[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7874-7898]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 NOMINATION OF ROY K.J. WILLIAMS TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE 
                        FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF CARLOS ROBERTO MORENO TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND 
       PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO BELIZE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to consideration of the following nominations, which the clerk 
will report.
  The bill clerk read the nominations of Roy K.J. Williams, of Ohio, to 
be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development; and Carlos 
Roberto Moreno, of California, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Belize.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate prior to a vote on the Williams nomination.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Roy K.J. Williams, of Ohio, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce 
for Economic Development?
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate prior a vote on the Moreno nomination.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Carlos Roberto Moreno, of California, to be Ambassador Extraordinary 
and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Belize?
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 5:15 
p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  The time from 3 p.m. to 3:45 p.m. will be controlled by the 
Republicans, and the time from 3:45 to 4:30 p.m. will be controlled by 
the majority.
  The Senator from Maryland.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--s. 357

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, as I think my colleagues know, this is 
National Police Week. I know I express the sentiment of every Member of 
this body who wishes to show their appreciation for the 900,000 
Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers who literally put 
their lives on the line every day to keep us safe. We cannot thank them 
enough, but we can help

[[Page 7875]]

them by our actions. In 2013 there were 105 who lost their lives in the 
line of duty, so obviously this is a matter that requires the attention 
of the Senate.
  Let me cite the most recent casualty in the State of Maryland. On 
August 28, 2013, Baltimore County police officer Jason Schneider, who 
was only 36 years of age, was shot and killed while serving a search 
warrant at a home on Roberts Avenue in Catonsville at approximately 5 
o'clock in the morning. Officer Schneider was part of a tactical team 
that had entered the house in search of a juvenile subject wanted in 
relation to a shooting of the previous week. The entry team encountered 
four subjects inside the house who attempted to flee. Officer Schneider 
was pursuing a subject toward the rear of the house when another 
subject attacked him and opened fire, striking him several times. 
Despite being mortally wounded, Officer Schneider returned fire and 
killed the subject. Officer Schneider is survived by his wife and two 
children.
  Unfortunately, that story was told 105 other times in 2013 with law 
enforcement officers who lost their lives in the line of duty.
  I have introduced legislation--S. 357--which provides for a national 
blue alert. I think most Members are familiar with AMBER alerts. It 
means the rapid dissemination of information to help law enforcement. 
Well, a blue alert would deal with an officer who has been assaulted, 
attacked, or killed.
  Law enforcement will tell us rapid dissemination is the most 
important part of law enforcement. So it is critically important that 
information be made available.
  This is a bipartisan bill. I originally filed the bill with Senator 
Graham, and I appreciate his help.
  Senator Leahy has been a real champion. As chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, I can't thank him enough for his help with this legislation 
and the work he has done on behalf of law enforcement.
  Senator McConnell today in his leader time discussed that this week 
is National Police Week and mentioned he is a cosponsor of the 
legislation I am referring to and urged that this is the type of bill 
we need to pass.
  Senator Blunt is on the floor. I thank him very much. He has been a 
real leader in regards to law enforcement issues and Blue Alert.
  This bill passed with 406 votes in the House of Representatives. It 
is a bill which provides for smart ways to help law enforcement. It is 
endorsed and supported by a whole host of groups, including the 
Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police 
Organizations, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the 
Concerns of Police Survivors, and the Sergeants Benevolent Association 
of the New York Police Department. The list goes on and on. So we are 
looking for a way we can not only express our appreciation to those in 
law enforcement but we can tangibly do something to help.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent as if in legislative session 
the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 194, S. 357, the National Blue Alert 
Act; that the bill be read a third time and passed; and the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon table, with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, per the Senate rules I have submitted a 
letter outlining my reasons for objecting to this, besides it not being 
paid for, and I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Maryland who, 
just as he did when he was in the State legislature and has done every 
single day since he has been in the Senate, has been supportive of law 
enforcement and police officers. I am sorry there was an objection.
  I spoke earlier to my dear friend, the Senator from Maryland, Mr. 
Cardin. I told him that earlier today I chaired a hearing on the 
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. The distinguished Presiding 
Officer, the Senator from Delaware, was there, as were law enforcement 
officers from Delaware.
  During that hearing we heard from Officer Ann Carrizales of the 
Stafford, TX, police department. This was some of the most powerful 
testimony I have heard in my almost 40 years on that committee.
  She was shot in the face and chest during a routine traffic stop last 
year. She was saved by her protective vest. She returned fire and then 
pursued the suspects for 20 miles and ultimately helped a neighboring 
police jurisdiction apprehend the shooter--a determined police officer, 
former Marine, mother, and wife.
  We also heard from a police chief who will be staying here with law 
enforcement during National Police Week. We talked about the 
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program, which Senator Ben 
Nighthorse Campbell--who served in law enforcement, a Republican from 
Colorado--and I first introduced, and for decades it has been passed 
unanimously. It saves lives. It is not a luxury item.
  Last week, I came to the Senate floor, seeking to do what this body 
has done 3 times before, and that is to reauthorize the Bulletproof 
Vest Partnership Grant Program. My legislation to renew this life-
saving program for another 5 years has the support of every Democrat in 
the Senate. It is strongly supported by leading law enforcement groups, 
and on a much more personal note, we know that vests provided by this 
program have protected thousands of officers and spared their families 
and loved ones from unspeakable grief.
  Officers like Officer Ann Carrizales. If her story does not inspire 
us all to support brave law enforcement officers by providing them with 
the most basic protection, then I do not know what could. She brought 
with her today almost 200 letters from her daughter's elementary 
school, all calling on the Senate to act. One of the letters I have is 
from her daughter MiKayla, talking about what her mother faced. This 
was powerful testimony.
  Unfortunately, my efforts to pass this important reauthorization were 
blocked last week by a Republican Senator who seems to think that 
bulletproof vests are a luxury item. Some Republican Senators also 
believe that the Federal Government has no role to play in assisting 
local law enforcement. I could not disagree more. We in Congress have 
long supported local law enforcement because we have a duty to keep our 
communities safe.
  Today, during National Police Week, Senators who say they stand with 
law enforcement should demonstrate their support and put real meaning 
behind those words by supporting two important bills. All Senators 
should support the passage of S. 933, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership 
Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2013. To date, this program has 
enabled over 13,000 State and local law enforcement agencies to 
purchase over 1 million vests. It we act today, this program could help 
provide more vests to the law enforcement officers who protect us every 
day. We should also pass the National Blue Alert Act, a bill sponsored 
by Senators Cardin and Graham that would create a national alert system 
when an officer is injured or killed in the line of duty. We can put 
real meaning behind our rhetoric. These are commonsense bills and they 
should be enacted without further delay.
  Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 162, S. 933, 
the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 
2013; that the bill be read a third time and passed; and that the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action 
or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COBURN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we went through this 10 days ago, and I 
gave a very long and detailed explanation of my objections to this 
bill. I won't belabor that again. But again, we are at the process 
where we owe $17 trillion,

[[Page 7876]]

and we are spending money that we don't have in areas that are far 
lower in priority than this issue.
  I have no objection, and I think, in terms of bulletproof vests, this 
is actually a great way to protect those who protect us. But again, as 
I stated the last time we had this discussion, under the enumerated 
powers this is the responsibility of the States and local communities. 
On that basis I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am sorry for that because we will waste 
more money in 1 or 2 weeks in Afghanistan and Iraq, than this would 
cost for years--years--to protect American law enforcement, police 
officers who protect us every day.
  We ought to allow this matter to come to a vote and have everybody 
vote yes or no. The Senator from Vermont would vote yes. I know the 
Senator from Maryland would vote yes, and I know the distinguished 
Presiding Officer from Delaware would vote yes, as would every single 
Democratic Senator, and I believe a number of Republicans would.
  We will give great speeches this week saying we stand with law 
enforcement. Well, as some say, put up or shut up. Let's stand with 
them. Let's pass this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about National 
Police Week. I am pleased to be able to cochair with the Presiding 
Officer and the Senator from Delaware Mr. Coons the Law Enforcement 
Caucus which we founded when we came to the Senate together. I am proud 
to be a cosponsor of the National Blue Alert Act that Senator Cardin 
talked about, and I would like to see that done. I think we can do 
things to provide more safety and security for local police officers as 
we have done for the fire grants, all those things that followed 911.
  As I was listening, I was thinking about how much we benefit every 
day from the Capitol Police. We walk by them in their positions 
securing these buildings and standing in the way of harm, and we often 
forget they are there for that purpose. When others are able to look 
for a safer place to be, our police officers run to where the danger 
is. They stand between us and that danger.
  In the time I have been here, two of our Capitol police officers have 
been killed in the building on duty, one just a few feet away from 
where my office would be in the next Congress. They were there for us. 
I remember on 9/11 leaving the building with every reason to believe 
this building could be and perhaps was going to be an immediate target 
to our enemies attacking us that day. I remember walking out of the 
building as the Capitol Police were insisting we get out of the 
building and looking over my shoulder and seeing they were all still in 
the building.
  So whether it is the police we see daily here, the police who serve 
us in our communities, or the families who send their loved ones into 
harm's way every day, this is an important time to recognize that 
service, but also it should be an important time to think about what we 
could do about it.
  The National Blue Alert bill doesn't mandate that States create a 
system. It simply provides that States could have access to a system 
which would create an alert system so that when someone has harmed a 
police officer, we make a maximum and immediate effort to see that 
person is apprehended and eventually be called to pay the penalty for 
what they have done.
  We benefit from these people who again run to where the danger is, 
who stand between us and that which creates danger for us as citizens. 
Whether trying to go to the local grocery store, the local shopping 
center or the school play, there is somebody in that community whose 
job it is to make it a safer place than it would otherwise be.
  I am pleased to have had a chance to work with the Presiding Officer 
on so many issues. During National Police Week, I rise with and on 
behalf of all of our colleagues to say thank you for those who stand to 
defend and protect us here.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                             Net Neutrality

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the issue of net 
neutrality. Right now there are people who are watching the floor of 
the Senate streaming live on C-SPAN.org.
  They might be engaged political junkies or maybe they need something 
to help them take a nap. Let's face it; the action in this most 
deliberative body can sometimes feel a little slow.
  Now imagine just a few companies deciding that C-SPAN.org will be put 
into a slow lane; that the public interest content streamed out to the 
world will be sent out at an even more deliberative pace, while kitten 
videos will get priority.
  When people talk about net neutrality, that is what we are talking 
about. Instead of open and free Internet where the billions of clicks 
and links made by customers and entrepreneurs in their living rooms and 
garages determine who wins and loses, it will be just a few companies 
in a few corporate boardrooms deciding who gets into the express lane 
and who falls behind in a traffic jam.
  We need a truly open Internet because an open Internet has become the 
world's greatest platform for innovation, job creation, and economic 
growth. An open Internet enables freedom of expression and the sharing 
of ideas across town or around the world. An open Internet is driving 
economic growth in Massachusetts and throughout the United States.
  Openness is the Internet's heart, nondiscrimination is its soul, and 
any infringements on either of these features undermine the intent of 
net neutrality.
  The vitality of this free platform is at stake today because right 
now our Internet regulators at the FCC are determining how they will 
use its authority to keep the Internet open for business.
  When the FCC first unveiled its new Open Internet proposal a few 
weeks ago, the Commission contemplated whether to allow paid 
prioritization. Under these proposed Internet rules of the road, fast 
lanes could open to those who can pay, leaving others stuck in traffic. 
The result: Consumers could be stuck in an online provider pileup when 
a broadband provider decides to slow down a streaming of Netflix's 
House of Cards or bring a high-speed Yahoo search to a crawl or block a 
free online call to a friend abroad. But the worry goes far beyond 
simply slowing down the videos we watch on YouTube.
  Without a truly open Internet, startups and small businesses would 
suffer, slowing our economy and job growth throughout Massachusetts and 
around the country. No one should have to ask permission to innovate. 
But with fast and slow lanes, that is precisely what an entrepreneur 
will need to do.
  Right now the essence of the Internet is to innovate and test new 
ideas first. If an idea then takes off, the creator can attract capital 
and expand. The Internet today is a level playing field where the 
competition for the best in technology and ideas thrives.
  Creating Internet fast and slow lanes would flip this process on its 
head. Instead, an entrepreneur would first need to raise capital in 
order to start innovating, because she would need to pay for fast-lane 
access to have a chance for her product to be seen and to succeed. Only 
those with access to deep pockets would develop anything new. Imagine 
the stifling of creativity if startups need massive amounts of money 
even to innovate. So consider an app developer or creator of a new 
product in Boston or throughout the country. How will she reach 
potential customers and viewers if her Web site is stuck on a gravel 
path while those with access to capital whiz by on the interstate as 
they flash their Internet E-ZPass? She won't reach her customers; only 
those with money will.
  If you don't believe me, consider the more than 100 tech companies--
including Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and Twitter--that 
characterize broadband providers imposing tolls on Internet companies 
as a ``grave threat to the Internet.'' Consider the 50 venture 
capitalists who wrote to Chairman

[[Page 7877]]

Wheeler last week and said that with paid prioritization, ``an 
individual in a dorm room or design studio will not be able to 
experiment out loud on the Internet. The result will be greater 
conformity, fewer surprises, and less innovation.'' Less disruption--
less creation of the next big idea. That would be the end of the 
Internet as we know it today.
  Unfortunately, I have seen this fight before. In 2006, when the open 
Internet was under attack, I introduced the first net neutrality bill 
in the House of Representatives. Today our battle to preserve an open 
and free Internet wages on. That is why last week I joined with 10 of 
my Senate colleagues to urge Chairman Wheeler to rethink paid 
prioritization and to insist that he explore all options, including 
reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service.
  We need to put on the books the strongest open Internet rules as 
possible, and if title II reclassification is the most effective way to 
accomplish this goal, that is what the FCC should do because then it 
would be treated as a common carrier service. That is how we treat 
traditional phone service. That, in fact, is what the Internet has 
become in the 21st century. You cannot live without it. We have to 
treat it as such. To be connected in the 21st century, you need 
Internet access. That is why, if needed--and it just might be--title II 
will have to be the way to go.
  As one of the primary authors of the 1996 Telecommunications Act--a 
bill that unleashed competition and created hundreds of millions of 
dollars in private investment--I know the FCC has both the power and 
the responsibility to oversee the operation of broadband networks and 
intervene in its efforts to preserve competition and safeguard 
consumers. It is time for the FCC to use that power to protect the 
tremendous potential of the Internet.
  The Internet is a vital tool that helps businesses compete and 
expand, pumping life into our economy. Again, after the 1996 act, $1 
trillion of private sector investment went into developing new 
companies online, into expanding the Internet. Why? The government 
acted to make sure there was a level playing field in the 1996 act and 
then got out of the way and watched the competition flourish in this 
chaotic new world of broadband. There was no YouTube. There was no 
Google or Amazon. There was no Twitter. There was no Facebook. It 
didn't exist. It could have existed before then but not if we didn't 
have a flourishing Internet that was wide open for competition and 
investment from the private sector.
  That is why this decision by the Federal Communications Commission is 
so important. It is understanding the very nature of this new 
communications job-creating revolution that we have here. We must fight 
to protect it.
  I thank you, Mr. President, for allowing me this time, and I yield 
back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  (The remarks of Mr. Barrasso pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2339 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to thank Senator Barrasso for his 
leadership on this issue. As a longtime practicing physician before he 
came to the Senate, he has provided great leadership and expertise and 
is able to evaluate and comment so wisely on the important issue of 
health care.
  I thank the Senator.


