-cent improvement in a 50-year period. 
Who in this Chamber thinks that earning 1 cent more every 5 years 
counts as ``coming a long way''? Maybe if we made 1 cent more every 
year since 1964 we would not think it is so terrific.
  My constituents do not go for this--either men or women. Women want 
to stand up for their rights, and men want to stand up for the women 
they love. There are men all over this country, right this minute, who 
are in jobs they hate so their daughters could have the job they love, 
working hard so they can help them go to school, get the education, get 
the skills to be able to take care of themselves. This is why they have 
spoken up for dads.
  Every week, in every month, as families sit down to pay their bills, 
husbands are looking at their wives and saying: Tell me about the pay. 
It doesn't seem right. I heard that George is making--I heard that Tom 
is making--but what about us? So men are outraged about this too. They 
see it as a fundamental fairness issue. They see it as a fundamental 
justice issue. And guess what. It is a family pocketbook issue.
  We want change, and we want change today by voting for this bill. 
This way we will change the Federal lawbooks so we can help change the 
family checkbooks. This bill, as I said, will close the loopholes in 
the law which allow pay discrimination to continue to occur.
  I will repeat, paycheck secrecy--making it harder to uncover pay 
differences--is hard to fight when you are prohibited from even talking 
about it. Businesses are under a gag rule. Then there is the 
retaliation. And then there are the loopholes.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act is quite simple. They say: Well, didn't you 
deal with this with Lilly Ledbetter? Well, Lilly Ledbetter dealt with 
the statute of limitations. This bill is dealing with other issues. No 
longer can workers be retaliated against for sharing wages.
  For years, Lilly--and she tells her own story, but it is the story of 
many--was harassed and humiliated for asking questions about coworkers' 
salaries. She found out that the guys were making more because of an 
anonymous note that was sent to her. Somewhere in the vast corporation 
of Goodyear, for whom she worked, a contractor--a Federal contractor, 
by the way--there was somebody, probably a wonderful man who worked 
with her, who wanted to help her out and told her.
  But then she went on to try to do something. Well, guess what. She 
faced retaliation. First she faced verbal harassment. She faced threats 
to her very safety. She faced sexual intimidation. She really got it 
thrown right back in her face, and every day it became a torture in the 
workplace. But she pressed on.
  That happens to women all over America. We cannot allow that. When 
you stand up for your rights in America, you should not be harassed.
  There is much said about the First Amendment. Yes. There is much said 
about the Second Amendment--the right to carry a gun. Women would like 
to be able to carry a law to be able to fight for themselves.
  No longer will employers also be able to use just any reason to 
justify paying a woman less. Oh, he is the breadwinner. Oh, they do a 
harder job. Well, when you talk to Kerri, the mechanical engineer, they 
were doing the same job. In fact, in some instances she was the actual 
supervisor. For Latoya, working in the hotel, they were doing exactly 
the same job, and the EEOC verified that. So this is why it is 
important.
  The other thing is, no longer will women be limited just to backpay. 
They will be able to get punitive damages. Because in many businesses, 
when they are caught, the current law catches up with them, they just 
pay a fine and see it as a cost of doing business. Well, that is not 
fine with us. We want to make sure if you feel you have suffered these 
injustices, you will be able to seek redress through punitive damages. 
And no longer will women be on their own.
  The consequences of the pay gap are significant. Let's take a college 
graduate--a woman who has had the benefit of an education. For women 
between ages 25 and 29, the annual pay gap now is about $1,700 a year. 
For women closer to retirement age, it is more like $14,000 a year. 
Over a lifetime, for many women, it is $400,000.
  This has enormous consequences. When you are paid less--when you are 
paid less--it affects not only your paycheck that you take home, but it 
will affect your retirement because Social Security is pegged to 
earnings. So when you pay women less, they are going to get less in 
retirement. This is not fair.
  Now, I will tell you what I am tired of hearing--that somehow or 
another we are too emotional when we talk. When we raise an issue, we 
are too emotional. Well, I am emotional. I am so emotional about this. 
I am telling you, if we do not pass this bill, I am so emotional I am 
going to press on. It brings tears to my eyes to know how women, every 
single day, are working so hard and are getting paid less. It makes me 
emotional to hear that.
  Then, when I hear all of these phony reasons--some are mean and some 
are meaningless--I do get emotional; I get angry; I get outraged; I get 
volcanic. And the way I want to channel my emotions is by doing 
everything we can do to be able to pass this bill.
  There are those who say: This is a lawyer's dream. It is not a 
lawyer's dream; it is a family's dream. If they are afraid of lawsuits, 
they ought to follow the law. The best way not to have a lawsuit is to 
follow the law. So do not retaliate against a worker, because if you 
do, you are going to have to pay up. If you have loopholes that are 
mean or meaningless, yes, that employee might sue. But guess what. The 
way to avoid the lawsuit is do not be mean, do not be cruel, do not be 
unfair, do not be unjust. And if you think we are emotional, wait until 
you see what happens if this bill fails. We are pretty emotional about 
this.
  Madam President, you and I have talked about this. Whether it is in 
North Dakota or north Baltimore, we feel the same, that when you work 
hard, play by the rules, do the same job, you want the same pay. 
American women need a fair shot at equal pay for equal work--the same 
pay for the same job. We need to pass this legislation today.
  Let us adopt the motion to proceed so we can get actually on the bill 
to discuss it, offer amendments. There are those, I know, who have 
other ideas and suggestions. We look forward to that. And then, at the 
end of the day and the end of the week, let's pass it.
  I think today is a day of reckoning: Do you want equal pay for equal 
work? And I want men and women all across America to be emotional about 
it.
  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. MERKLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I would like to take a few minutes to 
speak on the bill being considered today, the Paycheck Fairness Act. 
The proponents of the Paycheck Fairness Act argue that many women 
continue to earn significantly less pay than men for equal work. I am 
afraid the effort to consider this bill is nothing more than election-
year politics aimed at scoring political points.
  Equally unfortunate, the bill will do nothing to address our Nation's 
anemic economic growth. It will not create a single job for the more 
than 10 million unemployed Americans. This bill does nothing for the 
millions of Americans who have become so discouraged with this economy 
that they have completely given up on looking for work. This political 
show-vote will not help

[[Page 5951]]

the millions of women who have lost their jobs or who are now living in 
poverty as a result of the Obama economy.
  Let me be clear: I strongly support equal pay for equal work. I 
support equal employment opportunities. I abhor discrimination of any 
kind. Discrimination in the workplace is unacceptable, and must not be 
tolerated. Workers have been protected against sex-based pay 
discrimination since the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963. Title 
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides additional protections and 
remedies for discrimination.
  Many have concerns that the Paycheck Fairness Act would undermine a 
business's defense even when the pay disparity is legitimate. The bill 
would allow unlimited punitive and compensatory damages, while also 
automatically including employees in a class-action lawsuit unless they 
specifically choose to opt out. This bill would be a boon to trial 
lawyers at the expense of job creators and job seekers.
  A Washington Post Editorial from September 28, 2010, stated, ``the 
proposal, which builds on the existing Equal Pay Act, would allow 
employees and courts to intrude too far into core business decisions.'' 
It further stated, ``Discrimination is abhorrent, but the Paycheck 
Fairness Act is not the right fix.''
  Rather than consider a politically motivated measure, we should be 
working together to create good-paying jobs and grow the economy. 
Instead, the Democratic leadership has chosen to disregard the welfare 
of struggling Americans and pursue messaging bills. If the majority in 
the Senate truly cared about helping the middle class, they would allow 
consideration of Republican amendments that would actually help 
workers, help the unemployed find work, and grow the economy.
  But just like consideration of the unemployment insurance extension 
bill, the Senate majority has no interest in considering amendments 
that would actually grow the economy and create jobs. During 
consideration of that bill, Republicans offered a job-creating 
amendment that would have repealed provisions of ObamaCare that are 
proven job killers. It would have spurred job creation through energy 
development, including authorizing the construction of the Keystone XL 
Pipeline. It would have provided small businesses, who are responsible 
for creating 70 percent of jobs in our economy, with permanent tax 
relief aimed at incentivizing new investments. A version of this 
amendment has been filed to this bill. Unfortunately, the majority 
leader is again blocking consideration of any amendments.
  While the majority leader pushes ahead with his political agenda, 
Republicans continue to propose measures that will create jobs and grow 
the economy. Senator McConnell and Senator Ayotte have put forward an 
amendment to allow voluntary flexible workplace arrangements such as 
compensatory time and flexible credit hour agreements for hourly 
workers. This amendment would provide much needed flexibility for 
working moms, but was immediately blocked by the majority leader. Why 
would the majority leader block consideration of such a reasonable 
proposal?
  Senator Alexander has also proposed an amendment that seeks to 
provide working parents more flexibility in the workplace. Senator 
Rubio has proposed an amendment to allow employees to seek fair wage 
increases and remove obstacles for employees to earn merit-based pay 
raises. In addition, Senators Fischer, Collins and Ayotte have filed an 
amendment to reaffirm existing laws prohibiting pay discrimination and 
would prohibit retaliation against employees who inquire about, discuss 
or disclose their salaries.
  Sadly, none of these reasonable, thoughtful amendments to address job 
creation and workplace flexibility will be considered because the 
majority leader has already signaled that this debate is not about 
legislating. It's about political messaging. For these reasons, I must 
vote against the procedural motion to proceed.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, today we will decide whether to begin 
debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act. I am an original cosponsor of this 
bill, I strongly support it and the ideals that motivate it, and I hope 
that someday we can pass this legislation. But today's vote is not on 
final passage. It is not even a vote on whether to end debate on this 
measure. It is a vote on whether to begin the debate. Those who vote 
against cloture on this motion to proceed are not just saying they 
oppose equal pay for women; they are saying they do not even want to 
discuss it.
  But a refusal to debate this measure will not make this issue go 
away. The fact remains that in our country today, women make 77 cents 
for every dollar men earn. Some of our Republican colleagues suggest 
there's nothing we can do about it.
  As a Democrat I believe that our prosperity rests on a principle--the 
idea that if you work hard and play by the rules, you should have a 
fair shot to provide for your family, your future and your children's 
future. The promise of that better future is part of what gets us up 
every morning, gets us on the bus or in the car, and gets us to the 
office or the shop or the factory floor. It is the promise that our 
work will be rewarded.
  The obvious and persistent pay gap between men and women does 
violence to that promise. Under current conditions, the message we send 
to women is this: ``Work hard, play by the rules, and you'll get three 
quarters for every dollar's worth of work you do.'' Democrats believe 
that is unfair--unfair to the women it shortchanges and to the families 
they support. And we believe that even those of us who are not working 
women lose something when we do not live up to the principles of 
fairness and opportunity that give all of us hope for that better 
future.
  And we Democrats want to do something about it. When you think about 
it, what we want to do should not be that controversial. Here is all 
this bill does: It requires employers to ensure that when men and women 
are paid differently, that the difference is related to factors such as 
education, training and experience, and not merely based on gender; and 
it strengthens protections against retaliation by employers for women 
who file discrimination complaints.
  Surely we can all agree that pay differences should be limited to 
factors that truly reflect qualification and performance, and not 
determined by gender. Surely we can all agree that when an employee 
believes she or he is being treated unfairly, or that their employer 
has violated the law, they have the right to seek redress without fear 
of retribution.
  Those who care about the 60 percent of American households that 
depend partly or entirely on a woman's income should support this bill. 
Those who care about the 6.9 million women trying to raise a family on 
what is now three-quarters of what they have worked for should support 
this bill. Those who care about making this a society that lives up to 
our professed goals of equal opportunity should support this bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, 5 years ago, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay 
Act was signed into law by President Obama. That bill--necessary 
because of a divided decision by the Supreme Court to strike a blow to 
the rights of working families in Vermont and across the country--was a 
first step in closing the still-existing gender wage gap. Today, one 
day after commemorating Equal Pay Day, Senators will once again have 
the opportunity to stand with working families and support equal pay 
for equal work, regardless of gender.
  I am proud to cosponsor the Paycheck Fairness Act, which Senator 
Mikulski--a trailblazer herself--has once again introduced to close 
loopholes that allow employers to unfairly discriminate workers based 
on gender. Thanks to the hard work and perseverance of earlier 
generations, working women today have career and business opportunities 
never before available. Yet, despite the gains we have made, there 
remains a troubling constant--women continue to earn less than men. 
According to the Census Bureau, women still only earn 77 cents for 
every dollar a man earns. This disparity has real-world, financial 
consequences: on average, women are paid

[[Page 5952]]

more than $11,000 per year less than men. And of American households 
with children under the age of 18, 40 percent list women as their sole 
or primary earners. The wage gap based on gender is hurting low- and 
middle-income families who, in today's economy, still wrestle with 
putting food on the table, heating their homes, paying the mortgage, 
and saving for college.
  Vermont has been a national leader in addressing equal pay for equal 
work. In 2002, Vermont adopted its own Equal Pay Act, making it illegal 
for employers to offer anything less than equal pay for equal work. 
Still, in Vermont, where 22,000 households are headed by women, the 
yearly gender pay gap is nearly $6,000. More needs to be done, and we 
can do better.
  Our national march toward equality continues. The Paycheck Fairness 
Act builds on efforts that date back more than 50 years to ensure a 
balanced and equal playing field in the workplace for both men and 
women. The Paycheck Fairness Act will require employers to show a 
difference in pay is truly linked to job performance and not to gender. 
It will protect employees from being retaliated against by their 
employers for discussing salaries with colleagues, and remove obstacles 
to challenging pay discrimination in a court of law. It will provide 
employers with assistance to create equal pay practices and recognize 
those who already adhere to such practices. These are commonsense 
provisions we can all support.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act has twice before been filibustered in the 
Senate. Meanwhile, hard-working families across the country, anchored 
by the incomes of hard-working women, continue to struggle. Equal pay 
for equal work is a matter of simple fairness, and the Paycheck 
Fairness Act is an important step towards just that. I urge all 
Senators to support this bill.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 345, S. 2199, a bill to amend the 
     Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective 
     remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages 
     on the basis of sex, and for other purposes.
         Harry Reid, Barbara A. Mikulski, Patty Murray, Richard J. 
           Durbin, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Brian Schatz, Heidi 
           Heitkamp, Martin Heinrich, Tammy Baldwin, Barbara 
           Boxer, Debbie Stabenow, Mazie K. Hirono, Kay R. Hagan, 
           Mary Landrieu, Claire McCaskill, Jeanne Shaheen, Dianne 
           Feinstein, Amy Klobuchar.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 2199, a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards 
Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of 
discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for 
other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), and 
the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 103 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     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
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--44

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Cruz
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 53, the nays are 44. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture 
was not invoked.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that at 2:30 
p.m. this afternoon the Senate proceed to the Felton nomination under 
the previous order; further, that following the disposition of the 
Felton nomination, the Senate proceed to the McSweeny nomination, also 
under the previous order; further, that following the disposition of 
the McSweeny nomination, the Senate proceed to executive session to 
consider Calendar Nos. 506, 619, and 522; that there be 2 minutes of 
debate equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their 
designees prior to each vote; that upon the use or yielding back of 
that time, the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or 
debate on the nominations in the order I have listed; that any rollcall 
votes, following the first in the series, be 10 minutes in length; that 
the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table 
with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in 
order to the nominations; that any statements related to these 
nominations be printed in the Record; that President Obama be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume 
legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, for the information of all Senators, under 
the agreement we just had approved, there will be as many as five 
rollcall votes starting at 3:30 p.m. this afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, we just lost the vote today on a 
cloture vote to proceed to the Paycheck Fairness Act, but I want 
everyone to know--everyone in the Senate and everyone in the United 
States of America--although we lost the vote, we refuse to lose the 
battle. We are going to continue the fight. We are going to continue 
the fight to get equal pay for equal work, to lift the veil of secrecy 
on pay in the workplace, to end the retaliation if you fight for your 
rights, and to close loopholes that are mean or meaningless.
  We have been here before. I remember when we had the first vote on 
the Lilly Ledbetter bill. We lost that vote, but we pressed on. Women 
all over America expressed their frustration and their outrage. In 2009 
we were able to right that wrong and pass the Lilly Ledbetter bill and 
open the courthouse doors.
  So here we are again. We are ready to continue that fight. We are 
ready to turn our biggest noes into our biggest yeses. We will continue 
the war against the wage gap and wage discrimination against women.
  Women of America, I say to you, join us in this fight. Make your 
voices

[[Page 5953]]

heard if you want to change the Federal lawbooks so we can make a 
change in your family checkbook.
  We are going to finish what we started with Lilly Ledbetter and bring 
the Paycheck Fairness Act back to the floor. When Senator Reid voted 
no, it was so that he could bring up another vote on the motion to 
proceed. But this is not about parliamentary procedure; this is about 
how we will press the fight.
  When we lost Lilly Ledbetter, I came to the floor then, and I come to 
the floor now, to say that when we continue this fight, I will remind 
my colleagues about what Abigail Adams once said to her husband: As you 
are making those laws down there, she said, ``do not forget the ladies. 
For we will foment a revolution of our own.''
  So women of America--and the good men who support us--keep the 
revolution going. I said then, as I say now, let's suit up, let's 
square our shoulders. For the women, put on your lipstick and let's 
fight on. We will be back another day for another vote.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I applaud my colleague Senator Mikulski 
for her great work, in spite of the result today.


                    Congratulating the UConn Huskies

  I am here on the floor, however, to congratulate my UConn Huskies for 
a double national championship. It has only been done once before in 
the history of college basketball--the men winning a national 
championship and the women winning a national championship in the same 
year--and the last time it was us too, in 2004 and now in 2014. So, 
very briefly, I wish to add my congratulations to those offered by 
Senator Blumenthal.
  Our new coach, Kevin Ollie, when he took the job, went on TV and said 
that despite some of the tough times surrounding the UConn program, his 
intent was for UConn basketball to take the stairs and not the 
elevator.
  He said elevators were for cowards, and they were going to walk one 
step at a time towards a national championship.
  Given the fact our long-time Hall of Fame coach had just left, we had 
sanctions which didn't allow our team to play for a year in the 
postseason. People thought it just wasn't possible that UConn was ever 
going to be able to return to the greatness we have seen over the last 
20 years. But in Coach Ollie's first tournament, he brought his team to 
a victory led, of course, by our great point guard Shabazz Napier--
another Connecticut first and second. There are only two players who 
were national champions in the men's tournament who scored 125 points, 
had 25 assists and 25 rebounds. Shabazz Napier is the second because 
Kemba Walker was the first in UConn's last national championship.
  The women, of course, are even more impressive in what they have done 
because they managed to win their national championship this year by 
going undefeated and beating another undefeated team in the national 
championship game. Of course, that has become kind of old hat for the 
UConn women. This is the third time they have gone undefeated in the 
past 6 years, and it is their fourth title in 6 years--Geno Auriemma's 
ninth title overall, now eclipsing the great Pat Summitt.
  Watching the game last night, we saw Coach Auriemma in an uncommon 
display of emotion at the end of the game. He is a very emotional guy, 
but he very rarely breaks down in tears--which he did, talking about a 
couple of his seniors, Stefanie Dolson and also Bria Hartley. He has a 
love for those players.
  We saw Kevin Ollie's love for his players, especially the guys who 
stuck it out who could have transferred to other programs but decided 
to stay with him and stay with the program.
  What Geno said after the game is he is flattered: ``I'm flattered and 
grateful, and all the things that have come with this kind of 
accomplishment . . .'' But he also said: ``I'm more proud of the legacy 
that exists and what Connecticut basketball is as opposed to the number 
of championships.
  When we watch these championship games that now add up for both the 
men and the women, we see throughout the stands former players by the 
dozens--maybe even by the hundreds--who come back because of the legacy 
that has been created in 20 years of nine national championships for 
the women and four national championships for the men.
  Even though, as Kevin Ollie said, UConn got there the hard way. We 
don't have the 100-year legacy of basketball such as Kansas or Kentucky 
has. We have built this over the past couple of decades. Just as Kevin 
Ollie has done over the last 2 years, UConn over the course of the last 
the 2 decades, in registering 13 national championships, has always 
taken the stairs rather than the elevator.
  Congratulations, as a diehard Husky fan, to our twin national 
championship teams.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                          Congratulating UConn

  Mr. COATS. Madam President, this is not easy for me to do, but I am 
going to do it in good grace here. I congratulate my colleague from 
Connecticut on The University of Connecticut's victory over the 
University of Notre Dame last night.
  He watched in joy and exuberance, and I watched in dismay. But I do 
want to congratulate the Senator and those from Connecticut for the 
singular achievement of having both men's and women's basketball 
championships.
  Those of us in Indiana are deeply immersed in the basketball culture. 
Statewide, we didn't have the best year or the kind of year we would 
have liked. But we were very proud of the University of Notre Dame 
women and the accomplishments they made--in an undefeated season until 
last evening.
  It probably is not politic for me to say this, but it is unfortunate 
that our all-American center, who was one of the keys to the success of 
the team, unfortunately had a knee injury which prevented her from 
playing. I am not saying we would have won had she played because I 
don't want to take anything away from the Huskies. On the other hand, I 
think it could have been a more contested contest had she been able to 
be a part of that.
  Either way, both teams deserve congratulations for the phenomenal 
seasons they had. It was a joy to watch from Indiana our Notre Dame 
women do so well, just as it was a joy for Senator Murphy to watch his 
men and women do so well. So I congratulate him for that.


                           Russian Aggression

  Madam President, I rise to advocate for something obviously far more 
serious and threatening to us than basketball contests, and that is our 
response to Russia's recent unlawful takeover of Crimea. I urge, and 
continue to urge, the President as well as our colleagues in the Senate 
to take more vigorous action to deter further Russian aggression.
  As I speak, anxieties are building that Vladimir Putin's first big 
bite out of Ukraine has not satisfied him and he hungers for more. Many 
signs indicate Russian aggression threatens further incursions into 
Eastern Ukraine and possibly beyond.
  Troops are positioned on the border, logistics for an invasion are 
arranged, and the Russian propaganda machine is once again ginning up 
the excuses needed to justify unjustifiable actions. The only thing I 
can conclude is that the lack of an effective, forceful response by the 
United States and by our allies--particularly our European allies--has 
given President Putin reason to expect that further aggression will not 
be punished. Despite all the rhetoric, despite all the tough talk, very 
little has been done, and--with what little has been done--there has 
been no effect to deter and to condemn what has taken place and deter 
further aggression.
  From the beginning of this blatant act, I have waited for the 
administration to impose real costs on Russia for its illegal 
territorial aggression. So far, I have waited in vain.
  For the past month, in two separate resolutions which I have offered 
on the