                              Immigration

  Today, Majority Leader Reid--the leader of the Democratic majority of 
the Senate--and Senator Chuck Schumer came to the Senate floor to 
demand that the House of Representatives pass their immigration bill. 
They labeled Republicans as extremists for not giving in to their 
demands. And they are correct about one thing: The House is not giving 
in.
  At this point in time, the House is refusing to yield to the pressure 
of special interest groups and political lobbyists and Senate Democrats 
to pass a bill that would be bad for America. It just will be bad for 
America. So I think once again the special interests will lose and the 
voice of the American people will be heard.
  Senator Schumer said Republicans are xenophobes because they won't 
pass his plan. Let's talk about what is extreme. A new report just out 
revealed that this administration has released 36,000 criminal aliens 
from ICE detention. Our Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers 
receive them as prisoners from a State or Federal penitentiary where 
they have been convicted of some criminal offense unrelated to 
immigration, usually in a State court. 36,000 are now being released 
into the general population.
  This report found there were 193 homicide-type convictions, 1,153 
sexual offenders, 303 kidnapping convictions, and 1,075 aggravated 
assault convictions. These are serious crimes. If you will recall, 
these criminals are the only group this administration says they are 
the deporting. They don't deny that they are not deporting others who 
violate our immigration laws. They promised they are faithfully 
removing people who commit crimes unrelated to immigration. This report 
proves that claim not to be so.
  These dangerous offenders should be kept in custody. They should not 
be released into the general population. We had a study of such 
releases several years ago. The statistics showed that when a person 
who entered the country illegally was released on bail, they didn't 
show up for court. If they are willing to enter the country illegally 
and a judge has them set for trial and he releases them on bail, we 
then have an incredibly high number who don't show up for trial. This 
was called catch and release and was roundly criticized. This is now 
being done with immigrants who have serious criminal charges and 
convictions.
  Do you know what else is extreme? Extreme is trying to pass an 
immigration bill that would double the flow of guest workers into our 
country and triple the number of new permanent residents when 50 
million working-age Americans are out of work. We have a very serious 
unemployment problem. Is no one concerned about that?
  It is not xenophobic, but it is compassionate to say we should focus 
our attention on struggling and hurting American workers. It is not 
xenophobic. It is our patriotic duty to defend the integrity of our 
borders and enforce the long-established laws of the United States. It 
is the oath we all took as Senators to defend the Constitution of the 
United States. It is the oath the chief law enforcement officer, 
President Obama, took. We have a duty to defend our citizens and our 
people at a time when they are struggling financially. There is just no 
doubt about it.
  There was one group of people not referenced when Majority Leader 
Reid and Senator Schumer talked earlier this morning. Do you know what 
group it was? Completely omitted from the conversation was the American 
worker. The American worker is not being discussed by amnesty 
supporters in this debate. We know the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's view. 
They would like more workers creating slack labor markets and lower 
wages. We know certain special interest groups want more immigration. 
We know certain politicians think this will be good for them 
politically.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office--our own professional 
team that is selected in a nonpartisan way and gives us advice on the 
ramifications of legislation we pass--has looked at the Reid-Schumer 
bill that passed the Senate. According to CBO, the Senate Democratic 
immigration bill--which was supported by a small number of Republicans, 
but it is overwhelmingly a Democratic bill--would increase unemployment 
while reducing wages. It would increase unemployment while reducing 
wages of American workers for the next 12 years, and it will reduce the 
per person wealth or GNP for the next 17 years.
  If we bring in 30 million people over the next 10 years--as this bill 
would do--it will triple the number that normally would be given legal 
status in America. It will bring down the per person wealth and it will 
bring down

[[Page 7878]]

wages. Surely the U.S. Chamber of Commerce understands the free market, 
do they not? Surely Senator Reid understands that, does he not?
  We were on a conference call yesterday regarding the American steel 
industry. A large amount of steel is being dumped into America. What is 
the impact of that? What is the concern? If we bring in more steel, 
there will be lower prices for steel. If we bring in more cotton, there 
will be lower prices for cotton. If we bring in more labor, it will 
result in lower wages for American workers.
  CBO told us that. There is no dispute about it. Yet we have Senators 
who come to the floor and repeatedly say this is going to increase 
wages. Give me a break. You can't just say something and think it is 
going to make it reality when it is the opposite of reality.
  Under current law, we are admitting more than 600,000 guest workers 
each year. Guest workers come to America not to be citizens but just to 
take jobs that someone contends we don't have enough workers. We grant 
permanent residence to 1 million immigrants each year and perhaps 
ultimately become citizens. That is the current law. Right now wages 
are falling and it is serious, but this is the law that has been 
established and that is what the nation has agreed to.
  The bill Senator Reid maneuvered through this Senate would admit more 
than 1.2 million guest workers each year, thereby doubling the number 
of guest workers, and it will give permanent residency to 30 million 
immigrants over the next 10 years and that is triple the normal rate.
  Research from Harvard professor Dr. George Borjas--perhaps the most 
preeminent student of labor, wages, and immigration in America--shows 
that American workers lose more than $400 billion in wages each year 
due to competition from low-cost workers from abroad. That is $400 
billion in wages each year--not million but billion.
  Dr. Borjas's research also shows that from 1980 to 2000--he did an 
empirical study using the census, the Department of Labor, and other 
official data--wages declined 7.4 percent for lower skilled working 
Americans. These are the people who go out and work every day. These 
are not people who have a college degree. I am talking about the 
working people in this country. Their wages declined from 1980 to 2000 
by 7.4 percent as a result of this very large flow of legal and illegal 
immigration.
  There is no doubt--and my colleagues have to understand this--a vote 
for the Reid-Schumer immigration bill is a vote to lower the wages of 
American workers. Not only that, it will make it harder for Americans 
to get a job, period. It appears the people who are hurt worst by the 
Democratic immigration policies are young Americans, low-income 
Americans, and minority workers.
  According to Dr. Borjas's studies--and others--minority workers are 
particularly damaged by high levels of immigration. This includes 
Hispanics who have lawfully come to America. They are trying to get 
started so they can make their way up. They would like to have a pay 
raise, but their wages are also being pulled down by an extraordinary, 
unjustified flow of labor that the economy can't absorb effectively. We 
don't have jobs for them now. That is the problem.
  I don't dislike people who want to come here. I know most of them are 
good people who would like to advance themselves. But, as Senators we 
have a responsibility to the citizens of our country and we need to 
ask: Is this good for America? Can we absorb this number of people and 
maintain decent wages or are we in a long term trend that will allow 
lower and middle-income workers' wages to continue to erode? I think it 
is a serious issue that we need to be honest about and I hope we will 
do so. Young and low-income Americans are also hurt.
  Senator Schumer says we should do the bidding of the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce--buddying up with them now. He says there is a hijacking out 
here, but it seems Mr. Schumer's party has been the one that has been 
hijacked by special interests, and they have lost sight of whom they 
claim to represent--working Americans. That is my charge and that is 
what I say.
  We have a generous immigration policy, and we need to make sure it is 
enforced correctly and lawfully carried out. That is what the American 
people have asked of us. They have demanded this from us. They want a 
lawful system that we can be proud of and treats people fairly, where a 
person fills out an application and lays out their qualifications. 
Those qualifications are then evaluated on an objective basis, and the 
best qualified person, the one who is most deserving, is then admitted 
to the country. What is wrong with that? That is what Canada does. That 
is what the UK does. That is what Australia does. There is nothing 
wrong with such a policy. That is what we should be doing.
  We should decide how many people the country can absorb and in what 
wage categories before we admit huge numbers of people and certainly 
before we double the number we presently bring in.
  A number of Senators have complained on the floor of the Senate that 
the tech industries can't find qualified Americans. We have all heard 
that charge. I sort of accepted it at first, but in fact the data shows 
something different and it is rather surprising. In fact, we have twice 
as many STEM graduates each year as there are STEM jobs--science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics.
  Here is a recent paper by Professor Hal Salzman from Rutgers 
University. He carefully analyzed data from the Department of Education 
and the Department of Labor. He concluded that we first need to get 
accurate data to truly inform policy decisions. If we are going to make 
a policy decision about how large our immigration flow should be--not 
to end it but how large it should be--shouldn't we have good data?
  He says:

       The first data to consider is the broad notion of a supply 
     crisis in which the United States does not produce enough 
     STEM graduates to meet industry demand. In fact, the nation 
     graduates more than two times as many STEM students each year 
     as find jobs in STEM fields. For the 180,000 or so annual 
     openings, U.S. Colleges and Universities supply 500,000 
     graduates.

  They supply more than twice the number of graduates as we have jobs 
for now, so I am a little dubious about these big business types 
claiming they can't get enough people.
  What about IT specifically? We hear some of our Silicon Valley 
executives promoting any kind of immigration as long as they get more 
IT workers.
  Mr. Salzman says:

       The only clear impact of the large IT guest worker inflows 
     over this decade can be seen in salary levels, which have 
     remained at their late-1990s levels and which dampens 
     incentives for domestic students to pursue STEM degrees.

  Did you know that? IT graduates' salaries are stuck at 1990 levels. 
It is causing students in college to wonder if this is such a great 
field to go into. In fact, the author says there are other fields that 
do better. If that is true, does that change Senator Reid's view of the 
legislation he jammed through the Senate and he is so proud of and he 
is demanding the House pass? If that is true, if Mr. Salzman is 
correct, will Senator Reid change his mind?
  Then he goes on to say--and I agree with this line. He is talking 
about all STEM graduates now:

       If there is a [talent] shortage, where are the market 
     indicators (namely wage increases) . . . ?

  So Mr. Donohue and friends at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who 
believe in the free market: Why are wages down if we have a shortage of 
workers? Why aren't wages going up?
  Another businessman said recently:

       There are 600,000 jobs in manufacturing going unfilled 
     today. This immigration bill can go a long way toward helping 
     us fill these positions.

  Well, great Scott. I have seen instances where thousands of people 
apply for just a few jobs. Does he have any interest, first of all, in 
promoting sound national goals? Our goal as policymakers for the United 
States of America should be to say: Wait a

[[Page 7879]]

minute. You have jobs at your manufacturing plant and we have to get 
unemployed people ready to take them. Americans are on welfare and on 
dependency who need to go to work. Give us a chance to get our people 
into those jobs first before we start bringing in more foreign workers 
to take a limited number of jobs.
  From 2000 to 2013, the grim fact is that all net job gains went to 
immigrant workers. Can you imagine that? That is what the numbers show. 
Under the Democratic plan, this bill, if it were to pass the House, job 
decline will accelerate.
  From 2000 to 2013, the number of working-age Americans increased by 
16 million. Yet the jobs for American workers--the number of American 
workers actually working--fell by 1.3 million. That is why the 
unemployment rate and the workforce dropout rate is so high.
  But during that same period, 2000 to 2013, the number of working-age 
immigrants increased by 8.8 million while 5.3 million immigrants got 
jobs. So all the jobs created during this period of time have been, in 
effect, mathematically speaking, taken by foreign workers. Is this 
healthy? Isn't this one of the reasons why people are having a hard 
time today?
  There are 50 million working-age Americans who are not working today. 
Wages are lower today than they were in 1999. Median household incomes, 
adjusted for inflation, have dropped nearly $2,300 since 2009. We have 
the smallest workforce participation in 36 years.
  So I say to Mr. Reid and Mr. Schumer, I am glad to talk about this 
issue. I am glad to talk about immigration, but we are going to talk 
about what is in the interests of the American people. We are not going 
to talk about your politics and your ideology and your special 
interests. We are going to talk about what is good for America and what 
is good for America is to get more of our unemployed working, to get 
wages going up rather than down. I am not surprised they didn't talk 
about workers and wages in their remarks when they demeaned people who 
disagree with them and who oppose their great bill they drafted that 
will not work.
  We are not going to be scared off. We are not going to be intimidated 
into handing over control of our immigration laws to a small group of 
special interests who are meeting in politicians' offices and maybe 
promising support. I feel strongly about this. I don't feel there is 
anything wrong, morally or public policy-wise, to say we need to have a 
lawful system of immigration we can be proud of. That is what the 
American people have asked of us for over 30 years and Congress refuses 
to give. Congress is not listening to the people. And we can do it. It 
is possible. I have been in law enforcement almost as long as I have 
been in the Senate. I know this can be done, if we have a leader who 
wants to see it done. But if the President doesn't want to enforce the 
law and says he is only going to enforce it against people who commit 
serious crimes, and we now find out even those criminals aren't 
deported when they are caught, then I think we have a deep problem. I 
think we can do better.
  Let's don't go down this road of pushing, pushing, pushing, just pass 
a bill, any bill--oh, we have to do it fast. That has been the message 
all along. We have to ram it through, but this thing has been out there 
in the public now for a long time. The mackerel has been in the 
sunshine for a long time and it doesn't smell so good when it is 
examined, and the American people are not prepared to eat it and they 
shouldn't.
  I thank the Chair and the Senate for giving me a chance to express 
these concerns. I believe we need to put American interests first, and 
when we do we will draft an immigration bill that is far different from 
the one being promoted today.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             VA Health Care

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the unfortunate 
allegations of mismanagement and neglect that have been leveled against 
the Phoenix VA health care system.
  By now we have all seen the headlines highlighting unsettling 
allegations that veterans may be dying while awaiting care in Phoenix. 
These revelations have come to light after whistleblowers in Arizona 
have suggested that Phoenix VA officials were manipulating appointment 
requests and waiting lists.
  Recent reports suggest that some veterans may have been placed on an 
unofficial waiting list outside of the VA's official electronic waiting 
list, which exists to calculate how long a veteran has to wait for 
care.
  The alleged reason for the existence of this secret--or unofficial--
list was to keep officially reported wait times down and to disguise 
longer actual waiting times. This apparently would help the Phoenix VA 
save face and reflect more positively on the VA's system as a whole. As 
a result, as many as 1,400 veterans' actual wait times may have been 
significantly longer than what was reported by Phoenix VA officials.
  Now the VA's inspector general's office has launched an 
investigation, and senior officials with the Phoenix VA have been 
placed on administrative leave.
  At a recent hearing in the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, after 
cautioning that there should be no ``rush to judgment,'' a senior VA 
official indicated that after a preliminary review they found no 
evidence of a ``secret list.''
  Nothing would make me happier than to believe the allegations that 
were leveled were just as a result of sour grapes from some unhappy 
current or former employees. But, sadly, similar allegations 
surrounding delayed care have also surfaced elsewhere in the country.
  Just this week, CNN has reported that two VA officials in North 
Carolina have been placed on administrative leave because of 
``inappropriate scheduling.'' CNN also reports that a scheduler at a VA 
facility in San Antonio suggested there had been some ``cooking [of] 
the books'' there to hide lengthy wait times.
  Will it be any surprise if more VA health care facilities share these 
issues? We have all heard about the backlog of more than 300,000 claims 
made by veterans to the Department of Veterans Affairs. This backlog 
has resulted in a wait time for compensation for disability claims that 
reportedly averages a dismal 5 months.
  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in greater numbers of 
veterans seeking treatment in VA facilities. As more and more 
servicemembers leave the Armed Forces, these numbers are sure to 
increase.
  Clearly, the VA is having a hard time providing adequate and timely 
care to veterans. This is and should be a nationwide concern.
  While backlogs are one thing, efforts to obscure or hide them is 
something else entirely, and a disturbing pattern of allegations to 
that end are coming into focus.
  What is alleged to have gone on just in the Phoenix VA system demands 
an honest, independent, and timely investigation. If these allegations 
are confirmed, anyone behind an effort to cover up these wait times or 
interfere with the truth coming out needs to be held accountable. Heads 
should roll. Veterans and families impacted by any sort of neglect and 
mismanagement in the Phoenix VA system deserve nothing less.
  In addition, an apparent pattern of similar problems around the 
country would suggest that Congress needs to ensure that its own role 
in substantive, rigorous, and effective oversight has not been 
blatantly ignored.
  VA Secretary Eric Shinseki will be testifying before the Senate 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs later this week to answer questions 
about the ``state of veterans health care.'' Given what appear to be 
pervasive failures at

[[Page 7880]]

a growing number of VA health care facilities, he will have more than a 
few questions to answer. I look forward to the results from that 
hearing.
  This situation cannot go on. In Phoenix and around Arizona people are 
concerned. We are receiving a record number of calls to our office from 
veterans who are concerned who want to tell their story of the care 
they are receiving or not receiving on a timely basis. This is 
something we cannot countenance in our oversight responsibilities here 
in Congress.
  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. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               EXPIRE Act