[[Page 5954]]

floor, several speeches, and numerous opinion columns I have written in 
the media, I have consistently attempted to make the case for hard-
hitting sanctions on Russia. I joined Senator Durbin, my colleague from 
Illinois, to achieve a unanimous bipartisan passage of an initial list 
of sanctions which would signal to Putin that the Senate was unified in 
condemning and sanctioning Russia for its blatant takeover of Crimea.
  I stated at the time that this was an initial list and much tougher 
sanctions needed to come. But I wanted to give the administration time 
to fashion those, to work with our allies across the ocean and to stand 
strong for the type of hard-hitting, hard-biting economic sanctions 
which would make Russia pay a real price, as we had said we were going 
to do.
  The administration has to take the lead on economic sanctions because 
to implement the steps needed to ensure maximum effectiveness we need 
to coordinate with our friends and our allies. But I have seen little 
evidence that the administration is leading our European friends in the 
direction of such sanctions. I have not seen evidence that our European 
allies are willing to take the lead. I am therefore wondering if anyone 
is willing to take a lead in this effort.
  More needs to be done--and more needs to be done now. With Russian 
troops mounting their vehicles on the Ukrainian border, the United 
States should be using every means available to press for firm 
measures, and our European allies should be joining us in this cause. 
Those measures should include imposing serious costs so such behavior 
will not be repeated.
  Further, we should defend our allies and reassure them that we have 
their backs. We need to isolate Russia and prevent it from 
participating in organizations that give Putin credibility and 
strength. We should impose obstacles to prevent Russia from taking 
material advantage of their conquest, and we should convince other 
nations, businesses, and individuals to follow our lead.
  I think recent history shows that in conflict issues around the 
world, if the United States does not take a firm and a strong lead, 
other nations simply do not feel they have the strength or the backing 
to take that lead. So it is imperative the United States takes that 
lead, steered by our President, and supported by a bipartisan Congress 
to send a unified message that we are willing to address egregious 
breaches of international law and lead the way in doing so.
  The first task, as I see it, is to make sure we and others do not 
accept this aggression and annexation--what some others are already 
calling a fait accompli. Since the United States' refusal to recognize 
Soviet annexation of the three Baltic states 74 years ago, we have 
firmly and consistently refused to recognize such annexations. We must 
do the same in this case.
  Unfortunately, words and actions from this administration and from 
many of our European allies continue to focus on threatening 
consequences for future Russian incursions, rather than on the illegal 
annexation that has already taken place. It is exactly this reluctance 
to impose costs for the annexation of a portion of the Ukraine that 
paves the way for further Russian aggression.
  I sadly note that some of our best European friends are downplaying 
the importance of the invasion and annexation which have already taken 
place.
  Just as Chancellor Merkel from Germany was showing signs of a more 
forceful German foreign policy in defense of European territorial 
integrity, it now appears Germany is showing more interest in dialogue 
and restraint, backing down from the tough talk about making Russia pay 
a price for the actions it has taken. I am convinced there is very 
little reason to believe that further aggression will be adequately 
discouraged or punished.
  In this policy vacuum, if we don't find leadership from our 
administration or from the Europeans, I believe it is imperative that 
Congress act--and act now. So today, I am introducing yet another 
response in addition to those I have previously introduced addressing 
this situation in Ukraine.
  I will be introducing to the Senate the Crimea Annexation Non-
Recognition Act--legislation which would mandate an official policy of 
not recognizing Russian sovereignty over Crimea, its land, airspace, 
waters, and resources.
  The purpose of this act is to ensure the United States will not 
recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea nor take any action which 
would imply such recognition. Further, my bill imposes obstacles to 
Russian exploitation of Crimean resources by taking greater legal 
certainty about investing in Crimea, and it restricts foreign aid to 
countries which recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea.
  I will illustrate some of the specific proposals I have introduced.
  First, establish firm policy that the United States Government does 
not recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea, its territory, airspace, 
and territorial waters, and may take no action that implies any 
recognition of Russian sovereignty.
  Second, prohibit the United States from financing or guaranteeing 
investments in Crimea with Russia as an intermediary.
  Third, oppose international financial institutions' assistance 
programs for Crimea that go through Russia as an intermediary.
  Fourth, require the Department of Justice to affirm this 
nonrecognition policy upon request, in order to create greater legal 
uncertainty for those who hope to contract with Russia for exploitation 
of Crimean resources.
  Fifth, deny entry to vessels sailing from Crimea with Russian customs 
documentation.
  Sixth, prohibit U.S. ships and aircraft from taking action that imply 
Russian sovereignty over Crimea, its airspace or territorial waters.
  And, seventh, prohibit some forms of foreign assistance to countries 
that recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea.
  There are very few precedents in postwar history where a state has so 
boldly and aggressively used force against a neighbor for the purpose 
of territorial acquisition. What has happened in Crimea is a crime left 
over from an earlier age. We, together with our European friends, must 
move aggressively to oppose it before it becomes repetitive.
  At a time when so much depends on Vladmir Putin's unspoken plans, it 
is not hard to guess how he will respond to meekness. The American 
response must be much greater if we want Putin to understand that his 
actions in Ukraine are unacceptable and will not be tolerated. At a 
minimum, I would suggest, Congress must refuse to recognize Russian 
sovereignty over Crimea by passing my legislation. I have proposed a 
number of sanctions which were added to other measures I have 
introduced and hopefully will convince this administration and our 
European allies to take a much tougher stance and provide much more of 
a penalty to Russia over the actions it has taken. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in this effort.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I wish to speak a little bit about the 
letters I have received and the emails and the calls over the last few 
days about the health care plan.
  The numbers signed up or whether the Web site worked--and I have said 
repeatedly--aren't the test here. The test is, is this a better plan? 
Does it allow more people to have better coverage or does it allow more 
people to have lesser coverage? I am becoming more and more convinced 
that the latter might be the case: the high deductibles, the increase 
in premiums, the benefit of a couple of years, actually, where the 
trajectory of health care costs were still going up but were

[[Page 5955]]

beginning to flatten out, and now they are projected to go up pretty 
dramatically over the next few years based on the recent projections.
  So the real test is, is this plan a better plan, not does the Web 
site work. The fact that the Web site doesn't work sort of shows the 
ineptitude of government. The easiest thing in the world to do today--
or should have been in 4 years--would be to figure out how to develop a 
Web site. So I would say the Web site shouldn't be the test of whether 
the health care plan works because the Web site will work. Apparently a 
number of States are having a problem, the Federal Government had a 
very obvious problem, but the Web site will eventually work. Surely 
that can't be a long-term problem. Given no other alternatives, people 
are going to eventually sign up in some numbers.
  I am not interested even in finding out whether the numbers are real. 
I did notice that the President, as with most of the people I work for, 
in his announcing the numbers the other day, referred to the plan as 
ObamaCare again. I noticed he quit doing that since the election. He 
said he kind of liked ``ObamaCare''--in one of the Presidential debates 
in 2012 he said he liked the term--and then he pretty well quit using 
it. But with the signup numbers, he said some people call it ObamaCare, 
in his announcement the other day. So I guess if he can call it that, 
the people I work for can call it that as well.
  So we have premiums rising, deductibles going up, and hospitals 
seeing, in many cases, their fastest growing column of unpaid debt is 
people with insurance. Not too long ago, we said: That doesn't make any 
sense. How did people with insurance wind up in the fastest growing 
column of unpaid debt? It is because people's deductibles are, for many 
families now, well beyond a deductible they can pay. If a person had a 
$500 deductible a few years ago and they have a $3,000 deductible 
today--if they had a hospital bill, they might be able to put $500 
together and think that gets this bill paid. Nobody is going to call me 
anymore. I am not going to get this repeated notice. But if a person 
has a $3,000 deductible, they might decide: I can never pay that, so I 
am going to let them do whatever they are going to have to do, and 
hopefully my insurance company pays enough of the bill that the 
hospital decides they are not going to bother me. But that is the 
fastest growing debt in many hospital accounting offices right now--
people who have insurance, who aren't paying their part of the bill.
  But whether it is increases in premiums or increases in deductibles 
or they can't see their doctor, the people I work for in Missouri tell 
me every week a series of stories that I absolutely believe are true. I 
basically verify with people before I come to the floor, before pulling 
a few of these stories out: Do you mind, Timothy from Kirksville, if I 
mention that you have contacted us? I am not going to give your last 
name or put that on the record, but I would like to show that there is 
some dispersing around our State of this problem. They say, yes, this 
is absolutely true, and I told you because I want people to know about 
this.
  Timothy from Kirksville, MO, said his premiums went up drastically in 
2013. If premiums continue to rise, he says his family will have to 
make sacrifices elsewhere in their budget.
  Kim from Frankford, MO, said she and her husband's deductible 
recently increased dramatically to $6,000. So far, she says, it feels 
like we don't have insurance because we have such a high deductible. We 
couldn't pay it if we ever had to use it, so do you really have 
insurance? Kim's parents recently tried to find a plan on the exchange 
and were shocked to learn that the cheapest plan they could find 
offered premiums of $1,200 a month with a $12,000 deductible. Yearly 
premiums were equal to 20 percent of their income.
  Mike from Columbia, MO, said his health insurance premiums shot up by 
$1,000 this year--and $1,000 matters to families. Based on the letters 
I get, there would be some temptation to contact Mike and say, if you 
want to look at a whole stack of letters here, $1,000 is not the worst 
story people have to tell, but for a working family it is almost $100 a 
month. It is whatever you were going to do with that $100 a month that 
you are not able to do because your insurance just went up $100 a 
month. Mike doesn't say anything about his deductible or what his 
premiums are, but he just says it is $1,000 more than it was last year.
  Lisa from Jefferson City, MO, the State capital, said she and her 
husband own a small business, and even though they don't have to 
provide health insurance for their employees, they have done so and 
they have chosen to pay 100 percent of the cost up until now.
  Actually, until January of this year, no employer had to provide 
insurance for their employees but most employers did. Eighty-five 
percent of everybody who had insurance got insurance at work. Ninety 
percent of them thought what they had at work was great for what they 
needed to have for themselves and their family. We had a system that 
was working pretty good, where almost everybody had it. Instead of 
figuring out how to expand that system so other people could get in, I 
am afraid we have made it more difficult for everybody involved.
  Lisa, the business owner, says her premiums went up 35 percent last 
year, and they have been told already that they will go up even higher 
next year. She says if the premiums continue to increase, they will 
soon not be able to cover their employees.
  Carol from Cameron, MO, said her coverage has gone down and her out-
of-pocket costs have increased significantly. Her deductible is now 
$3,500 and she has to pay $65 every time she goes to see a doctor. She 
worries she will never be able to use the coverage she is paying for 
because the out-of-pocket costs are too high, and if she ever actually 
got sick or had to go to the hospital or had a significant condition, 
she is worried she can't pay the deductible, even though she is paying 
every month to have this coverage and feels as though the coverage is 
not truly insurance for her at all.
  Merl and his wife in Cape Girardeau, MO, are in their late sixties. 
They have Medicare and a supplemental policy, but their copays have 
increased. One of their primary doctors has stopped taking Medicare. He 
and his wife are concerned they can't see the doctor they would like to 
see, that their copays have increased, and their doctor left the 
program.
  By the way, the administration, I guess the day before yesterday, 
announced we weren't going to have the reductions in Medicare Advantage 
next year as we had this year. We will still have this year's increase, 
but we will not have next year's increase. Whoever thought that paying 
for a new health care program out of Medicare was a good idea anyway? 
So $500 billion out of Medicare, which has bigger and bigger problems 
all the time as more and more people enter Medicare--$500 billion out 
of Medicare to pay for yet another new system. Apparently, even the 
administration, at least between now and the election, doesn't think 
that is a good idea because they just suspended one of the pay-fors. 
They said: We did that once, and that was kind of painful because 
people could see what was going to happen to their Medicare Advantage, 
so we don't want to do that between now and election day--although I 
think in fairness they didn't mention election day in the rule, they 
just mentioned it wasn't going to happen in this even-numbered year.
  Mike from Kansas City, MO, says his premiums went from $600 a month 
to $700 for him and his wife. The deductible went from $5,000 to 
$7,500--he says all because of the new requirements and what has to be 
covered.
  Mark from Columbia, MO, says the doctor he has had for 18 years 
joined a network of concierge doctors because he is afraid of the 
President's health care plan limiting his ability to provide quality 
care to his patients. Unfortunately, now that his doctor is part of a 
private network, Mark is no longer able to afford him--or to afford to 
see him, and the doctor does not accept the insurance Mark is covered 
by.

[[Page 5956]]

  All kinds of unintended consequences appear to be happening when the 
government decides not only can it begin to involve itself in 17 
percent of the economy of the country but in virtually everybody's 
health care decisionmaking process. This would be a big job for a very 
efficient government in a very small country. In a federalist system 
where we have 50 States and territories to deal with, in a big country, 
this is very hard to do. It is unfortunate that all of the warnings 
about the unintended consequences about people in the workplace will 
begin to have part-time jobs instead of full-time jobs or people who 
had less than 50 employees wouldn't want to go to 51 because they would 
then be covered by a law they were not initially covered by--all of 
those warnings have turned out to be at least as bad as those people 
saying this could happen were saying they could be.
  John in Overly, MO, went to healthcare.Gov to find a plan. The 
cheapest quote he could find for his family of four was $750 a month, 
and in John's case that is almost 30 percent of his income. He has 
looked at the numbers and has decided it would be more affordable to go 
uninsured. He said:

       I am self-employed, married, and have two children, and 
     though I am self-employed, I never had any trouble affording 
     health insurance for me and my family [until now].