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the Senate will begin consideration 
of the Expiring Provisions Improvement, Reform, and Efficiency Act, 
otherwise known as the EXPIRE Act. This legislation has, so far, moved 
forward in a cooperative, bipartisan fashion, and I am hoping that 
spirit will continue here on the floor.
  It seems that the new norm for tax policy around here is conducting 
this ritual where tax provisions expire, we wait until the following 
year to decide which ones to extend, and then we finally enact them 
into law for 1 retroactive year and 1 prospective year.
  When that happens, half of the benefit is more of a windfall rather 
than an incentive. And, needless to say, this process causes great 
uncertainty when businesses and individuals try to manage their taxes 
and budgets.
  I am not casting blame on anyone for this flawed methodology. Indeed, 
both parties share responsibility for how the tax extenders process has 
devolved over the years. I think the American people deserve better.
  I share the view of many on both sides of the aisle--including both 
chairmen of the tax-writing committees--that comprehensive tax reform 
will be necessary to ensure long-term growth and prosperity in our 
economy. When it comes to tax policy, that type of reform should be our 
ultimate goal. Hopefully, if we can reform our Nation's Tax Code, this 
process of extending certain provisions over and over will come to an 
end. However, I am not naive.
  Fundamental tax reform is unlikely to take place in the immediate 
future. That being the case, Congress needs to work to address the tax 
relief provisions that expired last year or will expire by the end of 
this year, and we need to do so in a timely fashion.
  The EXPIRE Act should serve as a starting point for temporarily 
resolving the expired and expiring tax provisions. The Senate Finance 
Committee voted to report the EXPIRE Act on April 3, 2014. It passed 
through the committee by a voice vote. Not every member supported the 
final bill, but the committee process was, from the outset, 
constructive and inclusive and allowed for the full participation of 
both Democrats and Republicans. I give the distinguished chairman a lot 
of credit for that.
  I have to commend Chairman Wyden, who conducted a fair and open 
debate on tax extenders during the Finance Committee markup. His 
approach was a prime example of how the Finance Committee is supposed 
to operate and, in my view, it should serve as a model for all of the 
Senate committees in how they should consider legislation in their 
various jurisdictions.
  The process reminds me of a historical analogy with respect to the 
chairman's home State of Oregon. Everyone knows about the Oregon Trail. 
Thousands of pioneers started in Independence, MO, and traveled to 
Independence, OR. They used covered wagons. In fact, the covered wagon 
is part of Oregon's State seal. The pioneers followed the ruts that 
previous wagons had cut.
  Like those pioneers, the chairman has taken this tax extenders wagon, 
following the bipartisan, inclusive ruts of the legislative trails 
charted by previous chairmen of the Finance Committee. I hope we can 
stay on this trail now that the bill is on the floor.
  In the end, of the 55 or so tax extenders considered by the Finance 
Committee, only two were not extended. Personally, I would have 
preferred seeing a smaller number of extended provisions, continuing 
the process we started in 2012 of reducing the number of tax extenders.
  But, in the end, the final product represented the consensus views of 
the committee, and I have been very pleased to work with Chairman Wyden 
in the process.
  As I said during the markup on the EXPIRE Act, as the committee has 
considered these extenders package, Chairman Wyden and I have worn two 
hats. We have represented the interests of our respective States and we 
have also been brokers of the diverse interests of all of the members 
of the committee. That has meant compromise. Compromise has meant some 
outcomes that were likely not optimal from at least one of our 
perspectives.
  With the bill coming to the floor, we are wearing a third hat, 
respecting the interests of our respective caucuses. Needless to say, 
this can be difficult, but it is what we have to do. When we dive into 
the list of these expiring tax provisions, we can easily see that this 
package touches upon many facets of our economy from housing to energy 
and from startups to larger corporations that are important to so many 
industries and important in each and every State.
  I am glad to see the research and development tax credit, which is so 
important to businesses in my home State of Utah, included in the bill 
reported out of the Finance Committee. I know there are other 
provisions included in this package that are important to other States. 
My hope is that the floor debate on this extenders package will 
resemble the debate we had in the Finance Committee. That means a fair 
and transparent process and an opportunity for Senators to offer 
amendments.
  The Senate is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the 
world. Sadly, it is difficult to call it that these days unless one is 
being sarcastic. I have been pretty sarcastic about it. A number of my 
colleagues, led of course by our distinguished minority leader, have 
come to the floor in recent months to talk about the degradation of 
Senate rules and procedure that has taken place under the current 
majority. They have done so with good reason.
  On bill after bill the process is the same. The majority leader 
brings a bill to the floor, immediately files cloture, even though 
there is no desire to filibuster on our side, accuses the Republicans 
of filibustering, fills the amendment tree, and blocks consideration of 
any and all amendments.
  There is a time to fill the procedural tree, but that is only after 
full and fair debate and when it has carried on too long and the leader 
finally decides we have to bring this to a close. But all too often, 
every time we turn around, the leader has brought the bill to the 
floor, filed cloture, as though we are filibustering when we are not, 
and then fills the parliamentary tree so we cannot have amendments.
  Of course, those steps are usually preceded by a short-circuited 
committee process, wherein committee consideration of the bill is 
either significantly abbreviated or passed entirely. This is not how 
the Senate is supposed to operate. With this bill we have a chance to 
do things differently.
  As I have mentioned, the EXPIRE Act has already had full and fair 
consideration in the Finance Committee. The bill was drafted in 
consultation with all of the members of the committee. I was one who 
helped make sure that happened. When we held a markup, all Senators 
were allowed to offer amendments and receive votes on those amendments. 
Why not continue that process, as we have in the past, on the almighty 
floor of the Senate.
  It is ridiculous the way the minority is being treated, and I think 
even the majority Senators are being mistreated with the way this 
outfit is being run right now. While I am satisfied with the way the 
Finance Committee handled the tax extenders package, the

[[Page 7881]]

vast majority of Senators do not serve on the Finance Committee. That 
being the case, most Senators have not had a chance to fully debate 
these tax provisions or even offer amendments of their own, which they 
ought to have the right to do.
  They deserve that opportunity. I expect a number of my colleagues, 
particularly on the Republican side, have amendments that would improve 
this bill by helping to grow our economy and to create jobs. I have a 
number of amendments I would like to offer myself. Over the next few 
days I will be on the floor to talk about some of them. Let's have a 
floor debate that is worthy of the Senate. This is not some itty-bitty 
bill. This is a very important bill. It can set the trend for tax 
reform that should come in the future.
  Let's allow Members of both parties to offer amendments and have 
votes on those amendments. Let's show the American people that Senators 
know how to work together to solve problems for American businesses and 
for our citizens. Too often the Senate devolves into yet another 
partisan sideshow where politics are placed above progress.
  As I said, it does not have to be this way. Once again, I am pleased 
I have had this opportunity to work with my colleague Chairman Wyden to 
move the EXPIRE Act forward. He has done a very good job. He deserves a 
lot of credit for it. He does not deserve having that work stymied 
because people do not have a chance to offer amendments on the floor of 
the Senate.
  My only hope is, now that the bill is on the floor, the Senate 
Democratic leadership will follow his example and allow for a full and 
fair debate of this legislation. To be honest with you, I do not know 
what they are afraid of. Yes, there may be some amendments that are 
tough to vote on, but that is part of the process. It is part of what 
makes the Senate, when it functions right, the great body it can be.
  I understand the majority leader wanting to preserve his side in the 
upcoming election. I think our minority leader wants to preserve his 
side and maybe add to it in the upcoming election. I understand these 
are important considerations, but the rights of Senators on both sides 
are to be considered here and ought to be given not just consideration 
but given the respect the Senate should give to each and every Member 
of the Senate.
  I have to say I am very disappointed in what is going on around here. 
I am not the only one. Virtually everybody is. I know some are 
disappointed on the Democratic side as well.
  One of the problems is that a high percentage of the Democratic side, 
they have never been in the minority. They do not know what it is like 
to have to fight for everything you can possibly get, but they are 
going to be there someday, whether it is this election or some election 
in the future. They are going to realize, for the first time, that you 
do not break the rules to amend the rules. Those rules are important.
  Frankly, they are going to realize this should continue to be the 
greatest deliberative body in the world. Unfortunately, right now it is 
not. It is not because of the leadership we have in this body. We have 
to make those changes. This is a bill to start on because this is a 
bill that I think everybody is interested in. It is a very important 
bill. It is a bill that has been labored on in the Finance Committee 
for quite a long time.
  It has taken years to get to this point. Certainly at markup it made 
a lot of sense. Do I support everything in this bill? No. There are 
some things I do not think should be in there. On the other hand, there 
were some sincere colleagues who felt they should be in there. They 
were able to prevail. I respect that. We ought to respect both sides. 
Unfortunately, I think our side is being disrespected the way the 
Senate is being handled today. It is time to stop it. This is a bill to 
stop it on. This is the type of bill that both sides have to take great 
interest in. This is a bill where we can set the tone for tax reform in 
the future.
  I think it is time to wake up around here and start letting the 
Senate operate as the Senate should operate, as the greatest 
deliberative body in the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Women's Economics

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to thank my 
colleague Senator Warren, who is joining me on the floor. We are here 
together to talk about a question that could not be more critical to 
family budgets and to our economy as a whole; that is, what can we do 
to break down the barriers that women still face in our workforce and 
make sure women and their families have the fair shot they deserve. 
This is a question I know Senator Warren cares very deeply about. She 
has brought an enormous amount of leadership and focus to this debate. 
I am very appreciative that she is here to speak. So I would yield to 
her first and then I will finish speaking when she gets done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Murray on the 
floor to stand up for America's women because it is time for a tough 
conversation about the economics of being a woman. I applaud her 
leadership, and I am very pleased she is bringing the women of the 
Senate to the floor today.
  Women are working hard, earning their own way, and supporting their 
families, but they are not getting the same pay, the same security or 
the same respect. Take a look at the minimum wage. Two out of every 
three minimum wage workers are women. Women make up about three-
quarters of all tipped minimum wage workers. A woman who works minimum 
wage can work full time and yet she will not earn enough to keep 
herself and a baby out of poverty. Minimum wage workers have not 
received a wage increase in 7 years. This is bad for women and it does 
not reflect America's value. CEOs got raises, managers got raises, but 
the women who cook and clean and care for our children are still stuck 
at the same $7.25 an hour they earned 7 years ago.
  We could change this. If Congress would pass a bill to raise the 
minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, more than 15 million women and their 
families would have more economic security, but Republicans have 
blocked this bill. They say they care about women, but they will not 
help the women who earn minimum wage or consider equal pay for equal 
work. I cannot believe I am saying this in 2014, but women still earn, 
on average, only 77 cents to the dollar what their male colleagues 
earn. Bloomberg analyzed the census data to find that in 99.6 percent 
of jobs, women get paid less than men. That is not an accident. That is 
discrimination.
  Today, if a woman wonders if she is being paid the same as the guys 
are getting, she can, in some jobs, get fired just for asking. This is 
bad for women and it does not reflect America's values. We could change 
this by passing Senator Barb Mikulski's Paycheck Fairness Act, a law 
that would make sure women do not get fired just for asking what the 
guy down the hall is getting paid, but Republicans have blocked this 
bill. They say they care about women but will not help the women who do 
the same work as a man but get paid less.
  Consider health care. Before the Affordable Care Act was passed in 
2009, some insurance companies charged women higher premiums simply 
because they were women. Some insurance policies refused to cover 
preventive services for women such as mammograms and cervical cancer 
screenings. Pregnancy costs could be excluded and birth control 
coverage could be left out. In other words, affordable women's health 
care took a backseat to the profits of insurance companies.
  But now we have the Affordable Care Act; women pay the same insurance 
rates as men. We have the Affordable Care Act; women get free coverage 
for mammograms and birth control. We have the Affordable Care Act; 
women

[[Page 7882]]

can worry a little less about whether health problems will land them in 
bankruptcy.
  Where are the Republicans? They want to repeal ObamaCare. The House 
has now voted more than 50 times to repeal ObamaCare. The Senate 
Republicans have come to the floor day after day to demand that 
ObamaCare be done away with. The Republicans say they care about women, 
but they will not help women pay for health care or get the full 
medical coverage they need at a price they can afford.
  Women are working hard earning their own way and supporting their 
families. They are entitled to the same pay, the same security, and the 
same respect as men. Policies such as these--minimum wage, equal pay, 
and the Affordable Care Act--provide a measure of equality, better 
security, and some basic respect. Republicans want to block or repeal 
all three. Women are not asking for special deals. They just want a 
fair shot at building lives for themselves and their families.
  The women of the Senate, the Democratic women of the Senate, are 
ready to fight the Republicans to make sure women across this country 
have their fair shot.
  I thank Senator Murray for her leadership in fighting for real 
economic equality for women.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts again for all of 
her extremely hard and important work to expand economic opportunity 
and security for women and their families.
  She has been an extremely important voice in this debate, and I am 
delighted she is joining us today.
  Yesterday I held a hearing on this topic in the Senate Budget 
Committee. We invited a working mother, whose name was AnnMarie Duchon, 
to testify about some of the challenges that she had faced. AnnMarie 
told us that she loves her job at the University of Massachusetts-
Amherst, but since the day that she started, she made a lower salary 
than her male counterpart who was doing the exact same job. They had 
the exact same responsibilities. Both of them had taken a pay cut to 
accept that job, and they both graduated from the same university in 
the same year.
  When AnnMarie found out that he was making more than she was--even 
though they had the exact same resume, qualifications, and years of 
graduation--she went in and asked for a raise. She was told that she 
couldn't have one.
  She stayed on that job and continued to work hard. It wasn't until 
her husband's job was at risk that she started thinking about how much 
those lost wages meant to her and her family.
  She ran the numbers, and she found out that over the years she had 
missed out on more than $12,000 in wages compared to her male 
counterpart who was doing the exact same work.
  AnnMarie and her husband are first generation college graduates. They 
have a 5-year-old daughter who is in full-time daycare because both 
AnnMarie and her husband have to work.
  AnnMarie told us yesterday that when she realized her lost income 
amounted to 1 year's worth of child care or 10 months of payments on 
their mortgage or student loans, she said that was heartbreaking. 
AnnMarie was ultimately able to go back and convince her employers--by 
showing them the math--to give her equal pay.
  But as we know, unfortunately, most women are not able to do that and 
many don't even know that they are earning an unfair wage. That is a 
real loss, both for our families and for our economy as a whole.
  We heard what $12,000 could have meant for AnnMarie's household 
budget, but women's contributions in the workforce have also made a 
huge difference to our overall economic strength.
  As working families have felt more and more strained by the rising 
costs for everything from college tuition to childcare and health care, 
and an economy in which the gap between those at the top and everyone 
else seems to be getting wider and wider, women's economic 
contributions have helped ease the burden.
  Economist Heather Boushey, who also testified yesterday at our 
hearing, found in a recent study that between 1979 and 2012 the U.S. 
economy grew by almost 11 percent as a result of women joining our 
labor force. As we think today about ways to support growth in the 21st 
century, it is absolutely clear our country's economic success and that 
of our middle-class families go hand-in-hand with women's economic 
success.
  So we have a lot more work to do because despite all the progress we 
have made and all the glass ceilings that have been broken, women still 
face barriers that are holding them, their families, and our economy 
back.
  Stories such as AnnMarie's--stories of women who received lower wages 
for the same exact work as men--are still far too common. Because women 
are more likely to be the primary caregiver in a family, the lack of 
paid leave at most jobs means women today experience higher turnover, 
lost earnings, and are more likely to be passed over for promotions 
that would help them advance.
  In addition, our outdated Tax Code works against married women who 
choose to go back to work as a second earner because their earnings are 
counted on top of their spouse's. They can actually be taxed at a 
higher rate, and that deters some mothers from choosing to re-enter the 
workforce, especially when you consider the high cost and lack of 
access to high-quality childcare.
  Those kinds of challenges are especially pronounced for women and, in 
particular, mothers, who are struggling today to make ends meet. We 
know that two-thirds of minimum wage earners are women. Their jobs are 
disproportionately unlikely to offer any flexibility when, for example, 
a child gets sick or needs to be picked up early from school. And their 
earnings are quickly swallowed by costs associated with work, such as 
childcare or transportation.
  It is also important to note that our outdated policies 
disproportionately affect women when it comes to their retirement 
security because, on average, women earn less than men, accumulate less 
in savings, and receive smaller pensions. Today nearly 3 in 10 women 
over 65 depend on Social Security for their only income in their later 
years.
  All of my colleagues and I should be alarmed that the average Social 
Security benefit for women over 65 is just $13,100 per year. Imagine 
living on that. That is not enough to feel financially secure.
  The impact of these barriers is increasingly clear. Over the last 
decade the share of women in the labor force has actually stalled, even 
as other countries have continued to see more women choosing to go to 
work. Experts believe that a major reason for that is that, unlike in 
many other countries, in the United States we have not updated our 
policies to reflect our 21st century workforce and help today's two-
earner families succeed.
  At a time when we need to be doing everything we can to grow our 
economy and strengthen our middle class, that is not acceptable. Women 
have to have an equal shot at success. First and foremost, that means 
we need to end unfair practices that set women back financially.
  We took a very good step forward with the Affordable Care Act, which 
prevents insurance companies today from charging women more than men 
for coverage--which they did before that Act. But we need to do more to 
make sure women are getting equal pay for equal work.
  My good friend and colleague Chairman Mikulski has led the way on the 
Paycheck Fairness Act, which would provide women with more tools to 
fight paycheck discrimination. Giving the millions of women earning the 
minimum wage a raise--as Senator Warren just talked about--would also 
go a long way toward that effort. Of course, we have to update our Tax 
Code so that mothers who are returning to the workforce do not face a 
marriage penalty.

[[Page 7883]]

  In addition to expanding the earned income tax credit for childless 
workers, the 21th Century Worker Tax Cut Act that I introduced would 
provide a 20-percent deduction on the second earner's income for 
working families with young children to help them keep more of what 
they earned.
  As we get rid of these discriminatory practices, we should also 
recognize the challenges that working parents face, and we should put 
in place a set of policies that help them at work and at home. A big 
part of that is investing in expanded access to affordable, high-
quality childcare. When parents go to work, they deserve to know that 
their child is safe and thriving while they are at work. There are many 
steps that this Congress could and should take through our Tax Code and 
by building on successful programs, such as Head Start, to help give 
working parents the peace of mind they deserve.
  Finally, we need to build on and strengthen Social Security with 
policies that make it easier for women and their families to build a 
secure retirement. There is, of course, a lot more that we can do in 
addition, but I believe any one of those changes would have a real 
impact.
  As the Presiding Officer knows from our Budget Committee hearing 
yesterday, AnnMarie testified and told us that she hopes when her 
daughter enters the workforce, pay inequity will be just as much of a 
relic as the days before the iPhone.
  I could not agree more.
  Acting to expand economic opportunity for women is the right thing to 
do. It is part of our ongoing work to uphold our country's most 
fundamental values. But as our country's recent history shows, it is 
also an economic necessity--both for our families and for our broader 
economy.
  That is why it is so disappointing to see that when it comes to 
issues affecting women. Some of our Republican colleagues are laser-
focused on turning back the clock. We saw this just yesterday when the 
senior Senator from South Carolina came to the floor and tried to pass 
an extreme bill that would severely limit women's reproductive rights.
  Women today would much rather see Congress focusing on expanding 
opportunity and helping working families than on getting in between a 
woman and her doctor.
  Over the next few months, we are going to see Democrats continuing to 
fight for goals such as achieving pay equity, providing access to 
affordable childcare, and raising the minimum wage--all of which would 
move women, families, and our economy forward not backward.
  I hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be 
willing to join us in this very important effort.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Alexander and I be 
permitted to engage in a colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Production Tax Credit

  Mr. FLAKE. We come to the floor today to call attention to the tax 
extender bill currently being debated before the Senate. Included in 
this legislation is a provision extending the wind production tax 
credit, known as the PTC, for 2 additional years. This would be the 
ninth extension of a supposedly temporary tax credit.
  The PTC was first enacted in 1992 to jump-start the nascent wind 
industry. It was meant to expire in 1999, 15 years ago. But this one-
time stimulus has turned into a never-ending tax subsidy that has been 
extended eight times, and the prospect for a ninth extension seems 
likely.
  The PTC spends precious tax dollars subsidizing a very mature 
industry and distorting our energy markets.
  My friend from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, and I have been vocal 
opponents of this Federal subsidy for years. Unfortunately, this credit 
has survived under the canard that wind power is an infant industry in 
need of Federal support.
  With the PTC's expiration on January 1 of this year, wind producers 
are once again igniting the rallying cry to continue their taxpayer-
funded handout.
  I ask my friend from Tennessee, for those taxpayers who may not be 
familiar with this use of their hard-earned dollars, what is the PTC 
and why is it so valuable?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his leadership 
over the years and for pointing out the flaws in this proposal. It 
wastes money, it undercuts reliable electricity--like coal and nuclear 
electricity--and, in my view, it destroys rather than saving the 
environment.
  But let's say exactly what we are talking about. This was a tax 
credit that was first passed in 1992, as the Senator from Arizona said, 
to help an infant industry. It has been renewed eight times. If you are 
a wind developer, it pays you 2.3 cents for every kilowatt hour of wind 
that you produce--which in some markets is about the cost of the 
wholesale value of each kilowatt hour of electricity.
  In fact, the subsidy is so great, sometimes in some markets, wind 
producers can actually give away their electricity and still make a 
profit. At other times--in the middle of the night in Chicago--they can 
actually pay utilities to take their wind power and still make a 
profit. That is what the wind production tax credit is.
  As the Senator says, this is a mature industry. I support jump-
starting certain types of energy for a limited period of time.
  But Steven Chu, President Obama's Nobel Prize-winning U.S. Energy 
Secretary, in 2011 in response to my question--Is it a mature 
technology?--said: Yes, it is a mature technology.
  I would ask the Senator from Arizona, what is the justification for 
spending over the next 2 years $13 billion of taxpayer money? It is the 
most wasteful, conspicuous, taxpayer subsidy that I know of in 
Washington, DC. It proves Ronald Reagan's statement that the only thing 
in life that is eternal is a government program.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Senator. I don't think there is justification.
  The justification that often is given is that we have to give some 
kind of surety moving ahead, and people won't invest in this industry 
if they don't know that the subsidy is there.
  Again, this has been around since 1992. It was meant to expire in 
1999. But it has been extended eight times. If anything is unsure, we 
are creating that unsurety--or insecurity--when Congress simply goes 
again and again and renews it.
  The Senator from Tennessee had a great column in the Wall Street 
Journal talking about part of the problem we have when we subsidize 
this kind of industry and what that does to baseload power--nuclear and 
coal--in the interim. Does the Senator wish to talk about that?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes, and I thank the Senator from Arizona.
  The United States uses almost 20 percent of all the electricity in 
the world, and we need electricity that we can rely on. We don't want 
to flip the switch and have the lights not come on. We don't want to go 
to work and have the generators not working. So we use a lot of 
electricity, and that comes from baseload power. That is typically, in 
our country, coal, nuclear, and now natural gas.
  Wind is intermittent. It usually blows at night. Usually it blows 
only about a third of the time, and you either use it or lose it. So 
relying on wind power to run a country that uses 20 percent of all the 
electricity in the world is the energy equivalent of going to war in 
sailboats when nuclear ships are available.
  Baseload power is undercut by this intermittent wind power because of 
this subsidy. This subsidy is so large that wind developers can, in 
some cases, give away their electricity and still make a profit. And in 
some cases they pay the utilities to take their wind power, making the 
baseload

[[Page 7884]]

power that we need to rely on for the long term less economical. This 
leads to the closing of nuclear plants and coal plants.
  Mr. FLAKE. In that same column, the Senator also talked about the 
environmental impact. It is often thought that these renewables are all 
the same in terms of their impact on the environment. But the Senator 
points out where these need to be built generally, and they are not 
your typical picturesque windmill somewhere in Holland but something 
quite different.
  He also mentioned what it would take to generate the same amount of 
power that perhaps eight nuclear powerplants generate, what it would 
take in terms of these wind units. Does the Senator want to talk a bit 
about that?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Well, the Senator from Arizona is from the West and I, 
of course, am from the East. In the Eastern United States, the wind 
turbines really only work well on ridgetops. I live near ridgetops 
around the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. If we ran wind turbines 
from Georgia to Maine along the Appalachian Trail, we would only 
produce about the same amount of electricity that eight nuclear power 
plants would produce. And we would still need the nuclear power plants 
or the coal plants or natural gas plants to produce electricity when 
the wind isn't blowing. We don't want to see those 20-story towers on 
top of our ridgetops. You can see the blinking lights from 20 miles 
away. I think they destroy the environment in the name of saving the 
environment.
  There are appropriate places for wind power, and it has an 
appropriate place in the market. I would ask the Senator from Arizona, 
isn't it time for wind to stand on its own in our marketplace and 
compete with other forms of electricity?
  Mr. FLAKE. Yes. And I want to point out as well that neither of us is 
saying there is no place for wind energy.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Correct.
  Mr. FLAKE. It is an increasing part of our energy load. In fact, the 
most new capacity actually went to wind as a percentage of the current 
output. There is an important place for it. It can and is being done in 
environmentally sensitive ways around the country. But it is time for 
the Federal subsidy to end.
  The problem is, when we distort the market the way we do--when at 
times you can actually pay a utility to take your power because that is 
the only time the wind is blowing, at night, and still make a profit 
from the Federal subsidy--there is a distortion in the markets we just 
shouldn't have, and we ought to let capital flow where it is most 
needed.
  So neither of us is saying there is no place for wind energy, but 
there is no place now or no reason to continue for the ninth time an 
extension of this Federal subsidy for wind.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I would say to the Senator from Arizona, just to be 
specific about this--negative pricing, as we call it--the opportunity 
for a wind developer at, say, 3 o'clock in the morning in Chicago to 
literally pay the utility to take the wind power, thereby causing the 
nuclear plant or the coal plant to be less useful, is contributing--it 
is not the whole reason, but it is contributing to the closing of 
nuclear plants.
  The Center for Strategic and International Studies said that because 
of the low price of natural gas and this subsidy for wind, we might 
lose as many as 25 percent of our nuclear plants in the next 10 years. 
Nuclear power produces 60 percent of the carbon-free, sulfur-free, 
nitrogen-free electricity--air pollution-free electricity. A number of 
environmental groups have begun to point out their concern for what 
would happen to our air, if we lost this important source of clean 
generation of electricity.
  This is just one more reason we should let wind take its natural 
place in the marketplace. Wind is now 4 percent of all the electricity 
that we produce. It was, as the Senator said, the fastest growing form 
of generation, so let it compete. Let it go where it should go. 
Offshore is another place it could go. But it is time to end the 
subsidy and let wind stand on its own.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Senator.
  Senator Alexander and I are introducing an amendment to the tax 
extenders bill currently on the floor. This amendment would simply 
strike that extension, do away with it completely.
  We also have another amendment as to when producers of wind energy 
claim the subsidy right now, they can claim it now but not have the 
clock start until they start producing. So if they do not start 
producing for another 10 years, the end point of that subsidy is a full 
20 years from now and taxpayers are on the hook much longer than was 
anticipated. So this would simply say that the point at which the 
subsidy begins has to be immediately so we won't go too far in the 
future.
  Those amendments will be introduced tomorrow, and we hope to be able 
to debate those on the floor with this bill.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator for his leadership. And when we 
talk about a 1-year or 2-year extension, it is important to note that 
we are talking about the next 10 years. Let's say I qualify for the 
production tax credit--I am a wind developer this year, which means I 
get that credit for the next 10 years. That is why the 2-year extension 
of the wind production tax credit really spends tax dollars over the 
next 11 years when you count both those years. It totals $13 billion. 
We throw dollars around so much here, it is hard to get a sense of how 
much $13 billion is. In 2012 we spent $10 billion government-wide on 
all of energy research. It would be much better to use these dollars to 
reduce the debt or to use some of it for clean energy research. We need 
low-cost, clean, cheap energy. In my view, energy research is a much 
better use of taxpayer dollars, when they are available, than long-term 
subsidies. After nearly twenty-two years and eight renewals, the wind 
PTC has been around for far too long.
  Ronald Reagan was right. I hope to prove him wrong on this one--that 
the wind PTC finally comes to an end.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Senator.
  I have just one other point. The second amendment, as I mentioned--
and the Senator mentioned that this 2-year extension leads to another 
10 years in subsidies. Depending on when they actually start 
production, it could be another 20 years. So it really distorts our 
budget process, our appropriations and authorizations and everything 
else, for a longer period of time than it should.
  I thank the Senator for his work and look forward to hopefully seeing 
these amendments debated.
  I yield the floor, unless the Senator has any closing remarks.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. No, I do not. I guess, in summary, after nearly 22 
years, it is time for wind production to step out on its own in the 
marketplace. Let's save $13 billion, and let's stop distorting the 
marketplace and undercutting nuclear plants as well as coal plants, and 
let's stop destroying the environment in the name of saving the 
environment.
  I thank the Senator from Arizona for his leadership.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record following our colloquy an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal of 
May 7, 2014, entitled ``Wind-Power Tax Credits Need To Be Blown Away.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Wall Street Journal, May 7, 2014]

              Wind-Power Tax Credits Need To Be Blown Away

                          (By Lamar Alexander)

       The U.S. Senate is poised to resurrect Washington's most 
     conspicuous, wasteful taxpayer subsidy--the wind-production 
     tax credit.
       This giveaway expired in December. Yet on April 3 the 
     Senate Finance Committee gave it new life by approving a $13 
     billion, two-year renewal within a package of 55 ``tax 
     extenders.'' Once again, Washington is proving Ronald 
     Reagan's observation that ``the nearest thing to eternal life 
     that we'll ever see on this Earth is a government program.''
       The wind-production tax credit was first enacted in 1992. 
     At the time, wind-power was considered a kind of ``infant 
     industry,'' needing help to bring its technology up to speed 
     and lead to lower costs. The tax credit has since been reborn 
     eight times, even though President Obama's Energy Secretary 
     Stephen Chu in 2011 said that wind power is a ``mature 
     technology.'' A mature technology should stand on its own in 
     the marketplace.

[[Page 7885]]

       The 2.3-cent tax credit for each kilowatt-hour of wind-
     power electricity produced is sometimes worth more than the 
     energy it subsidizes. Sometimes in some markets, for example 
     in Texas and Illinois, the subsidy is so large that wind 
     producers have paid utilities to take their electricity and 
     still make a profit.
       The wind-production tax credit should not be renewed for 
     three principal reasons:
       1. It wastes money. The proposed two-year extension would 
     cost taxpayers nearly $13 billion over the next 10 years, 
     according to the Joint Congressional Committee on Taxation. 
     In 2013, when Congress renewed the subsidy for one year, the 
     cost was nearly $12 billion over 10 years. This is more than 
     the federal government spends on energy research in one year.
       A better use of taxpayer dollars would be to reduce the 
     ballooning federal debt or to invest in research to find new 
     forms of cheap, clean, reliable electricity. For example, 
     what about a substantial cash prize from the U.S. Department 
     of Energy for creating a truly commercial use for carbon 
     captured from coal and natural-gas plants? Such a discovery 
     would be the Holy Grail of clean energy--permitting the use 
     of coal world-wide to produce an abundant supply of cheap, 
     clean, reliable electricity to reduce poverty while 
     protecting the environment.
       2. The wind subsidy undercuts reliable ``baseload'' 
     electricity such as nuclear and coal. Let's say it's 3 a.m. 
     in Chicago. The wind is blowing, which it usually does at 
     night when consumers are asleep and don't need as much 
     electricity. Because of the subsidy, wind producers can pay 
     utilities to take their power and still make a profit.
       But the electricity generated from coal and nuclear 
     plants--which are hard to turn on and off--becomes less 
     economical. As a result, utilities have an incentive to close 
     these ``baseload'' plants. Negative pricing tied to wind 
     power, along with the low price of natural gas, is causing 
     utilities to close nuclear plants. The Center for Strategic 
     and International Studies says that as many as 25% of our 
     country's 100 nuclear plants might close over the next 10 
     years.
       On April 28, environmental groups, including the Center for 
     Climate and Energy Solutions and Nuclear Matters, announced 
     they held an event in Washington at the National Press Club--
     that they were concerned about losing clean nuclear power, 
     which provides 60% of America's air-pollution-free 
     electricity. And, in a country that consumes 20% of the 
     world's electricity, relying on windmills when nuclear power 
     is available is the energy equivalent of going to war in 
     sailboats when nuclear ships are available.
       These are the consequences of government subsidies that 
     pick winners and losers in the marketplace.
       3. Wind-power subsidies destroy the environment in the name 
     of saving the environment. The wind turbines that generate 
     power in this country do not resemble the charming, 
     picturesque windmills that dot the Dutch landscape. Instead, 
     they are 20 stories high. Their blinking lights can be seen 
     for miles. Their noise disturbs neighbors. Their transmission 
     lines scar neighborhoods and open spaces.
       In the Eastern U.S., onshore wind turbines work best on 
     ridge tops. You would have to stretch these giant windmills 
     the length of the Appalachian Trail, from Georgia to Maine, 
     to equal the power produced by eight nuclear-power plants. 
     And since wind turbines produce power only when the wind 
     blows (about one-third of the time), even if you built that 
     many windmills, you'd still have to build nuclear or other 
     power plants to produce reliable electricity for computers, 
     jobs and homes.
       After nearly 22 years, eight resurrections and billions of 
     taxpayer subsidies, it's time to let the marketplace rule and 
     allow wind power to rise or fall on its own. Save our money, 
     save our nuclear plants and save our mountaintops.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, the so-called tax extenders bill is 
the subject of discussion--55 provisions in the Tax Code to be extended 
that have expired or are expiring. The wind production tax credit is 
one of those. I hope the majority leader will do what the Senate should 
do, which is to allow those of us who have amendments--like the Senator 
from Arizona and I, who have offered two amendments related to the wind 
production tax credit--to have our say on behalf of the people of 
Tennessee and Arizona and the American people and to not impose the gag 
rule on the American people, which has become the practice here in the 
Senate.
  The only reason we are really here is to have a say and to have a 
vote on behalf of the people who have elected us. If an important bill, 
such as the tax extenders bill, comes forward and we have a $13 billion 
expenditure that Americans feel strongly about, we ought to have a 
vote. We ought to have a say.
  So I hope very much, as we move forward, the majority leader will 
bring us back to the time when the Senate offered a chance to have a 
vote, to have a say on behalf of the people of the United States. We 
might not win our vote, we might lose our vote, but we will have had 
our say.
  This is the body in the American constitutional framework that has 
been described in the most recent history of the Senate as the one 
authentic bit of genius in the American system of government. That is 
because we have to have consensus before we move ahead, and you only 
govern a complex country such as this by consensus. That is what 60 
votes is about. That is what debate is about. We have gotten far away 
from that--far away from that.
  So this would be a good time to drop this notion of the gag rule on 
the American people, this business of cutting off amendments, cutting 
off debates, and say: We welcome amendments. We welcome debate. We will 
vote them up, we will vote them down, pass them in a responsible way, 
and we will go on to the next one.
  So it is my hope that Senator Flake's amendments, which I am proud to 
cosponsor--both of them--will be one of several amendments on the tax 
extenders bill to be allowed a vote when that bill comes up.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                             Russia-Ukraine

  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, a number of people have asked me to 
comment about the situation since President Putin has moved 
aggressively with regard to Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, which has 
therefore brought about some retaliation of sanctions by the United 
States against Russia.
  We are now hearing comments--a number of troubling statements--coming 
out of Russia by the Deputy Prime Minister, who has the responsibility 
for defense and aerospace, regarding the U.S. development of rockets 
that can again take Americans, on American rockets, to and from the 
International Space Station. He has made a sarcastic comment, something 
to the effect of, well, how do the Americans think they are going to 
get to the space station--on a trampoline? And then most recently a 
statement having been issued in his name that the Russian rocket 
company will not sell the very efficient and very energetic Russian 
rocket engine, the RD-180, to the United States for military purposes.
  This is a very complex issue. It affects not only our military access 
to space, it affects our civilian access to space. I will see if I can 
dissect this in about 4 minutes, as a number of people have asked me 
about this. This will be an issue, for example, next week in the markup 
in the Senate Armed Services Committee of the Armed Services Defense 
authorization bill.
  First, let's go back and see the history. How do we have this 
relationship with Russia and what is it?
  In the midst of the Cold War, when there were the two super powers, 
the Soviet Union and the United States decided to cooperate in space in 
the civilian program. In the midst of the Cold War, a Russian Soyuz and 
an American Apollo spacecraft--Apollo-Soyuz as it is known--
rendezvoused and docked, and the crews lived together in space for 9 
days in 1975.
  By the way, those two crews led by General Alexsei Leonov of the 
Soviet Union and Gen. Tom Stafford, U.S. Air Force, NASA astronaut, 
Apollo 10 that went to the Moon--they are close personal friends and 
have seen each other over the course of the years many times.
  In 1985 I had the privilege as a young Congressman to take a 
delegation to the Soviet Union on the occasion of the 10th anniversary 
of Apollo-Soyuz, with our Apollo astronauts joining in Moscow with the 
Soviet cosmonauts. So there is a long history.
  But now fast forward to, I believe, the year 1991 and the complete 
destruction of the old Soviet Union. All the satellite states went 
elsewhere. By the way, this was in August and September of 1991, 
interestingly, after a delegation of American astronauts and Soviet 
cosmonauts in April of 1991 all joined together out at Star City where 
they