  Richard is from Stoutsville, MO. His wife's premium last year was 
$359 a month, with a $5,000 deductible. This year it is $800 a month, 
and since they are on a fixed income, they have just decided they can 
no longer afford to pay for her individual insurance because they had 
to buy it as individuals.
  I would just say that we need to look at these cases. Surely somebody 
out there has benefited from the system. There are people who were able 
to stay on their family policies longer. A piece of legislation I wrote 
when I was a Member of the House--it was 3\1/4\ pages long--apparently 
it would have added about as many people as any other single thing did, 
and it would have added those people whether you had the rest of this 
health care bill or not, at no cost to any taxpayer anywhere and no 
disruption of anybody else's insurance coverage.
  Those are the kinds of things we should have looked at. But we need 
to look at what it takes now to be sure we have a system that is not 
measured by whether the Web site works and not measured by an argument 
about whether people who signed up paid but is measured by whether this 
really does provide better health care.
  Health care is critical to families. Somebody told me one time: When 
everybody in your family is well, you have lots of problems; when 
somebody in your family is sick, you have one problem. That is how 
important health care is. We need to be sure this is a system that does 
not meet some numerical or technical ``check the box'' but really does 
provide access to what was the greatest health care system in the 
world.
  There are ways to encourage more access to that system and more 
choices, not fewer choices and less access and more people who feel as 
though they are paying a premium every month but if they ever really 
get sick, they really will not have insurance.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. 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. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as in the morning hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Alzheimer's Disease

  Mr. MORAN. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, nearly every minute someone in America develops 
Alzheimer's disease. More than 5 million Americans suffer from this 
disease and more than 35 million individuals worldwide. If trends 
continue, the number of individuals diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease 
after the age of 65 is expected to double every 5 years, while the 
number of people 85 years and older with this disease will triple by 
2050.
  Alzheimer's is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States, 
and there is currently no cure, no diagnostic test, and no treatment 
for this terrible disease.
  As a nation, we must remain committed to defeating one of the 
greatest health threats to the health and well-being of all Americans. 
Caring for those with Alzheimer's and other dementia is expected to 
cost $214 billion this year--$214 billion this year alone, with $150 
billion covered by the Federal Government through Medicare and 
Medicaid.
  A recent study outlined that the cost of care for those struggling 
with dementia is projected to double over the next 30 years, surpassing 
health care expenses for both heart disease and cancer. Without a way 
to prevent, cure, or effectively treat Alzheimer's, costs will only 
continue to climb.
  Alzheimer's has become a disease to define our generation. But if we 
focus and prioritize our research capabilities, it need not remain an 
inevitable part of aging. There is reason for newfound hope. Over the 
last 5 years, significant strides have been made in understanding how 
Alzheimer's disease affects the brain and body. This new understanding 
has the potential to lead to new research opportunities and to better 
management of the disease.
  In February, the Senate Appropriations health subcommittee held a 
hearing on the impact of Alzheimer's--both economic and personal--and 
the state of these current research initiatives. I am the ranking 
member of that subcommittee. Chairman Harkin and I held this hearing to 
raise awareness of the threat to America's health, the impact on the 
financial well-being of our country, and to highlight the 
groundbreaking research initiatives currently taking place.
  For example, until 2009, only one genetic variant was known to 
increase the risk of late-onset Alzheimer's disease. However, through 
advances in genome studies and other technologies, the list of known 
gene risk factors has grown substantially. Now researchers have 
identified 11 genetic risk factors.
  The National Institutes of Health is supporting research that has 
established methods and standards for testing for biomarkers for 
Alzheimer's disease. Changes in these biomarkers may precede the onset 
of the disease and could be a key to unlocking the causes and 
progression of the disease.
  NIH has also made significant progress over the last several years 
and we continue to support them moving more aggressively toward 
developing new treatments for Alzheimer's and related dementia. Several 
innovative studies, ranging from research on the most basic 
underpinnings of the disease to early-stage clinical trial of promising 
agents, are now underway.
  A sustained Federal commitment to research for Alzheimer's will 
improve health outcomes for people living with the disease both today 
and in the future, and it will also lower health care costs. I have 
been and remain committed to prioritizing the funding for Alzheimer's 
research.
  Recently, I and other members of the Appropriations Committee worked 
to include a $1 billion funding increase for the National Institutes of 
Health in the 2014 Omnibus appropriations bill. This amount includes a 
$100 million increase in funding for the National Institutes of Aging 
within NIH, as well as the initial year of funding for the new BRAIN 
initiative to map the human brain. These research investments are 
critically important because they will increase our understanding of 
the underlying causes of Alzheimer's, help unlock the mysteries of the 
brain, help bring us closer to an effective treatment and one day a 
cure.
  Alzheimer's is a defining challenge of our generation. We must 
together commit to defeat this devastating disease by supporting the 
critical research carried out by scientists and researchers across our 
Nation. The health and financial future of our Nation are at stake, and 
the United States cannot afford to ignore such a threat. Together,

[[Page 5957]]

we can make a sustained commitment to Alzheimer's research that will 
benefit our Nation and bring hope to future generation of Americans. 
The challenge is ours and the moment for us to act is now.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Oligarchy

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I hear more and more from people in my 
own State of Vermont and from people, in fact, all over the country via 
email, through my Web site, who are wondering whether this great 
country is evolving into an oligarchic society.
  Historically, as I think most people know, the United States was the 
envy of the world for so many reasons. But one of the reasons, 
economically, is that in our country there was always the belief that 
regardless of your income you have the opportunity to move up the 
economic ladder. There was the reality--not just the belief--that we 
had a great and expanding middle class; that if your dad and your mom 
didn't go to college--which, in fact, was the case in my family--you 
would have that opportunity to go to college and move up the 
educational ladder or the business ladder or professional field. There 
was the feeling that economically what America was about, and what we 
celebrated, was the great middle class. People today, both from an 
economic perspective and from a political perspective, are beginning in 
a very serious way to question that reality.
  What they are looking at is that today in our country we have the 
most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on 
Earth. I think a lot of young people say, well, how could that be? In 
England you have the Queen of England, all the lords, all the royalty 
all over Europe, and we don't have that in the United States.
  Yet the truth is that over the years we have moved to a situation 
where in terms of wealth and income, we are now the most unequal 
society of any major industrialized nation on Earth.
  I keep mentioning one statistic, because I don't hear too many other 
people talking about it, but we need to talk about it. That is, in 
terms of wealth. Wealth is what we own. Wealth is what we have 
accumulated over a lifetime of work. In terms of wealth, the top 1 
percent in our Nation owns 38 percent of the financial wealth of 
America.
  I would ask those people back home who might be listening, what does 
the bottom 60 percent own? The top 1 percent owns 38 percent of the 
wealth. What do you think the bottom 60 percent owns? They own 25 
percent, 20 percent, 10 percent? What do they own? The answer is they 
own all of 2.3 percent--all of 2.3 percent is what the bottom 60 
percent of Americans owns in terms of total wealth.
  If you had a big pizza with 100 slices in it, 1 person would get 38 
percent of those pieces of pizza if we looked at wealth, and the bottom 
60 percent of the people would have to share 2.3 percent of the pizza. 
I don't think that is what America is supposed to be about and that 
situation is getting even worse.
  In terms of income now--all right, everybody goes out and works--we 
have millions of people today who are working longer hours and their 
income is going down. Their wages are going down. Maybe they are paying 
more for health care. Their pensions are going down.
  But in terms of all new income--new income generated in this 
country--from the last statistics we saw, which were from 2009 to 2012, 
in terms of all new income, 95 percent of all new income went to the 
top 1 percent. So more and more income goes to the millionaires and 
billionaires while millions of people are working longer hours for 
lower wages, and while we have the highest rate of childhood poverty, 
at 22 percent, of any major country on Earth.
  Since 1999, the typical middle-class family has seen its income go 
down by more than $5,000. Do you want to know why people are angry, why 
people are concerned, and why people are worried what is going to 
happen to their kids? It is because the median family income has gone 
down by $5,000 since 1999.
  Let me break it down even further. The typical male worker, that guy 
right in the middle, made $283 less last year than he did 44 years ago. 
Imagine that. In the last 44 years, with all of the increase in 
productivity, with all of the robotics, with all of the space 
technology, all of the iPhones, iPads, and everything else where people 
are now producing much more, the typical male worker made $283 less 
last year than he did 44 years ago. The typical female worker earned 
$1,775 less last year than she did in 2007.
  Today in America we have more people living in poverty than ever 
before, and that is 46.5 million people. Here is a fact that should 
frighten everybody; that is, half of Americans have less than $10,000 
in their savings account right now. Can you imagine that? That means if 
your car breaks down and you need that car to get to work or you have a 
serious health problem and you don't have particularly good health 
insurance, there it goes. It goes.
  Then you talk about people who are older who have to retire. How do 
you retire with dignity if you have less than $10,000 in the bank? 
Well, you are going to get Social Security. Thank God, you, I, and 
other Members have fought hard to make sure there were not cuts in 
Social Security that many people wanted. But is Social Security alone 
enough? No. The answer is it is not.
  What is happening in this country is that while the middle class 
shrinks, there is another reality; that is, the people on top are doing 
phenomenally well. Today we see a situation in which some of the 
wealthiest families in America--the Koch brothers come to mind, and I 
will talk about them in another context. They are now worth $80 
billion. In the last year alone their wealth went from $68 billion to 
$80 billion--in 1 year a $12 billion increase in their wealth.
  Sheldon Adelson--another billionaire who has had his name in the 
paper a whole lot recently by bringing prospective Republican 
candidates for the Presidency to Las Vegas to talk to them and see what 
they have to offer him and how much money he will contribute to their 
campaign--also saw a huge increase in his wealth over the last year.
  What is the face of oligarchy? The face of oligarchy is what we see 
in Russia. When many people refer to oligarchy, they think of Russia. 
In Russia, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a small number of 
bureaucrats were able to steal a lot of public property, and they 
became multibillionaires. They controlled oil companies, banks, gold 
mines, aluminum companies, television stations, and other state-owned 
companies, and that is how they became oligarchs.
  By 2001 5 oligarchs controlled 95 percent of Russia's aluminum 
production, 40 percent of its copper, and on and on it goes. People may 
say: Oligarchy has to do with Russia; what does it have to do with the 
United States of America? Well, it has everything to do with the United 
States of America because that is the direction in which we are moving.
  Now, let me cite some examples of what oligarchs do. When we think of 
oligarchies we might want to think of a gentleman named Hank McKinnel, 
Jr., who was the CEO of Pfizer--a major drug company--from 2001 to 
2006. When he retired, he received a $188 million golden parachute--
$188 million--at the same time as the people in our country are paying 
the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. That is 
oligarchy.
  When we think about oligarchy, we may want to think about a gentleman 
named Lee Raymond who served as the CEO of ExxonMobil from 1993 to 
2005. When he retired--and remember, this is at a time when the vast 
majority of the American people did not have the resources to retire 
with a shred of dignity--Mr. Raymond received from

[[Page 5958]]