[[Page 7886]]

train their cosmonauts, and then we all went in a Soviet military plane 
out to Kazakhstan to the launch site on the occasion of the 30th 
anniversary of the launch of the first human into space--a Russian, 
Yuri Gargarin. A few months later, the Soviet Union disintegrated.
  So the United States had a choice to make: All of those very bright, 
very effective Russian scientists in their defense program and in their 
space program--and often their civilian space program was directly 
linked to their Soviet military program--where were all those 
scientists going to go? We didn't want them to go to Iran, North Korea, 
and China.
  So I believe Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat, and Senator Dick Lugar, a 
Republican, led the effort to put together the Nunn-Lugar bill, which 
started sending American assistance to try to stop the scientists from 
fleeing into other hands and especially to corral all of the nuclear 
weapons the Soviet Union had, and that was done very effectively.
  Then when Russia opened its former Soviet closed doors, we found out 
Russian scientists and engineers had manufactured this exceptionally 
efficient and powerful engine, kerosene and LOx--liquid oxygen--called 
the RD-180. As a result, we worked out a deal between American 
aerospace companies and the Russian company Energomash, where instead 
of these engines going all across the world, we were going to use them 
together. So the United States through its rocket manufacturers--I 
believe Pratt & Whitney--got the license to this and the plans to the 
engine, but they also had an agreement that they would buy these from 
the Russian rocket manufacturer.
  Today that engine is a staple and necessary engine in our stable of 
horses to get into space, both military and civilian, because it is the 
main engines on what we use today, the Atlas V rocket. This is a proven 
rocket. It has had an unblemished record, and that unblemished record 
has been something close to, if not over, 100 straight flights without 
a flaw. It is being planned in the future by Boeing to put a Boeing 
spacecraft on top of that rocket for humans to go to and from the space 
station. Another company called Sierra Nevada has created a smaller 
winged spacecraft also for humans--not unlike the space shuttle but 
much smaller--that will go on top of the Atlas V. They, along with a 
third competitor, SpaceX, which has built its own rocket called the 
Falcon 9, with its spacecraft the Dragon capsule--those three will 
compete to see if one or all three will deliver humans--American and 
Russian--to the International Space Station in the future instead of us 
having to rely, after we shut down the space shuttle, on the only 
manned, human-tested rocket to get us to and from the space station 
now, which is the Soyuz, the Russian rocket that launches from 
Baikonur, Kazakhstan.
  If this isn't confusing enough, the Deputy Prime Minister--provoked 
because the United States has responded to President Putin's 
aggression--says he is going to stop selling the Energomash rocket to 
the United States for military purposes.
  The question is, Is he going to continue to sell that rocket engine 
for civilian purposes--which I just outlined in this competition that 
is coming up--and if this is accurate and it holds, what to do for the 
United States?
  We have several options.
  First of all, we have a 2-year supply of these engines on the shelf. 
If in 2 years we think the Russians are not going to continue to sell 
this--and, by the way, this is a real jobmaker for Russians and a 
moneymaker for them. The aerospace industry in Russia wants to continue 
to sell this engine, but if the politics get in the way and they cut it 
off, then what is the United States to do? We have to figure that out. 
Right now there is a study going on in the Department of Defense as to 
how we would handle it. We have a 2-year supply. One of the options 
they will look at is stretching that out over time, putting some of 
those payloads on other rockets. Some of those payloads can go on the 
very successful Falcon 9, but there are heavier payloads that cannot go 
on the Falcon 9 that could go on the Atlas V. But if the Atlas V is not 
flying, they will have to go on a more expensive and heavier lift, 
Delta IV Heavy. So we see how complicated this gets.
  Then the question is, If they are not going to sell these engines for 
military purposes, can we bank on it that they would sell these engines 
for NASA civilian purposes? That is a big question mark.
  So one of the issues in this DOD study is going to be can we 
manufacture since we have the plans. We don't know the answer at this 
point. It is an extremely complicated metallurgy process which they 
have perfected in all of those years in the old Soviet Union. We would 
have to start flat-footed, even though we have the plans, and figure 
out how to do all the design equipment, all the processing equipment, 
and then try to get the engines ready--and at some point what would a 
follow-on engine look like?
  That is about the best I can summarize the situation, and we are 
going to have some major decisions to make, depending on what we see in 
the DOD study.
  First of all, we are going to have to know how we have assured access 
to space for defense purposes for the national security of this 
country.
  Secondly, we are going to have to have assured access to space for 
the civilian program so this incredible International Space Station 
that we have built with 15 nations, including the Russians, who have 
been a major part--how we are going to keep that operating and get 
Americans to and from it because the Russians cannot operate the space 
station by themselves.
  In the first place, a lot of the Russian commands to their own 
modules actually are commands that go through the Johnson Space Center 
in Texas. Secondly, the Russians depend on all the electricity that is 
generated on the International Space Station from the American 
electrical systems. So we are going to have to continue to operate it 
together. The Deputy Prime Minister implied that; that he would 
continue to do that through year 2020, but the space station is going 
to have a life--and should have--well into the decade of the 2030s.
  These are the questions we are going to have to answer and they are 
going to have to be answered in the near future. In part, some of them 
are going to have to be answered next week as we start to mark up the 
Defense authorization bill.
  I wanted to give the Senate, and all of those in the press who have 
been asking me, the best of what I could conclude at this point and 
then we will see what develops. There was the new development, as I 
mentioned yesterday, where the Deputy Prime Minister said they will not 
sell the RD-180 to America for military purposes. If that holds, then 
we have to swing into action pretty quickly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                               EXPIRE Act

  Mr. CASEY. Thank you, Madam President. I rise to talk about the 
legislation we are considering, the so-called EXPIRE Act, and we want 
to make sure that as we are focusing on the policy--and I will get to 
that in a moment--we highlight for emphasis that this was a measure 
that came out of the Senate Finance Committee in a bipartisan fashion. 
In fact, it was unanimous coming out of the committee.
  We had a good discussion and debate about various tax provisions that 
we wanted to extend for 2 more years, and because of that there was a 
great interest in the subject matter. Rarely have we seen the kind of 
bipartisan support that we have seen in the committee for these tax 
provisions, and I think that bipartisanship will continue as we move 
forward with the legislation on the floor.
  The bill came out of our committee recently and it does enjoy 
bipartisan support. I wish to concentrate on the small business 
provision. As you know, if you went down the list of these extensions 
of tax provisions generically known as tax extenders, you could cover a 
huge array of subjects by virtue of the whole bill. I am going to

[[Page 7887]]

focus for a couple minutes on the small business provisions.
  We often hear from small business owners--and I hear it all the time 
in Pennsylvania and I am sure others hear it in their home States as 
well--about the lack of certainty. Frequently, business owners say they 
don't have certainty about where their business will go next because of 
what Washington has not been getting done. One of the reasons it is so 
important to get this bill passed in a bipartisan fashion--that alone 
is a measure of certainty for folks seeing so much partisanship here, 
but also giving a timeframe of 2 years helps alleviate uncertainty as 
well.
  It is an especially urgent issue when it comes to small business 
owners. They don't often have the capacity to go out and hire a lot of 
experts to help them with compliance, to help them understand or deal 
with on a regular basis tax provisions or substantial changes in health 
care and public policy. So having a measure of certainty is a 
significant issue in the life of a small business owner.
  All too often we minimize the impact of tax incentives by failing to 
renew critical provisions in a timely manner. Business owners need that 
basic certainty, which is why the work we have done on small business 
issues is particularly significant. I am proud of the work Senator 
Collins of Maine and I have done to introduce legislation which would 
allow small businesses to plan for capital investment that is so vital 
to job creation. This commonsense proposal would introduce certainty to 
businesses, especially small businesses, increase economic activity and 
the pace of job creation. A number of the provisions in the bill that I 
have worked on with Senator Collins are in the EXPIRE Act, the 
legislation we are dealing with on the floor.
  I believe we have to create a favorable environment in order for 
businesses to make investments that create jobs and grow the economy. 
Small businesses are vital to our economy. That said, I am not sure we 
often fully understand how significant an impact small business has on 
the country, when we consider that small firms comprise more than 98 
percent of all employers. Nearly half of the Pennsylvania workforce is 
on their payroll, to get a sense of the dimensions, reach and scope of 
small businesses in a State such as Pennsylvania, but of course that is 
true across the Nation.
  Small firms nationally employ just over half of the private sector 
workforce, according to the Small Business Administration. Small 
businesses also have led the charge to put America back to work. 
According to the SBA, small businesses have created 64 percent of the 
net new jobs over the past 15 years. Again, we sometimes don't fully 
appreciate the impact of small business. The most recent monthly 
employment report by the payroll processor ADP showed that small- and 
medium-sized firms accounted for more than 80 percent of the job growth 
in January of this year. So a short-term recent number of job creation, 
small business is accounting for 80 percent of that, but even when we 
look at a longer period of time, over the past 15 years, small business 
is creating 64 percent of the net new jobs. So we need to do everything 
we can in the Senate and the House to invest in strategies that will 
help small businesses so they can grow and invest.
  Unfortunately, many tax provisions affecting small businesses have 
recently been enacted on an unpredictable and temporary basis. That is 
an understatement. When we talk about certainty or uncertainty, this is 
part of what we are talking about. This uncertainty directly and 
substantially hinders economic growth and job creation. When businesses 
don't know how their investments will be taxed, they cannot make long-
term planning decisions with confidence. You don't have to be a small 
business owner to understand that it is especially difficult for a 
small business owner to hire a legion of lawyers, accountants or other 
professionals to help them. Sometimes a small business owner does 
everything. You know the old expression ``chief cook and bottle 
washer.'' They do everything. They don't have the luxury of hiring a 
compliance team for every issue, and it is especially difficult in this 
uncertain environment. So this uncertainty about tax policy 
disproportionately harms these small businesses.
  We often say these are the firms that are the backbone of the 
American economy. Yet they don't have the luxury that larger firms do 
to have a team of experts around them or a team they can retain. The 
National Federation of Independent Business says that compliance costs 
are 67 percent higher for small firms than larger ones. The Small 
Business Administration claims that tax paperwork is the most expensive 
paperwork burden on small businesses, at $74 an hour. So they are 
paying $74 an hour in terms of tax compliance paperwork, and their 
overall compliance costs are 67 percent higher than large firms.
  This legislation includes several provisions intended to immediately 
reduce the uncertainty about the Tax Code and encourage businesses to 
grow and invest and hire. These measures have bipartisan support and 
adopt proposals from both parties. One measure includes a 15-year 
straight-line depreciation schedule for restaurant leaseholds and 
retail improvements. In April last year Senator Cornyn from Texas and I 
introduced a bill that contains this provision which has bipartisan 
support. If a restaurant wanted to add a new room with 5 or 10 tables 
in a service space, that is a pretty big investment. They have to 
build, grow, and spend a lot of money to do that. There is a 
depreciation benefit provided to that business which historically has 
been over the course of 39 years. Recently we shrunk that timeframe 
down to 15 years. Instead of giving little, tiny slices of 
depreciation, the benefit is more substantial over the course of 15 
years, and the bottom line is we want it to stay at 15 years and not go 
back to the 39 years. I am not sure what the benefit would be if 
someone added a couple of tables to their restaurant in 2014 and had to 
wait 39 years to reap that benefit.
  So the legislation Senator Cornyn and I have would maintain that 15-
year cost recovery provision and make it permanent. The bill addresses 
this, albeit for a 2-year timeframe instead of the current year. We 
know this faster so-called cost recovery is directly reflected in the 
company's bottom line and frees cash that can be used to expand 
operations and hire more workers. It stands to reason if you have a 
greater tax benefit, you have more dollars in your hand, so to speak, 
and as a restaurant owner you can hire more workers in the near term. 
So maximizing certainty within the Tax Code is an expressed benefit for 
these small businesses.
  A study from the National Restaurant Association found that 
uncertainty over depreciation and other tax provisions forced 
restaurants to forgo improvement projects that would have produced 
approximately 200,000 jobs nationwide. I would submit that if that 
number were cut in half it would be a significant number, but their 
estimate is that in essence we are forgoing 200,000 jobs because of tax 
uncertainty.
  Another provision of the bill that we are debating and discussing 
would make permanent the maximum allowable deduction under section 179, 
expensing rules. Section 179 allows taxpayers to deduct certain capital 
asset purchases in the year they make the purchase. This type of 
expensing provides an important incentive for businesses to make 
capital investments. Without it taxpayers would have to depreciate 
those asset purchases over multiple years, getting a much more short-
term benefit because of that tax provision. This maximum allowable 
deduction under 179 has changed three times in the past 6 years. That 
is one of the best examples of uncertainty, when things keep changing 
and the numbers keep changing. One year they can take advantage of one-
half million dollars of benefit if they bought new equipment, for 
example.
  What we want to do--I think what is the best policy is to set it at a 
fairly high level, I would argue one-quarter of a million dollars----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

[[Page 7888]]


  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 
more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. CASEY. That is section 179, 
and that is another issue addressed in the bill.
  The third provision is the so-called bonus depreciation, which helps 
businesses in much the same way the expensing rules do. The bonus 
depreciation allows companies to expense half of the cost of qualifying 
assets that they buy and put into service in the same year. I won't go 
through all the numbers, but we have heard from companies across the 
board about that provision as well.
  Whether it is provisions that help restaurants, whether it is to help 
businesses that want to make capital purchases, or whether it is 
companies that benefit from another year of a tax benefit, this bill 
allows us to give a measure of certainty for at least 2 years to these 
businesses and especially those that are small businesses.
  I believe this is one of those times where we can fulfill what a lot 
of people have asked us to do. They have asked us on a daily basis to 
work together to create jobs. This legislation, which is bipartisan, is 
one way to come together in a bipartisan fashion to create jobs and 
give certainty to help our small businesses and to work together--
Democrats and Republicans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                              Health Care

  Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise to give voice to the thousands 
of Nebraskans who have contacted my office and continue to contact my 
office with their concerns about health care.
  In 2009 the President made all the Americans a promise. He said:

       No matter how we reform health care, we will make this 
     promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you 
     will be able to keep your doctor, period.

  Five years later, it is becoming clear that the President's assurance 
won't hold true. Many of the millions of Americans who were forced to 
sign up for ObamaCare-approved health plans are now having trouble 
finding a doctor or hospital they like that will accept their new 
insurance.
  On May 12 the New York Times reported:

       In the midst of all the turmoil in health care these days, 
     one thing is becoming clear: No matter what kind of health 
     plan consumers choose, they will find fewer doctors and 
     hospitals in their network--or pay much more for the 
     privilege of going to any provider they want.

  Despite higher rates, new ObamaCare plans include fewer in-network 
doctors and hospitals than the older health care plans. This diminished 
access to health care is a serious problem for Americans who live in 
rural areas with fewer primary care physicians, forcing some people to 
drive hours just to see a doctor who will accept their insurance.
  I have received letters, emails, and phone calls from over 18,000 
Nebraskans who keep saying the same thing: The promises of ObamaCare 
are not being kept.
  For example, Karen and her husband from Kearney essentially lost the 
doctors they had and liked when they received a notice in the mail 
indicating that the health care providers they have relied on for years 
will no longer accept this new insurance.
  Here is another example my office received. Douglas, another 
constituent from Kearney, wrote:

       ObamaCare has done one thing, and one thing only, it has 
     threatened my wife and the life of my son.

  He goes on to say:

       Because of age, and the ACA, my son's doctors retired or 
     quit practicing, and also because of my son becoming an 
     adult, we had to find new doctors. We haven't been denied 
     insurance, but we have been denied doctors. We ended up 
     begging and pleading with doctors to care for my son. [We 
     were] turned down by nine or ten.

  I offered a commonsense proposal called the FAIR Act. It would delay 
the tax on the uninsured anytime the employer mandate is delayed. 
ObamaCare is picking winners and losers. The big and powerful get help 
while the vast majority of Nebraskans and millions of Americans are 
left behind. My bill will level the playing field, giving all Americans 
that ``fair shot.'' I hope we have the opportunity to debate and vote 
on my commonsense bill here in the Senate.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in a quorum call.
  The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, according to a recent National Federation 
of Independent Business study, ObamaCare and its tax increases will 
result in the reduction of up to 285,000 private sector jobs. Let's say 
they are wrong. Let's say they are exaggerating. After all, the NFIB 
has not exactly been supportive of ObamaCare. Let's say it is 250,000 
or 225,000. Let's say it is 200,000. I think that any piece of 
legislation that causes one job to be lost is something we should take 
a second look at, let alone 285,000 jobs.
  Even though the administration has moved the goalpost more than 20 
times in terms of how Obamacare is enacted, it clearly has hurt far 
more than it has helped. The majority leader famously said that all the 
stories that have been stated on this floor have been horror stories 
that are not true, but these are real stories. These are people who 
have contacted my office and talked to me personally. They have written 
letters and sent emails. They are simply saying: Here is my experience.
  Once in a while I come to the floor so I can verbalize the 
experiences of the people I represent.
  Kelly from Fort Wayne, IN, received a letter from her insurance 
company that said her provider would change her policy due to the 
Affordable Care Act. Her new policy failed to cover her lifesaving 
medication, increasing her monthly costs by over 400 percent compared 
to what she had paid with her previous plan. She said: What am I 
supposed to do? This medication I have is lifesaving. It is no longer 
covered by my insurance plan. And the insurance company has indicated 
that this is the result of the implementation of ObamaCare.
  Bruce from Jasper, IN, had to drop his insurance policy and enroll in 
a new plan that increased his monthly premium by 70 percent. Bruce 
said: I can't afford this. I am paying a lot of money already. Seventy 
percent. I thought the President said this won't cost me a penny more, 
period. I am sure the President regrets using ``period'' because period 
means final, no discussion, no debate--trust me, you won't have to pay 
one penny more.
  I talked to Bruce in Jasper, and he is paying 70 percent more.
  Traveling across Indiana, I hear these stories from Hoosiers over and 
over, men and women business owners who are reducing hours, laying off 
hard-working employees, or closing the doors because of this law's 
costly requirements. Most importantly, they are very seriously 
considering dropping any employer-offered coverage whatsoever. They are 
reducing their workforce, if it is possible, to below 29 hours a 
workweek so they don't have to provide insurance.
  At one national chain, they have stated publicly that they have put 
all of their thousands of employees on 29-hour workweek schedules so 
they don't have to subject them to the restrictions imposed upon them 
under the ObamaCare act.
  I don't know how many of these stories we have to share before we try 
to make some reforms, replacements, or find positive solutions to the 
problems we face. Republicans have met in caucus. We have some 
alternatives. We would like to have them considered.
  This leads me to my second point. It is clear now that we are not 
going to be allowed to offer any solutions, any reforms, any changes to 
any legislation as long as we are here in this session of Congress. We 
have been allowed nine amendments in the last 10 months. The minority 
in the House of Representatives has been allowed to offer over 125 
amendments in the last 10 months.

[[Page 7889]]

  People are saying: Wait a minute, I thought in the House the majority 
rules.
  They have a Rules Committee. They decide that maybe they will get one 
amendment or two amendments. Don't expect to be able to offer 
amendments if you are in the minority in the House of Representatives.
  They say: We won the election. We are the majority.
  That is how the House works. I served in the House. I served in the 
minority for 8 years. I am trying to remember if I was ever allowed 
amendments. Sometimes our caucus was allowed an amendment.
  I came to the Senate and people asked: What is the difference?
  I said: The difference is night and day. Any Senator can offer any 
amendment to any bill at any time.
  Then Democratic majority leader, George Mitchell, was following a 
precedent that had lasted for more than 200 years. The greatest 
deliberative body in the world deliberated. And, yes, we were here late 
hours in the evenings sometimes when a Member said: Wait a minute, I 
have one more amendment. That person was allowed to offer that 
amendment. We spent many nights into the dark hours working through a 
bill, but the process worked. That was honored by Republican leaders 
and Democratic leaders. Only now, at this second iteration of mine--it 
seems like a bad dream, actually--do we have a leader who has basically 
said: I am not allowing you any amendments. I don't want to force any 
votes.
  That is not what the Senate was designed to be. That is not what it 
has been traditionally. Yet here we are facing yet another piece of 
legislation that looks the same as every other piece of legislation we 
have been faced with this year. The majority leader will use a 
procedure called filling the tree. The majority leader is using 
procedures to shut down the minority, to gag us. It is a gag order by 
the majority leader. He is basically saying: You don't have the 
privilege under my leadership of representing the people in your State 
who voted for you to come here to offer their wishes and their desires 
and amendments to reform a piece of legislation. I am not giving you 
that opportunity.
  That is what the majority leader is saying over and over.
  Now, if a Member is in the majority, I suppose he or she can get 
their changes modified and moved into the bill that the majority leader 
brings to the floor. But then he turns to the other side and says: You 
don't count, none of you. All 45 of you, all 45 Republican Senators 
here, don't count.
  This is a Senate run by 55 people under the dictatorship of the 
current majority leader, who simply has thrown a gag order on any 
Republican because they are afraid to debate and vote on measures they 
think might negatively impact them, even though they are many times 
bipartisan-led amendments--amendments supported by Members on the other 
side of the aisle.
  We said: OK, he is turning down anything we offer, but what if we 
offered it with the support of a Member from the other side?
  He turns that down too, so he shuts down his own Members.
  It is beyond my comprehension, having served here before and seen the 
Senate under the leadership of Democratic leaders who caused this body 
to function in a way where everybody had a voice. We didn't always win 
our amendments. We were in the minority. We mostly lost our amendments, 
but we had a chance to offer them. We had a chance to debate them and 
to try to persuade Members to join us. Sometimes we were fortunate to 
persuade those Members. Other times they were bills and amendments 
fashioned together with Democrats and Republicans, brought to the floor 
in tandem, voted on, and passed, and they were constructive changes. 
Today, it is, shut up, sit down, don't offer amendments, I am not 
giving you anything. It defies the history of this place, the tradition 
of this place, and it has turned us into the world's least deliberative 
body, not the most deliberative body. There is no deliberation here.
  It appears the only way to change this is for the voters to go to the 
polls and say: Let's get the Senate back to what it is supposed to be.
  Let's get to a place where we are not afraid to stand up and take a 
stand. Let's not be afraid to consider amendments and to say if it 
passes, it passes, and if it loses, it loses, but at least Members had 
the opportunity to state their positions and the opportunity to 
represent the wishes of the people who sent us here.
  We are sitting around here being able to do nothing--nothing--because 
the majority leader said: You are in the minority. I am running this 
place. It is a one-man show. I am throwing a gag order over all of you, 
and we are shutting it down.
  Now we are coming to the tax extenders. There are good provisions in 
the bill, there are mediocre provisions, and there are some that 
probably shouldn't be in there. But shouldn't this be debated? This 
impacts our economy and impacts our future. There are many things in 
the tax extenders bill that is coming before us--including research 
credits and other things that stimulate the economy--some that I think 
are good and some things that I think are bad. Shouldn't we have the 
opportunity to try to support the good or eliminate the bad or at least 
make an effort at that? Yet once again it hasn't happened yet. The 
pattern has been laid. The majority leader will say: No, you are not 
going to have any amendments. We are going to shut this down, and you 
are going to do it our way.
  Apparently, that is the way the majority leader has decided he is 
going to run the Senate. He makes all kinds of false excuses as to why 
he has to do what he does, but none of them hold water. I regret that. 
I think it has turned this place into a dysfunctional body, and I think 
the burden of responsibility for that falls directly on the shoulders 
of the majority leader.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today, as my 
colleague from Indiana has, because the same things he is hearing about 
at home in Indiana--stories from real people and how their lives have 
been impacted by the health care law--are stories I am hearing at home 
every weekend in Wyoming.
  I think it is astonishing that the majority leader would come to the 
floor of the Senate and say these stories we are coming to the floor 
with are made up, he said, out of whole cloth. These are real people in 
our communities who have been impacted by the health care law in ways 
that have been very detrimental to their lives, their livelihood. 
People have had their hours cut. Their take-home pay is less. They are 
finding they are having to pay a lot more for insurance. A lot of times 
it is insurance they don't really want or need or will ever use but the 
President says they have to buy. They have lost policies that have 
worked well for them.
  I got a recent email from a gentleman, a family in Powell, WY, a 
community in Park County. He writes: Now that ObamaCare has been deemed 
to be the most successful government program of all time, let me tell 
you what it has done for retired middle-class Wyoming citizens like 
myself.
  Of course, he said he was not serious when he said ``the most 
successful government program of all time.'' He probably heard the 
President talking about it. He probably heard the President of the 
United States tell Democrats who voted for this health care law to 
forcefully defend the law and be proud of it. I haven't heard Members 
who voted for this actually come to the floor to any degree to 
forcefully defend and be proud of the law because they know the side 
effects of the law have been devastating--devastating to families, 
devastating to people and their paychecks, and devastating to health 
care in this country.
  So back to what my constituent from Powell, WY, said: Health care 
premiums of nearly $2,000 a month.
  The President said: Oh, no, premiums will drop by $2,500 a year.
  This gentleman said: Health care premiums of nearly $2,000 per month,

[[Page 7890]]

scheduled to go to at least $2,000 or more per month in July--in 
parentheses, ``unbelievable.''
  He then says: Middle-class citizens like my wife and myself, not 
qualifying for ObamaCare subsidies, having to consider becoming 
lawbreakers by forgoing health insurance for ourselves or at least one 
of us--in parentheses, ``probably myself because I am the healthier of 
the two''--and paying the fine.
  He then said: If we do No. 2 above--about disobeying the law and 
paying the fine--we will have to look into seeking cheaper care outside 
the United States, probably Mexico, for serious problems.
  Is that what the President of the United States intended, to have 
people seek care in Mexico because they can't afford the Obama health 
care law and the mandates and all of the insurance that they don't 
need, don't want, won't use, and can't afford? It is not what the 
President promised the American people. He said if they like what they 
have they can keep it. But, of course, that was deemed the lie of the 
year.
  So I guess that is how the American people view the President of the 
United States now and can't really consider his comments to be 
credible. So when he says forcefully defend and be proud of the health 
care law, I think the American people realize that the President has 
sold the law to them under false promises and the Democrats are clearly 
not standing up and defending what they know is hurting their 
constituents. The President is in his bubble, and he hears only what he 
wants to hear. But I think Members on the Democratic side of the aisle, 
who go home and listen to people, know these stories are true, unlike 
what the majority leader says--that they are just made up.
  The gentleman goes on to say: I could look into residence in another 
State to see if health care insurance is available cheaper. I don't 
know if it is or not, but I understand that Wyoming has the highest or 
near highest health insurance premiums.
  Then he ends by saying: Is this what Obama and the Federal Government 
consider fair?
  The President goes on TV and says that everybody ought to have a fair 
shot. Is this what the President of the United States considers fair? 
Is this what he means by a fair shot? People all across the country are 
going to be asking themselves that question as they take a look at the 
impact of this health care law on their own lives, their own families, 
the ability to keep their doctors. We know many people have lost the 
doctor they like in the sense that they can't go to that doctor. They 
know they can't go to the same hospital. We know many were not able to 
keep the insurance they had. We know many have had hours cut.
  In an effort to try to help people who didn't have insurance, I think 
the President of the United States and Democrats should not have hurt 
so many individuals across the country, so many people who already had 
insurance. There may be people who are newly insured, but there are 
also people who are newly uninsured, and it is because of the 
President's health care law. Are there side effects? You better believe 
it. They are harmful. They are costly. Many families have been 
devastated by the health care law.
  I have another letter from a family in Lingle, WY. This is somebody 
who knows I am a doctor, knows my record of treating patients around 
Wyoming and working with families all across the State. She said: I 
know you're interested in the number of people who are uninsured after 
the rollout of the ACA. She said: My husband and I started 
investigating the ACA in October. The Presiding Officer will remember 
they opened the exchanges in October. The President, right before that, 
said it was going to be easier to use than Amazon and cheaper than your 
cell phone bill. She said: So we started investigating in October, and 
we were finally able to establish an account in March.
  That is what the American people think about the capability of this 
government and this administration. You start working on something in 
October, and you finally establish an account in March because of the 
incompetence of a bureaucracy and an administration that says one 
thing, does another, promises something, and delivers something very 
different.
  She said: We found that our premiums would be one-third of our annual 
income--one-third of our annual income--with a $6,000 copay and a 
$12,000 deductible.
  Those are the numbers--one-third of their annual income, a $6,000 
copay, a $12,000 deductible--and the majority leader comes to the floor 
and says we are making this stuff up. These are letters from our 
constituents, people who live in our States, people whom we see on 
weekends when we go home.
  She goes on to say: We have been uninsured for 7 years due to the 
costs, which we are told is due to our age, even though we are in good 
health. So as of today we are still uninsured.
  So they started in October, finally established an account in March, 
and as of the date this was written in April, they were still 
uninsured.
  She said: We don't have any idea what will happen if one of us gets 
sick or has an accident. How will we pay the bills?
  Then she finishes by saying: Keep fighting for the people of Wyoming. 
As a doctor, you know what a precarious position we are in.
  I wish the President of the United States and the majority leader 
would realize what a precarious position they have placed the American 
public in--an American public who knew what they wanted with health 
care reform. They wanted the care they need, from a doctor they choose, 
at lower cost. That is not what they got. They got more mandates, more 
expensive care, higher deductibles, higher copays. Many people had 
their policies cancelled.
  We know with the 30-hour work rule communities are cutting the hours 
of workers so their take-home pay goes down. We are not talking about 
businesses here, although it is happening in the business world as 
well. It is also happening in communities--school districts that are 
saying: Well, we are going to have to cut the hours of substitute 
teachers, we are going to have to cut the hours of the school bus 
drivers, of the coaches, of a number of part-time workers. Why? Because 
of the health care law.
  These are side effects of the law. They are harmful. They are 
expensive. They have an impact on people's lives to a point that I 
think the President wants to ignore because the President is hoping 
people on his side of the aisle will forcefully defend and be proud of 
a law that there is little to be proud of that really is not able to be 
defended because the implications of the side effects have been 
devastating to many, and especially to Americans who have gotten their 
insurance cancelled and find their only choice is more expensive 
insurance, higher copays, and higher deductibles. But for families all 
across the country, when a mother finds she cannot take her child to 
that pediatrician--the one who has known that child since the baby was 
born--now, because of the health care law, she cannot take her child to 
that pediatrician, they cannot go to the hospital in their community; 
they have to drive distances, instead, because of the health care law, 
which was intended to help people but has ended up hurting, in my 
opinion, more people than it has helped.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise to speak with regard to 
ObamaCare. The good Senator from Wyoming made compelling points, as did 
the Senator from Indiana before him.
  What I would like to do is to start for a minute by reading from some 
letters I have received from constituents in my State with regard to 
ObamaCare or the Affordable Care Act. These are from hard-working 
people who are trying to figure out what to do about their health 
insurance with ObamaCare in place. I think really those are the voices 
that speak louder than any others--the voices of people from across 
this great country who live in all of

[[Page 7891]]

our States--and they are writing to Members of this body and say: Hey, 
here is what I am experiencing. So this is not just coming down and 
expressing an opinion on the Affordable Care Act. This is what people 
are saying. This is what they are telling us. I think it is very 
important we take the time to listen and to understand the very real 
difficulties they are having with something that is so vitally 
important to all of us, and that is health insurance.
  I would like to start by reading some of these letters. The first one 
is from somebody who lives in the Fargo area. They start out:

       I live in West Fargo and my Employer is based out of South 
     Dakota.
       In 2011 I obtained my own Family Health Care Insurance due 
     to a job change and my new employer's Health Care coverage 
     seemed excessive. In doing this I found coverage as follows:

  So they signed up for a policy that is an 80/20 copay, with a $1,000 
deductible, with a $4,000 out-of-pocket maximum, with monthly premiums 
of just over $800--$809. That was provided through Blue Cross Blue 
Shield.
  The individual goes on to write:

       At the time this was more than $300 less costly than my new 
     employer's monthly premium for similar coverage.
       I recently received a notice from [Blue Cross Blue Shield] 
     that my coverage will be discontinued on May 1st, 2014 due to 
     the Affordable Care Act.

  So they received a notice that their insurance is being discontinued 
due to the Affordable Care Act.

       Listed below are the options which are most similar to my 
     current coverage:

  Now, instead of an 80/20 copay, it is a 70/30 copay, so the copay is 
higher. There is a $2,000 deductible. So instead of a $1,000 
deductible, that doubled. Now it is a $2,000 deductible. There is a 
$9,000 out-of-pocket maximum, compared to what this individual had 
before, which was a $4,000 out-of-pocket maximum. So it more than 
doubled the out-of-pocket maximum. There is a monthly premium of 
$1,625. That is compared to an $809 premium. So the premium doubled. So 
for a higher copay, for a higher deductible, for a higher out-of-pocket 
maximum, they are paying double the premium. If they wanted to go to 
another policy, it was an even higher deductible.
  The individual goes on to say:

       We are NOT eligible for Tax Credits because my employer 
     offers affordable health coverage.

  So because the employer offers a policy, this individual is not 
eligible for any tax credits.

       At this point my best option is to obtain my employer's 
     health coverage. However Open enrollment is not until August 
     2014.

  So the individual has to wait until August.

       My HR department along with my current Insurance Specialist 
     has contacted [Blue Cross Blue Shield] and asked that this be 
     considered a ``Life Changing Event'' so I can join the 
     employer plan by the May 1st deadline. They will not classify 
     it as such. I asked if I could pay some type of early sign on 
     fee. They indicated that is not an option.
       So if I cannot join my employer's plan, my BEST options for 
     coverage are those options listed above--

  The ones I just read--

     which are at best a 37% increase--

  ``[A]t best a 37% increase''--

     in monthly premium with a 110% or more increase in deductible 
     and out of pocket max.

  So let me say that one more time. This individual's best options now 
with the Affordable Care Act are a 37-percent increase in the monthly 
premium, with a 110-percent or more increase in the deductible and the 
out-of-pocket maximum.
  Then the individual finishes:

       Do you see my frustration?