ExxonMobil a golden parachute, retirement benefits, of more than $320 
million--$320 million. That is at the same time as people in Vermont 
and all over this country are finding it harder and harder to pay for 
gas at the pump.
  What oligarchy is also about is that in 2009 ExxonMobil, maybe the 
most profitable corporation in the history of America, did not pay any 
Federal income taxes, even though in that year it earned $19 billion in 
profits.
  When we talk about oligarchy we might want to think about somebody 
like Jamie Dimon, who is the CEO of JPMorgan Chase. He recently 
received a 74-percent increase in pay--more than $20 million in total 
compensation. Interestingly enough, that is a pretty big salary--$20 
million--but what did he do to earn it? During that same period, over 
the last year, the bank he runs, JPMorgan Chase, paid out over $20 
billion in penalties to the Federal Government for financial fraud. So 
after paying out $20 billion to the Federal Government in penalties for 
financial fraud, he still got a $20 million compensation package. That 
is called oligarchy. No matter what you do, if you are at the head of a 
large financial institution, you are going to get rewarded for that.
  Oligarchy has a lot to do with a gentleman named William Mcguire, the 
CEO of UnitedHealth Group from 1991 to 2006. Everybody knows of the 
crisis we are facing in health care. Everybody knows that tens of 
millions of Americans today, despite the Affordable Care Act, are still 
uninsured. Everybody knows we spend more per capita on health care than 
do the people of any other nation. Yet when this gentleman retired from 
UnitedHealth Group in 2006, he received a $285 million golden 
parachute. So here we have the most dysfunctional health care system in 
the world, the most expensive health care system, with tens of millions 
of people uninsured, yet the head of a major insurance company gets 
$285 million in retirement benefits. That is called oligarchy.
  Let me take oligarchy away from the economic realm and turn it into 
an area that I am--and many Americans are--very concerned about. 
Recently, we saw an interesting spectacle relating to politics that 
took place in Las Vegas. A gentleman named Sheldon Adelson--who is 
worth some $38 billion, and who is maybe the world's largest casino 
magnate not only in Las Vegas but off the shores of China as well--held 
a meeting in Las Vegas in which he brought forth Republican candidates 
who are interested in running for President. Now, here is the point. In 
the last Presidential election, both President Obama and Mitt Romney 
spent a little over $1 billion in their campaigns. Sheldon Adelson, if 
he provided more money into a campaign than both Obama and Romney 
spent, would still have $9 billion more in wealth than he did in 2013.
  What am I saying? What I am saying is that we are moving toward a 
situation where people such as the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson 
have so much money it would hardly matter to them to write a check for 
more than both Obama and Romney spent in the last Presidential 
election. They could write out a check for $2 billion, and it would be 
insignificant, a fraction of their increase in wealth over a 1-year 
period.
  As bad as that situation is, because of the disastrous Citizens 
United Supreme Court decision, we may not have seen the worst yet. 
Judge Thomas, of the Supreme Court, the most conservative member of a 
very conservative Supreme Court, wrote an opinion which said: Maybe we 
should look at doing away with all limitations on campaign finance. 
Many Republicans think that is a great idea. Let us do away with all 
limitations.
  In the real world, what does that mean? It means that billionaires--
people who are worth $20 billion and, in the case of the Koch brothers, 
$80 billion--if we moved in that direction and ended all limitations on 
campaign spending, could sit in a room--and the Presiding Officer comes 
from the State of Wisconsin, a moderate-sized State--and they could 
write a check for $50 million or $100 million for a candidate for 
Senate or Congress or Governor of Wisconsin or of Vermont or anyplace 
else, and it would not matter at all.
  So I want people to take a deep breath and think about whether that 
is what we believe American democracy is supposed to be. When I grew 
up, we believed what American democracy was about--and we still 
practice it to a large degree in the State of Vermont, where we have 
town meetings. On the first Tuesday in March people come out, and they 
argue about the school budget, and they argue about other budgetary 
items, and every person has a say and every person has a vote. In my 
career, I have done hundreds and hundreds of town meetings, where 
people from any walk of life can walk in the door and can ask any 
question they want. I think democracy is about elected officials 
talking and communicating with people, regardless of their income, and 
listening to their comments and answering their questions. That is what 
democracy is about.
  I do not believe democracy is about a handful of billionaires, such 
as the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson, being in a position in which 
they can spend as much money as they want on any political race in this 
country. It is very hard for me to imagine how anybody could defend 
that as being democracy. It is not. It is oligarchy. It is the power of 
a handful of billionaires to control the political process.
  So both in terms of economics, where so few own so much and so many 
have so little, and in terms of politics, where a handful of 
billionaires increasingly are able to determine the nature of politics 
in America and who is elected and who is defeated, I think we as a 
nation have a lot of hard thinking in front of us. We have to ask 
ourselves: Are we going to fight for our democracy and an expanded 
middle class? Are we going to fight for a democracy where one person 
has one vote and billionaires cannot fight elections? To my mind, that 
is the most important issue we face as a nation.
  I hope the American people become engaged in that struggle and are 
prepared to take on the billionaires, who, apparently, are not content 
to have $10 billion or $20 billion in wealth. They feel the need to 
have more and more and more and to take that money out of the hides of 
working families, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor. 
They want more tax breaks for billionaires, and then they want to cut 
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, and every other program 
that is of importance to working families.
  So we need a very serious debate about these issues. We need millions 
of Americans to stand and fight with us to defend American democracy 
and to stop this country from evolving into an oligarchic form of 
society.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I come to the floor about an hour or 
so after a vote on a motion to proceed to take up the Paycheck Fairness 
Act. I struggled with my decision as to whether to move to this measure 
that I feel was flawed in terms of its approach to a solution or to 
recognize that perhaps this measure was more of an exercise in 
political messaging rather than an effort to resolve what I believe is 
an issue.
  In sorting through all aspects of not only the merits of the 
legislation, but also the facts as they exist back home, the facts as 
they exist around this country, where we see pay disparity between men 
and women, I had a lot on my mind. I had a lot to weigh. I did not come 
to the floor yesterday to speak with the many who rose to either offer 
proposed amendments to the Paycheck Fairness Act or those who rose to 
speak to defend the act. I don't want my silence yesterday to be 
construed that I don't think there is an issue here; that I don't think 
this is something that needs to be addressed.
  Yesterday was national Equal Pay Day, the day when, according to the 
Department of Labor, women's wages supposedly catch up to men's wages. 
We can argue and we can debate what that gap is--whether it is 77 
cents, whether those statistics are outdated, whether it is closer to 
82 cents or what the raw statistics are. We can debate

[[Page 5959]]

that. But the fact is--and I think the Presiding Officer and I would 
agree--if there is any discrepancy there, it is worth looking at. Why 
does a discrepancy exist? Is there disparity that stems from 
discrimination? Because if it stems from discrimination, it should not 
be allowed--pretty simply.
  In Alaska, the statistics are a little bit different than what we 
have on the national level. In my State, Equal Pay Day is not going to 
occur until May 5.
  As an Alaskan, as a woman, and as one who has been in the Alaska job 
market, I want to know: Why the greater disparity in my State?
  We had a women's summit in Anchorage, AK, last October. I worked with 
a former colleague in the Alaska State legislature to host a summit 
designed to look at many of the issues women face in Alaska, whether it 
is pay disparity, childcare affordability, access to health care--so 
many of the issues and concerns women all over the country deal with 
day to day. We relied on a study from the state Legislative Research 
Services. A portion of the research tried to drill down into some of 
the pay disparities we have in the State.
  In 2010 our State Department of Labor reported a wage gap of 67 cents 
or 33 percent. This statistic is different from the overall national 
averages because that review conducted by Legislative Research Services 
included part-time as well as full-time workers and part-time workers 
generally receive lower salaries. That may be one reason for the 
disparity.
  But when we look at some of the areas where there are discrepancies, 
it really does cause one to say: Wait a minute. In areas where 
occupations are significantly male-dominated--crab fishermen, for 
instance, welders on the pipeline--occupations where the pay is really 
quite substantial, we might look at that and say, OK, I understand why 
there might be a discrepancy. But there are other occupations that have 
some surprising statistics. For example, back in 2010 the average 
earnings for a male physician were $229,312, but the average for a 
woman physician was $166,000. It doesn't make sense.
  In certain areas, women out-earn men--dietitians, for instance. The 
ratio of women's to men's earnings is 170 percent, according to the raw 
numbers. For legal secretaries, the ratio of women's to men's earnings 
is 132 percent. For teachers, the ratio of women's to men's earnings is 
125 percent.
  We need to peel back the onion to understand what we are dealing 
with--is this a situation where it is the difference in the career 
choice that has made the distinction with the pay disparity? If that is 
the case, what are we doing to encourage women to go into areas where, 
quite clearly, earning opportunities are better?
  When we look at occupations, I think it is something that needs to be 
considered. When we talk about a wage disparity, a pay disparity, I 
think we need to look very critically at whether there are other 
factors that come into play. Is it a career choice? Is it the need or 
desire for flexibility?
  Starting out as a young lawyer in Anchorage, I was making what the 
young men in the firm were making. But when my husband and I decided 
that I wanted to spend more time at home with our boys, I negotiated 
for that level of flexibility. That put me behind my male counterparts 
in the firm. I was good with that. That was a choice I made. I wanted 
that flexibility.
  Are there other nonmonetary forms of compensation that perhaps the 
wage gap statistics don't necessarily respect? We don't know. So this 
is where I came down in my decision process as to which direction to 
take on the Paycheck Fairness Act vote that we had just an hour or so 
ago. Do we want to try to address what I believe is an issue in that we 
do have a disparity but how we understand what causes that disparity 
and, then, what we do with that going forward is an important 
consideration.
  We have the Equal Pay Act of 1963 that imposes strict liability for 
wage disparity based on gender. It is in law. We have title VII of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964 that protects against all forms of employment 
discrimination, including on the basis of sex. But maybe we are not 
enforcing these Federal laws as we need to. If after all these years we 
are still seeing areas of disparity that we cannot reconcile based on 
occupation or based on desire for flexibility, does there continue to 
be discrimination? That is what we need to get to.
  That is why I and many of my colleagues supported some of the 
amendments that were presented yesterday and I think were important to 
present--to make sure there is no retaliation for a woman when she 
inquires as to what others are making to determine whether there is 
discrimination, so making sure we are able to access that information. 
However, when we take a proposal like the Paycheck Fairness Act that 
has an initial presumption that the employer has unlawfully 
discriminated against an employee if there is a difference in pay--if 
we start off with a presumption of discrimination, it is pretty hard 
for an employer--particularly a small employer--to deal with that, to 
defend that, to present the case, to really work through this issue.
  The solution should not be more litigation as the Paycheck Fairness 
Act response is here. The solution needs to be more all-encompassing 
because we have laws on the books that already say it is illegal to 
discriminate. If we are still seeing instances of discrimination--and, 
again, let's figure out where and why and how--then let's honestly try 
to address that rather than through messaging efforts that are designed 
to elevate the issue, which is fair, but then not be pragmatic about 
how we approach the solutions.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from 
this morning's Washington Post titled ``President Obama's persistent 
`77-cent' claim on wage gap gets a new Pinocchio rating.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Apr. 9, 2014]

President Obama's Persistent `77 cent' Claim on the Wage Gap Gets a New 
                            Pinocchio Rating

                           (By Glenn Kessler)

       ``Today, the average full-time working woman earns just 77 
     cents for every dollar a man earns . . . in 2014, that's an 
     embarrassment. It is wrong.''
       --President Obama, remarks on equal pay for equal work, 
     April 8, 2014
       In 2012, during another election season, The Fact Checker 
     took a deep dive in the statistics behind this factoid and 
     found it wanting. We awarded the president only a Pinocchio, 
     largely because he is citing Census Bureau data, but have 
     wondered since then if we were too generous.
       We also called out the president when he used this fact in 
     the 2013 State of the Union address. And in the 2014 State of 
     the Union address. And yet he keeps using it. So now it's 
     time for a reassessment.
       The Truth Teller video above also goes through the details.