  This is just one of the letters we have received, but it is 
representative of so many others.
  How can that be an affordable care act? How is that affordable care?
  Here is another one.

       My insurance premium tripled for less coverage. I thought 
     our insurance was supposed to stay the same if we had it. . . 
     . Please put a stop to it! It isn't right to make people pay 
     for something they may not be able to afford. I already had 
     health insurance! I also send money to my sister to help with 
     her baby. Now I won't be able to do that.

  That is another letter--a real person, a real situation.
  Here is one:

       To Our Elected Representatives; We petition you not as 
     Democrats, Republicans, Independents or members of any 
     special interest group, but as concerned taxpayers. We urge 
     of all of our elected representatives to vote against this 
     administration's health care plan. The nonpartisan 
     Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the cost will 
     be more than $1 trillion over 10 years and we know from 
     experience that it will cost far more than any government 
     estimate.

  Well, these stories go on, and I know I have colleagues who are 
waiting to speak, as well, during this time slot. So rather than 
continue to go through these letters--and I have many more; I brought 
more than I anticipated reading today--I will come back again and read 
some more of these.
  But I want to conclude with what I believe is the right approach, and 
I think it is something Republicans are talking about and have been 
talking about and will continue to talk about. So when we come down and 
say the Affordable Care Act is not working, do not just take our word 
for it. Listen to the people from across this country who are writing 
to us and telling us their very real stories. Sometimes you hear: Well, 
but you don't have a solution. That is wrong. We do. We absolutely have 
a solution, and we have talked about it over and over on this floor and 
in every other venue where someone is willing to listen.
  We need to implement a comprehensive approach, and we need to do it 
on a step-by-step basis so people understand it and know exactly what 
we are putting in place. It needs to be an approach that empowers 
people to make their own choices--their own choices--about their health 
care insurance and their health care providers. Again, I want to repeat 
that: They choose their own policy and their health care providers.
  It includes market-based reforms that promote competition, that will 
help increase choice, not reduce choice, and competition that will help 
bring prices down, not see them continue to spike higher. It includes 
aspects such as tort reform, to reduce the cost of health care. It 
includes allowing insurance companies to sell policies across State 
lines. It includes expanding health savings accounts, so individuals 
can combine high-deductible health care policies with a tax-deductible 
savings account. It includes reform of Medicare and Medicaid, to give 
States more control and to encourage the kind of reforms that will 
improve service, improve outcomes, and reduce costs.
  That is the kind of approach that truly serves the American public. 
That is the kind of approach we will continue to work, on behalf of the 
citizens of our respective States in this great Nation, to put in 
place.
  With that, I see my esteemed colleague from the great State of 
Mississippi is in the Chamber. I yield for the good Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, my impressions of the so-called Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act are that it is too costly, too 
complex, and too intrusive.
  Small business owners in my State have been particularly vocal about 
having to choose between making payroll or paying the increasing costs 
of insurance.
  Many small business owners would like to provide health insurance for 
their workers but are finding the premium costs are just too expensive. 
A small business owner in Hattiesburg, for example, who in the past 
paid 100 percent of the premiums for his employees was recently 
informed of a 21-percent increase in these costs. He is having to 
choose between reducing staff or shifting the health insurance costs to 
his employees.
  Another constituent from Southhaven reported to me that his son's 
work hours were cut to fewer than 30 per week so that his employer 
would not be forced to purchase insurance coverage. With his hours 
reduced, he cannot afford the private insurance that he had hoped to be 
able to purchase.
  The administration has struggled to implement several of the health 
care

[[Page 7892]]

law's mandates. Billions of dollars have been spent on a flawed 
enrollment system that has not made significant progress in reducing 
the number of uninsured Americans. The stories I have heard from my 
State confirm for me that the Affordable Care Act is an unfixable and 
expensive mess, and it should be repealed.
  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. RISCH. 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. RISCH. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about a 
case involving ObamaCare and an Idaho resident. She has asked me to 
state her case. It is one of many such cases that I have. I did not 
pick this one because it is the most egregious or anything else. I 
picked it because this is an effect that ObamaCare is having on 
ordinary American people, people who deserve better, people who deserve 
a government that will help them and will leave them alone when leaving 
alone is the right thing to do.
  She writes to me and says that her husband's company will no longer 
be offering health insurance next year. Of course, that is the result 
of ObamaCare. We have all heard the reasons why many companies are 
abandoning offering health care to their employees. Be that as it may--
and there is a lot of reasons for that, none of which are good--these 
people are caught in this spot.
  Right now, through her husband's business, they are paying $700 a 
month. They get 80-percent coverage for that $700 a month. Their 
deductible is $2,500 each. They are told, through the exchange, through 
which they have shopped in Idaho, that the new coverage they are going 
to get is going to cost them $1,400 a month. So that is exactly double 
what they are paying now.
  One would think you would get double benefits, right? Wrong. Because 
of the government involvement in this, instead of 80-percent coverage, 
they are going to get 70-percent coverage. Instead of a $2,500 
deductible, they are going to have a $5,000 deductible.
  Well, who are these people? They are ordinary, regular American 
people. They are 60 years old. They do not qualify for a tax subsidy. 
They tell me that now the cost of their health insurance is going to be 
three times what they are paying for the cost of their house. They told 
me: Senator, we are not extravagant people. We live in a 1,400-square 
foot house. We do not take vacations, never bought a new car, raised 
our kids, and saved for their educations. Both of us went to college.
  They talk about how they taught their children to pay their taxes and 
to work hard and be contributing members of society.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time controlled by the Republicans has 
expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown.) The Democratic whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. How much time do we have on the Democratic side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democrats control the next 45 minutes.


                         College Affordability

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this week Democrats are going to 
continue the conversation about college affordability. I was joining 
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, 
Al Franken of Minnesota and many others--in fact, 24 others, to 
introduce the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act.
  Why are we talking about student loans? Ask working families; ask 
their kids why we are talking about it. Because there is more student 
loan debt in America today than there is credit card debt. It is huge. 
It is growing. If you finished college a few years back like me and had 
a student loan that worried you, you would not believe what students 
are facing today.
  The average student coming out of college: $25,000 in debt. Imagine 
sitting down at the desk in the college admissions office at age 19 as 
they push the papers across the desk to you and ask you to sign up for 
$10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 in loans so that you can start your class 
on Monday. There you sit with $20,000 in loans to start your class on 
Monday. You are 19 years old.
  Wait a minute. Mom and dad have to cosign them with you. That is not 
unusual. So now it is a family debt. I had a press conference in 
Chicago on Monday. This wonderful woman came in and told the story 
about how she and her husband with two sons were determined to get them 
both through college. But she has not been able to do it. Do you know 
why? Because the first son took 5 years. She and her husband had to 
borrow the money to get him through school--good schools. But it is so 
much debt for their family that they cannot even consider allowing 
their other son to start college yet. He is waiting for his turn.
  That is where we are in America today when it comes to college 
education. If you did not happen to be wealthy or so smart that you get 
everything paid for, and you are stuck in the middle with working and 
middle-income families, you are facing debt challenges families have 
never seen in the history of the United States.
  There are 1.7 million Illinoisans--that is more than 10 percent of 
our population or almost 15 percent of the population of the State of 
Illinois--who have outstanding student loan debt--15 percent. That is 1 
out of 6, 1 out of 7 people in my State with student loan debt.
  Nationally, there are 40 million borrowers with more than $1 trillion 
in student loan debt. On the average, graduates of the class of 2012 
left with $28,000 in debt. But the individual debts are often much 
higher. I have had students whom I have invited to come to my Web site 
and tell me their story. It is heartbreaking.
  These students have debt of over $100,000 with a bachelor's degree. 
God forbid they went to one of those for-profit colleges or 
universities. You know the ones I am talking about. They are the ones 
that absolutely inundate you with advertising.
  You cannot get on a CTA train or bus in Chicago without getting hit 
between the eyes with all of these for-profit colleges, for-profit 
schools. The biggest ones: The University of Phoenix, Kaplan, DeVry, 
just to mention a few. It is a different category. These are not the 
public colleges and universities. They are not even private colleges 
and universities. They are for-profit schools.
  Believe me, they make a profit. What is the difference between for-
profit schools and community colleges, the University of Illinois, 
DePaul University, Georgetown University? The difference is this. As a 
category, for-profit colleges and university have 10 percent of the 
high school graduates going to school, like the ones I mentioned. But 
they receive 20 percent of the Federal aid to education. Why? They are 
so darned expensive. That is why. The students who sign up for these 
schools--these glamorous schools with all of the marketing--end up 
signing up for more debt than you can imagine--twice the debt of 
students that go to most other schools.
  But here is the kicker. Here is the one the for-profit colleges and 
universities do not want to talk about: 46 percent of all the student 
loan defaults or student loan failure to pay off their loans--46 
percent of them--students from for-profit colleges and universities.
  Set that aside for a minute. As awful and scandalous as that is in 
this country--the exploitation of these students and their families by 
schools which many times offer worthless diplomas, worthless degrees, 
and absolutely no ticket to a job--as bad as that is, let's talk about 
the bigger picture, 90 percent of the other college students and what 
they are facing.
  They are borrowing money right and left. They are sinking themselves, 
and many times their families, more deeply in debt than they ever 
imagined, and they have no idea what they are getting into. You see, 
student loan debts are not like other debts. It is not like you 
borrowed money for a house, a car, a boat or a temporary loan to get 
by. Student loan debt is one of the few debts in America not 
dischargeable in bankruptcy.

[[Page 7893]]

  What does that mean? No matter how bad things get for you or your 
family, no matter what economic tragedy comes your way, if you end up 
in bankruptcy court and try to clear the table and start over, you will 
never, ever be able to discharge your student loan debt.
  Oh, there is an extreme circumstance when you can. It is so extreme 
it almost never happens. So a student loan debt is a debt for a 
lifetime. You will either pay it off or you will carry it to the grave. 
They actually execute--these debt collectors--on grandmothers on Social 
Security. I am not making it up. Grandma wanted to help her 
granddaughter. She cosigned a student loan. The granddaughter dropped 
out of school, never paid back the loan, defaulted. They went after 
granny's Social Security check on the student loan. That is what we are 
talking about.
  That is why we have to change it. That is why the Democrats have come 
forward on this side of the aisle. We are waiting for our first 
Republican to join us, to do something about refinancing college debt 
in America, to at least bring down the interest rates, to allow 
students to consolidate their loans at lower interest rates, so that 
they will pay less in interest.
  That poor family I told you about from Chicago where the mother came 
and testified, they could not let the second son start college because 
they had never paid off the debt on the first son and could not see how 
they would. Year after year they were churning thousands and thousands 
of dollars into payments all retiring interest and not retiring the 
principal. The interest just keeps piling up. God forbid you miss a 
payment. It is awful.
  The bank on students refinancing bill, which Senator Elizabeth 
Warren, Jack Reed, and myself are bringing to this floor, will help 
current borrowers take advantage of what we have in low interest rates 
right now. Those with Federal loans can refinance at the lower rate, 
the same rate as students who are taking out their first loans this 
year: 3.86 percent for undergraduate Direct Loans; 5.41 percent for 
graduate loans; 6.41 percent for PLUS loans taken out by the student's 
parents.
  Now, you are going to say: Those are not rock-bottom interest rates. 
Believe me, they are a bargain in every category here against what 
these students are facing today in paying off old debt. Many students 
will find their interest rate on their loan cut in half. What does it 
mean? Those of us who borrowed some money in life to buy a home or buy 
a car, a change in the interest rate of 3 or 4 percent gives you a 
chance to finally start reducing the principal. That is what we want to 
do, so that this debt can be put behind these people.
  Those who have private loans, many of which have sky-high interest 
rates, few protections for borrowers, at least in the version of the 
bill we have introduced, can refinance into Federal loans with lower 
rates and stronger consumer protections. You ought to hear what these 
collection agencies do to students and their families when they do not 
pay on these loans. You think you have had some problems on the 
telephone with people calling and harassing you. They never quit. They 
need their money. They want their money. They will not let you go no 
matter what your circumstances.
  This bill will allow young people to lower their payment by hundreds 
of thousands of dollars a year. They have a chance to actually get 
ahead on their debt. What is more, the bill we are offering is fully 
paid for. Here is how we pay it. You know the name Warren Buffett, 
third or fourth wealthiest man in America. I happen to know him. He 
comes by and has lunch with us from time to time and talks about 
business and investments.
  But the one thing he wanted to talk about the most was something that 
he thinks is fundamentally unfair. Do you know what it is? Warren 
Buffett came in here and said: Why is it that Warren Buffett, the 
billionaire, has a lower income tax rate than his secretary?
  Why? It is not fair. And it isn't fair. Because when profits in 
life--his income in life--come from capital gains, it is treated at a 
lower tax rate than ordinary income, which his secretary receives.
  So Warren Buffett has said: For goodness' sake, I shouldn't pay a 
lower tax rate than my secretary.
  So we put in what is called the Buffett rule, so there will be at 
least a minimum income tax charge for millionaires so they pay at least 
as much of an income tax rate as their secretaries. Does it sound 
radical? I don't think so. I think it sounds reasonable and so does Mr. 
Buffett.
  We take the revenue that comes in from charging the millionaires--
that we just talked about under the Buffett rule--and we apply it to 
the refinancing of college debt. That is how we achieved this. That is 
how we get it done.
  This bill would help people such as Grace Steging. She is from 
Champaign and just recently wrote me a letter. She took out a $33,000 
Federal student loan to get a degree in special education, and she is 
just completing her first year as a teacher in a low-income school 
district in Central Illinois. In her letter she said: ``I am shocked 
and distressed at the way my student loan debt continues to multiply 
even through I graduated a year ago.''
  She tells me she made her payments faithfully each time every month, 
but even so her payments continue to rise as the interest rate accrues. 
It is a shame that even with a degree from a respected school and a 
good, secure job, Grace can't save money and she can't keep up with her 
student loans. She wrote and said:

       Senator, I am not a banker or a businessperson, I was born 
     to teach. . . . Shall I teach my students to follow their 
     dreams or to follow the money?

  It is a good question. Reasonable borrowing has always been part of 
getting a higher education for many Americans. I know this story 
personally because I was a beneficiary.
  The National Defense Education Act was passed in this Chamber in 
1958, when Congress was scared to death. Scared by what? Scared by a 
basketball-size satellite that the Russians had launched called 
Sputnik, and it was beeping as it went around the world. We thought it 
was the end of life as we knew it because we knew the Russians had the 
bomb. Now they were in outer space and we weren't--1957.
  So this Chamber met with the House and said we have to do something. 
One of the first things we are going to do, we are going to get more 
Americans in college. We need better trained, better educated Americans 
to fight the Soviets and to make sure we don't lose the space battle.
  Along came the National Defense Education Act, and it opened the door 
for me to borrow the money to go to college and law school and pay it 
back over 10 years with 3 percent interest.
  I paid it back. I didn't think I could because it seemed like a huge 
amount of money at the time. I will not tell you the amount because it 
will date me, but I will tell you today students don't face the same 
circumstances. The debt they face is so dramatic.
  Jon and his wife from Chicago recently contacted my office. They both 
went to great, not-for-profit public schools for their undergraduate 
studies. Jon went on to law school. His wife went on to medical school.
  Jon is a first-year lawyer in a firm. His wife is in her second year 
of medical residency. They received good educations from respectable 
schools and now they have jobs in their fields.
  Let me tell you what else they have. They have a combined student 
debt, Jon and his wife, of $300,000 on student loans. They pay $1,300 a 
month in student loan payments. Thankfully, they will participate in 
the Federal income-based repayment program, which moderates their 
payments, but here they are, just starting out, maybe with a family and 
a $300,000 debt.
  How can they buy a house? They have explored it. No bank will come 
near them to even loan them the money for a house. That, to me, is what 
is disgraceful--not only that these students end up coming out of 
school in debt, they are postponing their lives. They are postponing 
marriage, children, homes, and cars.