                               The Facts

       Few experts dispute that there is a wage gap, but 
     differences in the life choices of men and women--such as 
     women tending to leave the workforce when they have 
     children--make it difficult to make simple comparisons. Obama 
     is using a figure (annual wages, from the Census Bureau) that 
     makes the disparity appear the greatest--23 cents. But the 
     Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the 
     gap is 19 cents when looking at weekly wages. The gap is even 
     smaller when you look at hourly wages--it is 14 cents--but 
     then not every wage earner is paid on an hourly basis, so 
     that statistic excludes salaried workers.
       In other words, since women in general work fewer hours 
     than men in a year, the statistics used by the White House 
     may be less reliable for examining the key focus of the 
     proposed Paycheck Fairness Act--wage discrimination. For 
     instance, annual wage figures do not take into account the 
     fact that teachers--many of whom are women--have a primary 
     job that fills nine months out of the year. The weekly wage 
     is more of an apples-to-apples comparison, but it does not 
     include as many income categories.
       June O'Neill, a former director of the Congressional Budget 
     Office, has noted that the wage gap is affected by a number 
     of factors, including that the average woman has less work 
     experience than the average man and that more of the weeks 
     worked by women are part-time rather than full-time. Women 
     also tend to leave the work force for periods in order to 
     raise children, seek jobs that may have more flexible hours 
     but lower pay and choose careers that tend to have lower pay.
       Indeed, BLS data show that women who do not get married 
     have virtually no wage gap;

[[Page 5960]]

     they earn 96 cents for every dollar a man makes.
       Economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 
     surveyed economic literature and concluded that ``research 
     suggests that the actual gender wage gap (when female workers 
     are compared with male workers who have similar 
     characteristics) is much lower than the raw wage gap.'' They 
     cited one survey, prepared in 2009 for the Labor Department, 
     which concluded that when such differences are accounted for, 
     much of the hourly wage gap dwindled, to about 5 cents on the 
     dollar.
       ``This study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the 
     differences in the compensation of men and women are the 
     result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap 
     should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. 
     Indeed, there may be nothing to correct,'' the report for the 
     Labor Department said. ``The differences in raw wages may be 
     almost entirely the result of the individual choices being 
     made by both male and female workers.''
       A 2013 article in the Daily Beast, citing a Georgetown 
     University survey on the economic value of different college 
     majors, showed how nine of the 10 most remunerative majors 
     were dominated by men:
       1. Petroleum Engineering: 87% male
       2. Pharmacy Pharmaceutical Sciences and Administration: 48% 
     male
       3. Mathematics and Computer Science: 67% male
       4. Aerospace Engineering: 88% male
       5. Chemical Engineering: 72% male
       6. Electrical Engineering: 89% male
       7. Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering: 97% male
       8. Mechanical Engineering: 90% male
       9. Metallurgical Engineering: 83% male
       10. Mining and Mineral Engineering: 90% male
       Meanwhile, nine of the 10 least remunerative majors were 
     dominated by women:
       1. Counseling Psychology: 74% female
       2. Early Childhood Education: 97% female
       3. Theology and Religious Vocations: 34% female
       4. Human Services and Community Organization: 81% female
       5. Social Work: 88% female
       6. Drama and Theater Arts: 60% female
       7. Studio Arts: 66% female
       8. Communication Disorders Sciences and Services: 94% 
     female
       9. Visual and Performing Arts: 77% female
       10. Health and Medical Preparatory Programs: 55% female
       The White House discovered this week that calculations 
     using average wages can yield unsatisfactory results. 
     McClatchy newspapers did the math and reported that when the 
     same standards that generated the 77-cent figure were applied 
     to White House salaries, women overall at the White House 
     make 91 cents for every dollar men make. White House 
     spokesman Jay Carney protested that the review ``looked at 
     the aggregate of everyone on staff, and that includes from 
     the most junior levels to the most senior.'' But that's 
     exactly what the Census Department does.
       Betsey Stevenson, a member of the White House Council of 
     Economic Advisers, acknowledged to reporters that the 77-cent 
     figure did not reflect equal pay for equal work. ``Seventy-
     seven cents captures the annual earnings of full-time, full-
     year women divided by the annual earnings of full-time, full-
     year men,'' she said. ``There are a lot of things that go 
     into that 77-cents figure, there are a lot of things that 
     contribute and no one's trying to say that it's all about 
     discrimination, but I don't think there's a better figure.''
       Carney noted that the White House wage gap was narrower 
     than the national average, but the White House actually lags 
     the District average calculated by the BLS: 95 cents.


                           The Pinocchio Test

       From a political perspective, the Census Department's 77-
     cent figure is golden. Unless women stop getting married and 
     having children, and start abandoning careers in childhood 
     education for naval architecture, this huge gap in wages will 
     almost certainly persist. Democrats thus can keep bringing it 
     up every two years.
       There appears to be some sort of wage gap and closing it is 
     certainly a worthy goal. But it's a bit rich for the 
     president to repeatedly cite this statistic as an 
     ``embarrassment.'' (His line in the April 8 speech was almost 
     word for word what he said in the 2014 State of the Union 
     address.) The president must begin to acknowledge that 
     average annual wages does not begin to capture what is 
     actually happening in the work force and society.
       Thus we are boosting the rating on this factoid to Two 
     Pinocchios. We were tempted to go one step further to Three 
     Pinocchios, but the president is relying on an official 
     government statistic--and there are problems and limitations 
     with the other calculations as well.


                             Two Pinocchios

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Included in this article is the following quote 
referencing a study by the Census Bureau:

       This study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the 
     differences in the compensation of men and women are the 
     result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap 
     should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. 
     Indeed, there may be nothing to correct.

  I don't know that. There indeed may be more that we can correct. I am 
willing to look to see, to continue to peel back this onion to see if 
we can do more than we did with the Equal Pay Act of 1963, do more than 
we did with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, do more than we did with the 
Lilly Ledbetter Act that I supported several years ago. If there is 
more that needs to be done, I am willing to work on it because I don't 
want to be in a State where men are viewed as being paid $1 to the 67 
cents that a woman is being paid. I don't want those statistics to be 
valid. I don't want them to play out in my State. I want to understand 
how we ensure that there is a level of fairness. I think we need to 
make sure we look keenly to the issue of whether there is 
discrimination at play or whether, in fact, there are a host of other 
issues we need to consider as well. I am willing to work in good faith 
with my colleagues to do just that.
  I see the chairman of the Judiciary Committee is with us.
  (Mr. MARKEY assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator 
from Alaska for yielding. I was interested in hearing her speech too.


                               Landmines

  The Presiding Officer represents the beautiful Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts. But consider if 15 percent of the land area of 
Massachusetts was littered with 100,000 landmines or if my State of 
Vermont, with a slightly larger land area, was littered with landmines. 
Each one a tiny explosive buried a few inches beneath the surface of 
the ground, and it explodes when an unsuspecting person steps on it. 
Each one capable of killing a child or blowing the legs off of an 
adult.
  This may sound far-fetched, but it is not. It is the reality today 
for many countries--from Vietnam to Angola to Colombia. But if that 
were the reality in our States, I think we would all agree that these 
inherently indiscriminate weapons--designed to be triggered by the 
victim regardless of whether it is a civilian or combatant--do not 
belong in the arsenal of a civilized country.
  In fact, 161 nations have already agreed, and they have joined 
together in an international treaty banning antipersonnel mines. They 
include every member of NATO except one--the United States. They 
include every country in this hemisphere except two--the United States 
and Cuba.
  We condemn the use of IED's against our soldiers and civilians in 
Afghanistan, and of course we should. But why not condemn antipersonnel 
landmines? There is really no appreciable difference.
  I am hoping some will be listening to me at the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue because I ask this: If landmines were littering 
this country--in schoolyards, along roads, in cornfields, in our 
National Parks--and hundreds of American children were being crippled 
like this Cambodian girl who lost her left foot, how long would it take 
before the White House sent the Mine Ban Treaty to the Senate for 
ratification? Two days? Two weeks? It wouldn't take any longer than 
that, I am sure. Yet we hear the same excuses year after year.
  I look at my five beautiful grandchildren and I ask, what if they 
were living in a country where simply by walking across a field, going 
to a playground, or walking down a road, they might lose their lives? 
They are not combatants. It is usually civilians who are injured and 
killed by these landmines. We hear the same excuses year after year--
why the most powerful Nation on earth cannot join its NATO allies, why 
the most powerful Nation on earth is the only country other than Cuba 
in this hemisphere not to sign it. What do we get? The same talking 
points, the same power points. It is really bureaucratic inertia. It is 
also a lack of leadership.
  For 20 years the Pentagon insisted that Korea was the problem. But 20

[[Page 5961]]

years later, there is absolutely no evidence they have done anything to 
revise their Korea war plans without antipersonnel mines or that any 
President, Democratic or Republican, has ever told them to do so.
  The U.S. Government deserves credit for spending hundreds of millions 
of dollars to clear mines and help mine survivors, and the Leahy War 
Victims Fund has been an important part of that, including the money I 
have gotten through appropriations to clear land mines.
  But this girl--and there are countless more like her--we are told 
there are thousands of new mine victims each year, show the other 
tragic side of the story.
  I mentioned on the floor the other day about talking to a young 
teenager in the hospital about the Bosnia war. She had been sent away 
by her parents to a safe place during the fighting. The war ended. She 
could come home. She was running down the road calling out to her 
parents and stepped on a land mine and lost both her legs. She wasn't a 
combatant. She became a victim. There are so many innocent victims.
  Americans overwhelmingly condemn the use of landmines, and they 
expect more than they are getting from their government, and so do I, 
and so, too, should every Member of Congress.
  It has been 20 years since President Bill Clinton at the United 
Nations called for the elimination of antipersonnel landmines. I 
cheered him when he did. Two years later in 1996 he said: ``Today I am 
launching an international effort to ban antipersonnel landmines.'' And 
I cheered that. But 18 years later we are still waiting. We are waiting 
for action, not words. We haven't signed the landmine treaty. We didn't 
sign it during the Clinton administration or the George W. Bush 
administration or this administration.
  I have spoken to President Obama about this. I was encouraged when, 
in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, he said:

       I am convinced that adhering to standards, international 
     standards, strengthens those who do and isolates and weakens 
     those who don't.

  I told the President how much I agreed with his words. 
Coincidentally, when he received the Nobel Prize it was a decade after 
the Nobel committee awarded the prize to the International Campaign to 
Ban Landmines. How fitting it would be after all these years if my 
friend, President Obama, gave real meaning to the words he said when 
accepting the Nobel Peace Prize by putting the United States on a path 
to join the Mine Ban Treaty, and joining our NATO allies. This is what 
the President needs to do. More importantly, it is what America and the 
world needs.
  I will speak further about this on another occasion, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                     Franklin Regional H.S. Tragedy

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on S. 1596, the Protecting 
Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act.
  Before I do that, though, I want to say a few words about a terrible 
event that occurred this morning in Pennsylvania. The students at 
Franklin Regional High School in Murrysville, PA, suffered a terrible, 
devastating tragedy this morning. A person--and this person is believed 
to be a fellow student--took out a knife and attacked his fellow 
students before the start of the school day. It appears that as many as 
20 people were injured, some severely. Our thanks go out to the first 
responders who did respond as rapidly as they could, and our prayers go 
out to those who were injured and their families at Franklin Regional 
High School.


       Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act

  Mr. President, I want to turn to this bill that I have introduced, 
the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act, S. 1596. 
I want to thank my cosponsors, Senator Joe Manchin and Senator Mitch 
McConnell.
  The inspiration for this bill begins with a story of a boy named 
Jeremy Bell. The story begins in Delaware County, PA. One of the school 
teachers in the school in Delaware County was found to have molested 
several boys and raped one of them. Prosecutors decided there was not 
enough evidence to bring a case. The school knew about what was 
happening and decided to dismiss the teacher for this appalling 
behavior. What was so amazing and disturbing is the school also helped 
this predator land a job at another school in West Virginia, even 
passing on a letter of recommendation so they could move their problem 
somewhere else.
  The story ended in 1997 when that teacher, by then a school 
principal, raped and murdered 12-year-old Jeremy Bell in West Virginia. 
Justice finally caught up with that teacher who is now in jail serving 
a life sentence for that murder. But for Jeremy Bell justice came way 
too late. Jeremy Bell's father wouldn't rest until he knew he had done 
all he could to help to ensure that no child or parent would ever 
experience a similar tragedy.
  Roy Bell, Jeremy's father, worked with Congress to create protections 
for children to ensure they were not victimized at school. I think for 
him it was some consolation for his loss. The House of Representatives 
responded to this terrible, terrible tragedy. On October 22 of last 
year, the House unanimously passed the Protecting Students Against 
Sexual and Violent Predators Act. But again, sadly, justice came too 
late. Jeremy Bell's father passed away just 3 days before the vote.
  So we are now in the Senate with a chance to pass the same bill, a 
bill that has already passed the House unanimously. It is a bipartisan 
bill. The bill that I introduced is a companion legislation. As I 
mentioned, we have bipartisan support for this bill, but I hear some 
people suggesting that maybe we should wait, maybe now is not the right 
time. Maybe we need more time.
  I want to say as strongly as I can that we have had enough waiting. 
We have wasted enough time. Let me explain why we cannot wait another 
day. I want to start with 2 numbers, the first is 130. Since January 1 
of this year, 130 teachers have been arrested across America for sexual 
misconduct with children. That is more than 1 teacher arrested for each 
day of the year so far. And that is, of course, only those who have 
been caught and arrested. Every moment that we delay we are delaying 
rooting out some of these problems.
  The other number is 73, and 73 is the number that comes from the 
Government Accountability Office. GAO says that the average pedophile 
molests 73 children over the course of that pedophile's lifetime. These 
predators actively seek out the environment where they can find 
victims. That is what they do. What better place for them than schools. 
They go from school district to school district, sometimes from State 
to State, methodically looking for victims. Every moment we delay we 
let a predator move on to the next of his 73 victims.
  The damage that these predators do is just enormous. It is damage far 
beyond what any number can convey. Over the past few months I have had 
a chance to visit a number of child advocacy centers around 
Pennsylvania, meeting with the men and women who work with abused 
children, whether it is helping them through the criminal justice 
system or just helping them to start the healing process. These folks 
do some incredibly important and very, very good work. But again, you 
cannot visit one of these centers without being profoundly impacted by 
how devastating the abuse is.
  I cannot come up with the words to convey how devastating it is, but 
I can let some of the children speak for themselves. I am going to 
quote from two students who were victims. Shannon was raped by a 
teacher. The teacher was later convicted of sexual assault and 
sentenced to life in prison. Nine years later here is what Shannon 
wrote:

       When I was a senior in high school, Mr. Peterson approached 
     me and said I would need to go to night school if I wanted 
     enough credits to graduate on time. And of course he taught 
     those courses--a computer class.
       I was 17, and he raped me four times over the course of the 
     year. He said he would fail me if I ever told. He also hit me 
     and made threats against me and my family. So I didn't tell. 
     I held it in for a year and a half.

[[Page 5962]]

       In the end 66 people offered to testify against Peterson. 
     His first victim dated back to the year I was born. Some of 
     those who spoke up were parents. Their daughters had 
     complained at the time but nothing was done. That made me 
     very angry. It still does. I learned that a handful of 
     teachers and two principals knew about him. And his teaching 
     license had been revoked in Michigan years before, but no one 
     knew why.
       I am different because of what happened. I have to watch 
     people all the time, analyze them. I can't be carefree.
       Now I have a 7-year-old son and two daughters, ages 3 and 
     1. I will home school my girls.

  Next is a case of a boy from South Carolina named Gary, one of at 
least 29 boys abused by a teacher, Mr. Fisher, over the teacher's 37-
year career. The teacher is serving 20 years in prison. Two school 
principals were sued for allegedly covering up the abuse.
  What Gary wrote is as follows:

       I was 9 when it started. The abuse was frequent and long-
     term--until I went to college. I knew there were others, too, 
     but until it all came out I never knew how many. You feel so 
     guilty, so ashamed. It's frightening now to look back and see 
     how calculating Fisher was. I did everything I could to get 
     kicked out of school. I was in the guidance counselor's 
     office all the time. Finally, in tenth grade I got myself 
     kicked out for cheating.
       By the time I went to college I was drinking all the time. 
     I was terrified to quit because then I would have to feel. 
     But I couldn't drink and do school, so I entered rehab. I was 
     18. It took me a year and a half, and I've been sober since.
       My life is good now for the first time. You can survive it, 
     but you have to deal with it.

  He goes on to say:

       I always felt that what the school did was far worse than 
     what Fisher did. Fisher was sick, an evil monster. But [the 
     school] just calculated the damage to its public relations. 
     We kids were disposable, which is a whole other category of 
     evil.

  So the question before us is what are we going to do about this? What 
can we do? What are we going to do?
  My bill, the Protecting Students From Sexual and Violent Predators 
Act is a sensible first step in protecting these kids. It would require 
a mandatory background check for existing and perspective employees, 
and the checks would have to be periodically repeated. There are five 
States today that don't require any background check at all.
  The second thing my bill would do is it would check all employees or 
contractors who have unsupervised contact with children--not just 
teachers, coaches, and school bus drivers. Anybody who has contact with 
kids in my view should undergo this background check. There are 12 
States in which there is no such requirement from contractors.
  My bill would also require a more thorough background check. It would 
require a check of four major databases, both State and Federal. In 
Pennsylvania, for instance, if an employee has been living in the State 
for 2 years or more, there is no Federal background check at all, only 
the State check, and I don't think it is adequate. The way these 
predators move from State to State, I think it requires that we check 
the Federal database.
  Importantly, my bill would also ban what we call ``passing the 
trash.'' This is the horrendous practice whereby the school discovers 
they have a predator and they intentionally ease the predator out and 
sometimes actually facilitate that predator getting a job somewhere 
else. That should be illegal, and my bill would make it illegal.
  The fifth thing that my legislation does is it would stipulate that 
schools cannot hire a person who has ever been convicted of any violent 
or sexual crime against a child. I think that is a very reasonable 
first step.
  In addition, it would ban hiring of a number of specific felonies--
not all felonies, but felonies such as homicide, child abuse or 
neglect, crimes against a child including pornography, spousal abuse, 
rape, sexual assault, and kidnapping. Any of those felonies are so 
egregious it would qualify to keep a person excluded from working with 
children.
  In addition, anyone convicted of a felony physical assault or battery 
or a felony drug-related offense would be prohibited for 5 years, 
couldn't be hired for 5 years. The enforcement of all of this would be 
that if a State refused to adopt these very commonsense measures to 
protect kids, then they would get no Federal funding from the EASA. I 
think the States would adopt these reforms.
  I would point out there is nothing the least bit radical about these 
proposals. In addition to having passed the House of Representatives 
unanimously, we in the Senate just passed virtually an identical 
background check requirement on the Child Care and Development Block 
Grant legislation we adopted last week or perhaps the week before--very 
recently. That bill essentially had identical background check 
provisions for daycare workers, and that is very sensible. That is an 
important and good step. It makes sense to protect children in daycare, 
but it makes no sense whatsoever to protect kids in daycare and then 
leave them defenseless when they move on to an ordinary school.
  Finally, I want to emphasize that this bill has broad bipartisan 
support manifested in the House and here in the Senate. More than that, 
I think it is a moral imperative. Our children deserve to be protected 
now. If that is not a responsibility we have, I don't know what is. The 
protection didn't come soon enough for Jeremy Bell or Shannon or Gary, 
but we don't have to fail other children by delay.
  I ask any of my colleagues who object to this legislation that passed 
unanimously in the House--legislation that is completely consistent 
with what we passed a couple of weeks ago--to please come forward with 
their concerns or issues. I welcome hearing any objections, if there 
are any, but I want to see a very speedy passage of this legislation.
  It is my intention tomorrow to come down here to the Senate floor and 
ask for unanimous consent from my colleagues to pass this legislation 
here on the Senate floor. That will expedite this process and that will 
assure we put this important safeguard in place as soon as we possibly 
can.


                               Ex-Im Bank

  I have one other issue I want to address briefly before I yield the 
floor, and that is about the Ex-Im Bank. I believe this afternoon we 
will be considering a nominee to a very senior post at the Ex-Im bank. 
My focus is not principally on this particular candidate, but I think 
we need to ask ourselves some important questions about the way the Ex-
Im Bank operates and what it does and how it does it. I hope we will 
make some very significant changes when we get to the reauthorization 
debate in the fall.
  First of all, I should point out this is an institution--the Ex-Im 
Bank--that gives rise to a very substantial taxpayer risk, and it is 
large and growing. In 2007, Ex-Im Bank's total exposure was $57 
billion. Today it is almost precisely twice that amount. It is $113 
billion, and the Ex-Im Bank wishes to increase that exposure further.
  In 2013, the GAO, after doing an audit, found multiple weaknesses in 
Ex-Im's risk management processes, failures to account for changing 
environments that could lead to higher losses, lapses that would not be 
acceptable in fully private institutions.
  Another point I wish to make is--I hope we don't kid ourselves about 
this; I know sometimes people suggest to the contrary--taxpayers are 
systematically subsidizing the activity of the Ex-Im Bank, and the risk 
that taxpayers are taking is not adequately compensated. How do we know 
this? We know this because buyers of products that are subject to Ex-Im 
Bank financing get the Ex-Im Bank financing because no private lender 
is willing to make the loan or, if they are, they are not willing to do 
it under terms as generous as the Ex-Im Bank. That is all the evidence 
we need to confirm that they are systematically underpricing the risks 
they are taking, and I find that very objectionable.
  There is another concern I have, and that is the nature of the 
activity, the financial subsidization it provides for certain overseas 
buyers of some American exports. The nature of this process inevitably 
creates winners and losers back here in the United States.
  The Ex-Im Bank effectively subsidizes--and I will give one example. 
Indian Airlines gets a subsidy to purchase Boeing jets, and that is 
very

[[Page 5963]]

nice, except that Indian Airlines competes directly with some American 
airlines and American companies. They are direct competitors, but they 
don't get the advantageous funding. Yet their foreign-based competitor 
does. How can that possibly be fair? How can that possibly make sense?
  My final point is that one of the most predictable things in the 
world is that when we create a government entity to engage in an 
economic activity, that entity will be politicized. It is a creature of 
Congress and the government. It is going to be affected. Sure enough, 
it didn't take long for that to happen. It already happened in the Ex-
Im Bank.
  I have seen Members of this body come down to this floor and attempt 
to offer amendments that would require, for instance, certain quotas 
that the Ex-Im Bank must lend to certain places in the world that are 
geographically favored by particular Members for whatever reasons.
  There are other mandates on Ex-Im Bank's financing, such as that it 
must accommodate certain economic activities or certain products. This 
has nothing to do with market forces or general exports. This has 
everything to do with the politics that individual cares about. This is 
the kind of politicization and distortion that inevitably occurs.
  In my view, we ought to make it a high priority of our trade 
discussions to insist with our trading partners around the world that 
we have a mutual and reciprocal phasing out of these counterproductive, 
taxpayer-subsidized export entries. While we will not have the 
opportunity to do that with respect to this nominee we are going to 
consider this afternoon, we will have the opportunity to do it when the 
reauthorization debate begins in the fall, and I hope my colleagues 
will engage in that debate.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from Louisiana.


                          Veterans Health Care

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I think we are prepared to have several 
unanimous consent requests regarding the issue of how to care for 
veterans in our country. I first want to begin by thanking Senator 
Sanders for his extraordinary leadership on the issue of caring for and 
supporting veterans, their families, their dependents, and the 
communities in which veterans live. There has been no stronger voice on 
the Senate floor for veterans on either side of the aisle than Senator 
Sanders, and I appreciate his leadership. He has been spending a great 
deal of time on the floor explaining the importance of his legislation. 
He has joined me today to talk further about it.
  Inside of this very important and major piece of legislation, there 
is a piece of it that passed the House unanimously that would authorize 
the construction of 27 major medical facility leases in 18 States and 
in Puerto Rico, two of which would be in Louisiana--one in Lafayette 
and one in Lake Charles. I have been leading the effort--contrary to 
the testimony put on the Record by the junior Senator from Louisiana--
with Congressman Boustany, whose district this is in, and he has been 
the leader of our delegation. There is no hesitation among our 
delegation about who the leader has been about getting these clinics 
built.
  We have been working with the veterans office for years. We got them 
to admit that they actually made the mistake that caused our clinics to 
have to be delayed in their construction because of a mishap of great 
proportion in the way these contracts were bid. The veterans in our 
State--and Senator Sanders knows this--have rightly been complaining 
for years that they have been left out and left behind.
  Our entire delegation, Democrats and Republicans, has been fighting 
on their behalf vigorously. We have written letters, made phone calls, 
and made multiple visits to the region. Contrary to the testimony by 
the junior Senator from Louisiana, the fact is everybody has been 
working well together.
  Congressman Boustany got to pass this piece of legislation out of the 
House that basically says: Yes, let's go forward and build these 
clinics and not require an offset.
  I ask unanimous consent right now to do just that and take the House 
bill that has passed with no amendments, no modifications, and pass 
this bill so it doesn't have to go back to the House. It can go right 
to the President's desk for signature. It costs $1.8 billion, and there 
is no offset. As I have said, in my view--and this is only my view--the 
veterans this is going to help have already paid the price. They have 
already paid the price. They should not have to pay twice.
  I agree with the House of Representatives. There doesn't need to be 
an offset to this. I don't agree with Senator Vitter's amendment that 
there needs to be an offset. I think we just need to go ahead and 
unanimously decide to send this to the President's desk for his 
signature. I am confident he would sign this, and it would authorize 
these clinics not only in Louisiana but in the States around the 
country.
  I understand there is some opposition from outside of our State. I 
don't understand any opposition from within the State.
  I ask unanimous consent the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged 
from further consideration of H.R. 3521, the bill read three times and 
passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Coburn, who is not here 
today, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. LEE. My understanding is that Senator Coburn's objection is based 
on the lack of a pay-for in this proposal. There is, however, an 
amendment that has been introduced by Senator Vitter that addresses 
this concern and fills this gap.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3521, and 
that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I also ask 
unanimous consent that the Vitter amendment, which is at the desk, be 
agreed to, that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, 
and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Is that an order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LEE. Yes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I understand that the House of Representatives passed 
this bill, H.R. 3521--and I will get the exact vote in a minute--with a 
vote of 346 to 1. They passed this bill, H.R. 3521, with a vote of 346 
to 1, that has no offset.
  Does the Senator from Utah have any reason to know why Senator Coburn 
would now require an offset since the bill and the politics is 
controlled by the Republican leadership in the House?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I don't mean to cut my colleague off, but 
Senator Lee is here on behalf of Senator Coburn, who has been more 
involved, and so I will give the history of it. Some folks in the 
Senate had concerns about the bill and the fact that, in their view, it 
was not paid for. I met with them and talked through all of these 
concerns. I could not convince them to drop those concerns completely, 
so instead we found a solution, which is the Vitter amendment that is 
at the desk. That amendment has been cleared within its four corners. 
Nobody in the Senate--no Republican or Democrat--opposes the amendment. 
We found that solution in order to pass the bill through the Senate, 
and that addressed Senator Coburn's objections to the bill alone. That 
is the solution we worked out.
  I can't fully walk through all of Senator Coburn's thoughts about the 
bill on its own and whether it was paid for. I can just tell the 
Senator that I met with him exhaustively, was not able to get him to 
completely drop his objection, but was able to agree on this 
compromise--this solution to the pay-for issue. So that is why the 
amendment,

[[Page 5964]]

which is at the desk, was proposed, which removes the Coburn objection 
and thereby fixes the problem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Utah?
  Mr. SANDERS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont, objection is heard.
  The Senator from Louisiana has the floor.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, that is very good to know that Senator 
Coburn is objecting--or not objecting--to an offset that is not a real 
offset.
  The reason there is some objection from our side, and I think from 
Senator Sanders as well, is because the Vitter offset is not real. It 
doesn't generate $1.6 billion in savings. So I think we should go 
forward with no offset because the $1.6 billion is not a real offset.
  The CBO analysis of this offset basically says, from our preliminary 
estimate of the amendment, based on information from the Department of 
Defense, there are no savings--there are no savings--for drug-related 
purchases to the current law. The preliminary estimate is zero.
  With that, I wish to reiterate my unanimous consent request--please 
don't interrupt--I would like unanimous consent for my amendment, which 
has no offset--and the bill does not have to go back to the House of 
Representatives. The bill can go straight to the President's desk.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
  Mr. VITTER. I would like to ask through the Chair, because this is 
significant information, whether Senator Sanders would object to 
passing the bill without amendment, because in all previous discussions 
to date, I understood he would object to that. But that is very 
significant information, so I would ask that of Senator Sanders through 
the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not a parliamentary inquiry. However, 
if the Senator chooses to respond, he may.
  Mr. SANDERS. I will respond later.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reclaiming the floor and reclaiming my 
time, that is very significant information that can guide us with 
regard to any path forward. So I would like to know from the Senator 
whether he would or would not object to a UC to pass the bill without 
this amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, that is a fair question. Let me ask my 
colleague from Louisiana--as he knows, I will be speaking more to this 
in a moment. I wish to thank Senator Landrieu for her strong support of 
legislation I introduced and for her support not only for veterans in 
Louisiana but for every veteran in this country. This legislation is 
supported by virtually every veterans organization in the United States 
of America.
  I will respond at this point to my colleague from Louisiana to say 
that if I were prepared to support the Landrieu amendment, which has no 
offsets--and she makes a good point, that veterans have paid for this 
legislation in their blood already--would the Senator from Louisiana 
object to an amendment I offered for the comprehensive bill that had no 
offset as well?
  Mr. VITTER. If I could address the Chair, I am happy to answer the 
question.
  As Senator Sanders knows, I have serious concerns with his much 
broader bill. So I am not agreeing to his far broader bill. He knows 
that. We have talked about that. We have talked about those concerns. I 
am happy to restate that.
  Having answered his question, I would like to reask through the Chair 
if Senator Sanders is objecting or would object to a UC request to pass 
this veterans clinics bill without the amendment at the desk.
  Mr. SANDERS. Reserving the right to object, let me again thank 
Senator Landrieu, who has raised this issue with me on numerous 
occasions. The issue we are talking about--I think Senator Vitter 
referred to it--is clearly not just an issue for Louisiana, it is an 
issue which addresses the need to see built 27 major medical facilities 
in 18 States and Puerto Rico. To my mind, this is a very important 
provision, which is in fact why I put it in a very prominent place in 
my legislation.
  What I would say to my friend from Louisiana is that as important as 
that provision in the bill is, there are many other provisions of equal 
or greater importance. What I would say to my friend from Louisiana is 
that organizations--and, again, virtually every veterans organization 
in America, representing millions and millions of veterans, wants this 
body and Members of the Senate to not just give speeches on Veterans 
Day or Memorial Day about their concerns for veterans, they want this 
body to start acting on behalf of the veterans in this country.
  What they want us to do, among many other things, is an advanced 
appropriations. I know my friend from Louisiana isn't a member of the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee, and maybe he does not know that in the 
last government shutdown we were 10 days away from veterans--disabled 
veterans--not getting the checks they live on. This bill I have 
introduced addresses that.
  Maybe the Senator from Louisiana does not know we have a major 
backlog problem; that while the VA is making good progress and 
significantly reducing that backlog, I as chairman of the Senate 
Veterans' Affairs Committee want to make absolutely certain that when a 
veteran applies for a benefit, that benefit is adjudicated in a rapid, 
efficient, and accurate way, and my legislation deals with that issue.
  I don't know if the junior Senator from Louisiana knows we have a 
real problem for veterans in Louisiana and across this country who are 
trying to take advantage of the post-9/11 education bill. Over 1 
million veterans and their families are taking advantage of it but 
suddenly find themselves, if they move from Vermont to Louisiana or 
Louisiana to Vermont, they may not be able to take advantage of instate 
tuition. Our bill addresses that issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators are advised that subject to a 
previous order, the Senate was to proceed to executive session at 2:30.
  Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent that the previous order be 
postponed for an additional 10 minutes so we can simply round out this 
very important discussion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SANDERS. None whatsoever.
  Mr. VITTER addressed the Chair.
  Mr. SANDERS. I think I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
  Mr. VITTER. I believe I made an inquiry through the Chair, so I 
believe I have the floor and I would like to reclaim it if that is 
appropriate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont currently has the 
floor.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the point I am making is that 
furthermore, not only are we dealing with the instate tuition issue, 
which impacts veterans from Louisiana and Vermont and every other 
State, we are dealing with another issue in that we are going to extend 
for 5 years to 10 years unfettered access to VA health care for 
recently separated veterans. At a time when real unemployment in this 
country is close to 12 percent and many veterans are coming home from 
Iraq and Afghanistan and they are looking for work and work is hard to 
find, this legislation renews our vow to hire heroes because we believe 
it is important that veterans get back to work and take care of their 
families.
  Mr. VITTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. I apologize for interrupting, but I just want to ensure 
that of the additional 10 minutes that were granted, I would have 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is dividing the time equally.
  Mr. VITTER. I apologize for interrupting.
  Mr. SANDERS. Not at all.
  I wanted to mention to my colleague from Louisiana, which he may or 
may

[[Page 5965]]

not know, that we have a very serious problem in the military regarding 
sexual assault, and it is terribly important that the men and women who 
were sexually assaulted get the help and the treatment they need in a 
VA facility and we address that issue.
  The Senator from Louisiana may or may not know that 2,300 veterans--
these are men and women who suffered injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan 
and came back home--are unable, because of their wounds, to have 
babies, and this legislation is going to help them start the families 
they want.
  The Senator from Louisiana may or may not know--and I know the 
Senator from Illinois Mr. Durbin does know--that in this legislation we 
deal with the caregivers act; that right now we have 70-year-old women 
who have taken care of their husbands who lost their legs in Vietnam or 
in Korea or whatever war, and they are crying out for us to give them a 
modest degree of help.
  What I say to my friend from Louisiana: Now is the time to stand with 
the veterans of this country. If he thinks it is too expensive, then 
don't send them off to war. Don't send them off to war. Taking care of 
veterans is a cost of war. They paid for it. I am very proud, again, 
that this legislation has the support of the American Legion, VFW, DAV, 
Gold Star Wives, Vietnam veterans organizations, Iraq, Afghanistan 
veterans organizations, and all the others--virtually all of the other 
ones.
  I implore my friend from Louisiana to do the right thing and support 
this comprehensive legislation which addresses his concerns in this 
provision, but it does a lot more.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I think this discussion has been very 
important and very instructive because it underscores that not only 
does the distinguished Senator from Vermont object to my efforts to 
pass the veterans clinics bill with the amendment at the desk by 
unanimous consent, but he also objects to Senator Landrieu's efforts to 
pass the same veterans clinics bill, in her case, without the 
amendment, without the offset. I asked him that direct question. He 
made it very clear that he continues to demand that we pass his entire 
much broader bill and will not let this hostage go.
  I think that is very sad and very inappropriate for him to object to 
my effort, for him to now object to the efforts of Senator Landrieu. 
She made the unanimous consent request to pass the clinics bill, the 
focused clinics bill. He is objecting to that as well.
  It is also completely contrary to what Senator Sanders has said 
before, working on these and related issues. In another instance in 
late 2013, November, Senator Sanders himself, talking about our 
colleagues, said:

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

  Another colleague--

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

  Where we have agreement, let's move it. We do not have agreement 
about the significant details of the much broader Sanders bill. It is 
not 1 Senator objecting about that, it is 43, but we do have agreement 
about this clinics issue. No one, including Senator Sanders, objects to 
the substance of the clinics bill. We have worked out every issue, 
including through my discussions with Senator Coburn, about the pay-
fors. The amendment at the desk solves that.
  So when we take that bill and the amendment, no one objects to that 
substance. No one objects to it within the four corners of that 
material. The only objection constantly on the floor for the last 
several weeks--today again toward me, today again toward Senator 
Landrieu's UC--is, no, I need my whole bill.
  We will continue to discuss those important issues and disagreements, 
but 43 Senators disagree with Senator Sanders. Sixty are needed to move 
forward. In the meantime, can we at least agree what we agree on and 
not hold veterans hostage? They have had guns pointed at them before, 
but they don't expect U.S. Senators to hold guns to their head and hold 
them hostage over veterans clinics.
  So where we have agreement, let's move it. We have agreement about 
the veterans clinics. Let's move it. That is my effort. That is Senator 
Landrieu's effort, which again is being objected to, moving this 
focused clinics bill, by the Senator from Vermont. I find that very 
unfortunate, but I will certainly continue to demand that we pass this 
and continue to talk regarding all of the other important veterans' 
issues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we talk 
about holding hostage. The distinguished junior Senator from Louisiana 
pointed out that 43 Senators voted against comprehensive legislation 
that is supported by virtually every veterans organization in this 
country. The arithmetic is 43 voted against it, that is true. How many 
voted for it? Fifty-six voted for it and 1 was absent who would have 
voted for it. Fifty-seven voted for comprehensive legislation, 43 voted 
against it.
  So when the Senator talks about holding veterans hostage, I would 
suggest to my friend from Louisiana that maybe instead of filibustering 
this bill and requiring an undemocratic 60 votes, let the majority 
rule.
  The American people want us to pass this legislation. If you choose 
not to vote for it, that is your right. But I do urge you not to hold 
us hostage by demanding 60 votes when a very strong majority wants to 
see it passed.
  With that, Mr. President, I would object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, can you tell me the order of business we 
are in now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 40 seconds remaining on the current 
issue, following which we will proceed to executive session.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield back that time.

                          ____________________