[[Page 7894]]

  Many of them are moving right back in with mom and dad in that 
basement apartment, because dad just came out of retirement to help 
them pay off the loan. I am not making this up. These are real stories 
that I run into.
  One of the other ones I mentioned earlier, Hannah Moore--or at least 
I want to make a reference to Hannah Moore. I spoke about her on the 
floor. She is from Chicago and what a sweet young lady. She made a 
fatal mistake. She went to one of these for-profit colleges in Chicago 
called the Harrington College of Design--great advertising if you have 
seen it. Do you know what her reward for pursuing the American dream by 
seeking a college education at this for-profit school was? It was 
$124,570 in student debt, much of it in private loans for what is 
basically a worthless--worthless--diploma from a for-profit college.
  Her story isn't unique. I just saw her last Monday and her debt has 
gone up. It is now over $150,000. This poor, attractive, smart, and 
determined young woman doesn't know where to turn. Her life looks like 
a brick wall when she looks ahead. I think she is 30, maybe 32.
  Can you imagine. This is what she has in store, having thought she 
did the right thing, went to that college and got this degree which she 
thought was worth something. It turned out it wasn't.
  The Federal Reserve Bank in New York warns us student debt isn't just 
a student problem, it is a national problem. It threatens Americans in 
terms of investing in our future, investing in homes, investing in 
businesses, and it even threatens their future retirement security. 
Hannah's father had to come out of retirement to help pay off the 
bills.
  In addition to last week's refinancing proposal, Senators Warren, 
Jack Reed, and I have several proposals to address student debt and 
college affordability, a bill that would give colleges financial 
incentives not to overload students with debt.
  We have also introduced the Student Loan Borrowers' Bill of Rights 
Act. I think there ought to be an open, complete disclosure to students 
about the debt they are getting into. If there is a better alternative, 
taking government loans that you can consolidate at a lower interest 
rate as opposed to a private loan which rips you off with a high 
interest rate--some of this is very basic.
  Senator Harkin and I introduced a bill to bring better coordination 
and focus to Federal oversight for for-profit colleges and 
universities. It is called the Proprietary Education Oversight 
Coordination Improvement Act. It is a long title for a bill that 
basically is trying to come to grips with the scandalous behavior of 
for-profit colleges and universities.
  For too many young Americans, the promise of a fair shot at 
affordable college education has become a long shot. That is not the 
American way. We want to have an educated generation prepared to lead 
this country. They cannot do that saddled with debt and going to 
worthless schools.
  It is time for this generation to step up, allow these students to 
refinance their debt to get their lives back in order and to start 
looking ahead with some promise and hope and get their parents out from 
under the debt burden they assume with their kids. Stop the rip-offs 
that are coming from these for-profit colleges and universities and put 
an end to some of the rip-offs, even by semigovernment agencies.
  All of these things have to come to an end, and it will only happen 
if we do it--and it will only happen if we do it on a bipartisan basis.
  I hope my colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle, 
will join our efforts.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                             Tax Extenders

  Mr. COONS. I come to the floor to speak about a real opportunity that 
we have this week in this Congress and in this Senate to come together 
in a bipartisan way to adopt measures that will actually create jobs 
and help grow our economy.
  This week we are considering tax extenders, a package of bills that 
can do a lot of good for the middle class, our economy, and our Nation. 
Together, various proposals in the tax extenders would spur investment 
in manufacturing, clean energy, and innovation, make it easier for 
families to afford a home or to send their children to college, open 
career pathways for veterans, and bring investments in jobs to 
communities in need. They recently passed by a voice vote out of the 
Finance Committee in the Senate, sending an important signal that we 
can come together, Democrats and Republicans, to move our economy 
forward.
  I mentioned innovation and manufacturing in particular as two of the 
policies this broader package helps promote. I would like to discuss 
two important bipartisan policies in this package, bills that have been 
rolled into the extenders package that can do a lot of good for 
startups and for innovative small manufacturers and for firms that 
invest heavily in the research and development that is needed to yield 
groundbreaking discoveries and steadily grow manufacturing employment 
in the United States.
  R&D, research and development, is the cornerstone of any competitive 
company, and I would suggest country. In the 21st century for us to 
have and sustain an innovative economy, it is certainly the cornerstone 
of our Nation's future. That is why, for a number of years, bipartisan 
majorities in Congress have supported the R&D tax credit so innovative 
companies are incentivized to keep investing in critically needed R&D, 
in new ideas, and in new products, but there has long been a problem 
with the structure of the R&D credit. It doesn't reach early stage 
startup companies, those that are most innovative and those that have 
the greatest promise to grow.
  As the GAO has reported, over half of the current R&D credit goes to 
firms making over $1 billion. Although they are important as well, it 
has become clear we are missing an opportunity to incentivize the most 
innovative, smallest startup companies, especially in manufacturing, an 
industry that I know invests a huge amount in R&D but has had a 
challenging environment competitively and globally in the past decade 
because the R&D credit is a credit and not a tax--and is a credit only 
if you have a tax liability, only if your company is profitable. A 
preprofitable company can't access it.
  If you are a small business that pays AMT, while there are many 
credits you could claim, the R&D isn't one of them, even though it is 
so important to our commitment. This leaves out firms at the early 
stage, where they are facing the highest risk of failure but who are 
also the kind of technology-focused, early stage, high-growth, high-
potential businesses that have generated more net jobs than any other 
area of our economy in this century.
  These firms, that are sometimes called gazelle firms, are young 
innovative businesses with the potential to explode in size and create 
hundreds or thousands of jobs. Think of Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak in 
a California garage starting what would become Apple or think of Rick 
Birkmeyer or Ray Yin in Delaware, my home State.
  Rick Birkmeyer is an entrepreneur who has started a number of 
successful biotech companies in the Delaware region. He is someone with 
a reputation as a leader in his field. Even so, raising capital for a 
new startup venture is always a challenge. Rick today is the founder of 
CD Diagnostics, a leader in biomarker research and biochemical test 
development that makes tests to tell if a joint is infected or merely 
irritated. These tests would help orthopedic surgeons determine if 
surgery is needed and avoid a great deal of expensive and sometimes 
unnecessary exploratory procedures. The company is only a few years old 
and began with one employee. Today they have 82 and believe they will 
have well over 170 in just 2 more years.
  Exponential hockey stick-like growth such as this is great, but if he 
and his company were able to use the R&D credit before they reach 
profitability, they would be able to hire more people, grow more 
quickly by investing in equipment, and get products to market faster.

[[Page 7895]]

  Another young Delaware company that would benefit from the tax credit 
is ANP of Newark, DE. I sat next to its CEO Ray Yin at the Wesley 
College graduation this weekend, where he gave the keynote address. 
Ray's company, ANP, began with just one employee--him. Today it is a 
leader in making nanotherapeutics and in biodefense technology that is 
affordable, wearable, and easy to use, whether testing against 
biochemical agents in the war setting or food-borne illnesses or water 
contamination at home.
  Both of these two companies make terrific, compelling, technology-
based products, have managed their cash well, and are great examples of 
how to run a startup. But for each of them they went through a very 
demanding period from their first capital investment to when they had 
reliable revenue coming in. That is often called the valley of death or 
the gap between launch and sustainability. They would be farther along, 
more mature, and more robust if they had been able to access the R&D 
credit with their early expenditures.
  Over the past few years I have been working diligently with a group 
of fellow Senators, Republicans and Democrats, to find ways that we 
could work together to reshape and target a portion of the R&D credit 
to make it accessible to these sorts of early stage companies.
  I want to give particular credit to Republican Senator Mike Enzi of 
Wyoming, who has been tireless and thoughtful. We have not always 
agreed--we come from quite different political perspectives--but his 
investment of time and thoughtfulness in crafting the final outcome of 
the Startup Innovation Credit Act is worthy of thanks and a compliment.
  Senator Schumer on the Finance Committee has helped move the R&D 
credit revision forward into the tax extenders package.
  Manufacturing Jobs for America is a broader initiative that more than 
26 Senators have participated in that includes more than 33 bills. This 
bill, the Startup Innovation Credit Act, is one of them, one of many 
bipartisan bills that can help manufacturers to grow, can help them to 
invest, and can help them get through a critical, early stage period.
  Mr. Pat Roberts, Republican Senator of Kansas, has also worked with 
me, as well as with Senators Enzi and Schumer, on a revision to the R&D 
credit that isn't available to firms, mostly small businesses, that pay 
the AMT, so we changed that as well. Both of these provisions have been 
adopted into the tax extender package.
  I also wanted to mention the first one I referenced, the Startup 
Innovation Credit Act, was also supported and has been moved forward 
with contributions by Senators Rubio, Blunt, Stabenow, Moran, and 
Kaine.
  This is a terrific way for us to find a path forward for companies 
that are still too early in their development to pay employment taxes 
but to use a fix that allows them to claim the R&D credit against 
employment taxes when they aren't yet paying income taxes.
  This kind of credit has been used before in States such as Iowa, 
Arizona, New York, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. And they have been 
game changers--helping new firms to open their doors, to hire more 
workers, and to keep their doors open. By allowing companies to claim 
the R&D credit against either the AMT or their payroll tax obligations, 
we don't pick winners and losers and we don't focus on a specific area 
of the economy or technology. What we are doing instead is supporting 
any private sector firm that invests in research and development. It 
means cash in the pockets of small startup companies, which can make a 
critical difference, especially when financing and credit are tight.
  Together, these bipartisan proposals can do a lot to put more 
Americans to work today unleashing the innovations that will create the 
jobs of tomorrow. I believe the Federal role in research and innovation 
is fundamental. It is also bipartisan.
  I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their 
partnership and collaboration. I specifically thank the chair of the 
Finance Committee Senator Ron Wyden for his leadership in ensuring that 
the tax extenders package is available for us to consider now on the 
floor, that these provisions were included, and for his support for 
moving forward on these vital job-creating proposals.
  Now let's work together in this Chamber to move across the finish 
line and get the job done so America can get more of our best people to 
work.
  I thank the Chair.


                       Supporting Law Enforcement

  Mr. President, I come to the floor today to recognize the men and 
women of law enforcement across this Nation in the annual police week 
ceremonies. From last night's candlelight vigil to tomorrow's wreath-
laying ceremony, we here in the Capitol offer our gratitude, our 
thanks, and our support to the men and women of law enforcement and 
their families.
  I wish to comment for a few moments today on how difficult it was 
earlier today to be a Member of this body as two different Senators, 
who are strong supporters of law enforcement, came to this floor in an 
attempt to move forward important pieces of legislation only to have 
that effort blocked.
  Earlier today Senator Patrick Leahy, the President pro tempore and 
the chair of the Judiciary Committee, came to the floor to seek 
unanimous consent to move forward the Federal bulletproof vest 
partnership reauthorization bill that came out of the Judiciary 
Committee, and Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland came to the floor to seek 
unanimous consent to move forward with the bipartisan Blue Alert bill. 
I am a cosponsor of both bills. Both have very broad support within the 
law enforcement community, and both are bipartisan bills. Yet, in each 
case, one Senator--one Senator--objected to our proceeding to 
consideration of these bills.
  I want to share with those of us here in the Chamber that earlier 
today, at a hearing in the Judiciary Committee considering again the 
value and the impact of the Federal bulletproof vest partnership, we 
had a chance to hear from Officer Ann Carrizales from Texas, who gave 
riveting, moving testimony about how a bulletproof vest, provided to 
her by her smalltown department in Texas, saved her life when she was 
shot at point-blank range in a routine traffic stop very early in the 
morning. Today her husband would be a widower and her daughter an 
orphan were it not for this vital Federal-State-local partnership that 
has provided more than 1 million bulletproof vests over the many years 
it has enjoyed broad bipartisan support.
  With us this morning were two Delaware Capitol police officers, 
Sergeant Mike Manley and Corporal Steve Rinehart. With them as well was 
Chief Horsman of the capitol police department. Both of these brave 
officers were on duty in the lobby of the New Castle County courthouse 
last year when a gunman entered the chamber and started firing at 
random. They were both shot, and they both survived because of 
bulletproof vests provided to them in part through this Federal-State 
partnership.
  We cannot let down the men and women of law enforcement. We should 
not let partisan politics and ideology in this Chamber prevent us from 
moving forward in a bipartisan way to deliver the officer-safety 
investments and improvements that have already cleared the Judiciary 
Committee, that already have bipartisan support from both sides of the 
aisle, and allow one individual to continue to hold up these important 
bills.
  It is my call to my colleagues that we work tirelessly together to 
make sure we overcome this needless obstruction and move forward this 
week to honor the service and sacrifice of those 268 law enforcement 
officers whose names have been added to the memorial this year and the 
hundreds of thousands of others who even today, even tonight will be on 
patrol keeping America safe.
  I thank the Chair.
  With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 7896]]


  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Crisis in Ukraine

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, one of the protagonists of Leo Tolstoy's 
epic ``War and Peace'' is the iconic Russian general Mikhail Kutuzov. 
Kutuzov was brought out of retirement to be the commander in chief of 
Russian forces during Napoleon's invasion, and his unorthodox strategy 
confounded and frustrated his superiors and his underlings alike. He 
becomes convinced, as Tolstoy depicts, that Napoleon will lose the war 
by overextending his army. He believes by playing the long game he will 
exhaust and defeat the seemingly invincible, unstoppable French army.
  Tolstoy creates a fictionalized version of Kutuzov, of course, but 
one of the most famous passages from ``War and Peace'' is worth 
repeating here today. Speaking of those who doubt his strategy, Kutuzov 
says:

       Patience and time are my warriors, my champions.

  Again, quoting from the book:

       He [Kutuzov] knew that an apple should not be plucked while 
     it is green. It will fall of itself when ripe, but if picked 
     unripe the apple is spoiled, the tree is harmed, and your 
     teeth are set on edge. Like an experienced sportsman, Kutuzov 
     knew that the beast was wounded, and wounded as only the 
     whole strength of Russia could have wounded it.

  Whether or not this famous Russian general ever shared this exact 
sentiment, it is representative of a time when the Russians better than 
anyone on Earth knew how to play the long game. How times have changed.
  Over the past few weeks, I have listened in agony to my Republican 
friends criticizing the Obama administration for having no coherent 
policy regarding the current crisis in Ukraine. I come to the floor 
today to rebut that argument and also to add a few suggestions on how 
the administration's policy can be enhanced.
  I certainly understand the Republicans' frustrations. News of the 
ongoing daily drama in Ukraine dominates the national news. Russia 
seems omnipresent, manipulating events on the ground by the hour, and 
there clearly has not been a proportional pound-for-pound response from 
the United States or the collective West. This frustration is fed by 
memories of the Cold War--obsolete, even ancient memories given how 
fast the world has changed since 1991. But the President's critics, 
fueled by these largely irrelevant memories, insist that when Russia 
acts, we must meet fire with fire--crippling unilateral sanctions 
immediately, lethal arms for Ukrainian military, new missile capacity 
in Eastern Europe.
  The problem is that this is a strategy for 1964, not 2014. Russia 
simply doesn't matter to us in the same way it used to. They are a 
secondary world power whose power is diminishing. Their demographics 
are catastrophic, their economy can't survive the inevitable global 
energy revolution, and their endemic corruption is going to rot their 
society from inside out. The invasions of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine 
are signs of Russian weakness, Russian insecurity, not Russian 
strength.
  Last fall, two former Russian Republics, Georgia and Moldova, refused 
Russian overtures to join their nascent economic union and inked 
preliminary agreements to join the European Union. Ukraine, at the last 
minute, bowed to Russian bullying and refused to ink the same deal, but 
it set off a series of events that pushed Russia's man in Kiev out of 
office.
  In a panicked reaction, Russia invaded, and the consequences have 
been devastating. Russia's economy is in free fall, with nearly $70 
billion of capital leaving the country in just the last few months 
alone. No major institutional investors will touch Russia today with a 
10-foot pole. To make matters worse, Russia has been kicked out of the 
G8 and generally has become an international pariah, not allowed at the 
table with major powers. Russia is increasingly isolated at the United 
Nations. And things are going to get even worse as the Europeans use 
this crisis as a wake-up call to make themselves truly energy 
independent of Russian energy and also to reinvigorate NATO.
  In ``War and Peace,'' Kutuzov goes on to say this of his critics:

       They want to run to see how they have wounded it. Wait and 
     we shall see! Continual maneuvers, continual advances! What 
     for? Only to distinguish themselves! As if fighting were fun. 
     They are like children from whom one can't get any sensible 
     account of what has happened because they all want to show us 
     how well they can fight. But that's not what is needed now.

  The story of ``War and Peace'' and the Russian-French war is not 
entirely a useful parallel to the current crisis in Ukraine or to the 
proper response of the United States. What is needed now is much more 
than just patience and time. But our response needs to be proportional 
to our Nation's national security interests, not proportional to 
Russia's actions in their backyard. That is why the administration is 
right to strongly support this new Ukrainian Government without 
overreacting in a way that could compromise our relationship with other 
nations or make the situation worse, not better, on the ground in 
Ukraine.
  I would like to take a few minutes this evening to lay out what a 
coherent, thoughtful approach to the crisis might look like and how, in 
fact, the actions of the Obama administration largely follow this 
pretty simple outline.
  First, as Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenuk has been quick to 
tell visiting dignitaries, the most important help the United States 
can provide is economic assistance, conditioned on necessary reforms to 
show the Ukrainian people that a Western-oriented government can 
deliver prosperity to their country.
  Russia has effectively invented a new form of warfare that is based 
on gradual provocation, where Putin uses psychological methods, 
intimidation, bribery, and propaganda to undermine resistance so that 
firepower is rarely needed to get his way. But of course these tactics 
only work on vulnerable countries with weak economies and a 
susceptibility to Russian overtures of economic overlordship and 
corruption. So the best way to repel Russian provocations is to 
strengthen the Ukrainian economy and government institutions both for 
the short and long run. The $1 billion in loan guarantees authorized by 
Congress and the $17 billion loan approved by the IMF and brokered by 
the United States are an important part of that process, and the 
conditions imposed--which include a floating exchange rate, steep 
increases in gas tariffs, and budget reductions over the next several 
years--represent some of the tough medicine necessary to get Ukraine 
back on its feet.
  The United States hasn't sat on the sidelines when it comes to 
economic aid to Ukraine. We have led from day one, and the results are 
impossible to deny.
  Second, let's recognize what military assistance makes sense and what 
military assistance does not make sense. It makes sense to shore up our 
treaty obligations in Eastern and Central Europe by positioning more 
troops in places such as the Baltics and Poland and Romania. Just in 
case the Russians were thinking of trying to use these types of 
destabilizing tactics in NATO countries, make them think twice. But 
remember that Ukraine is not a NATO ally; we have no obligation to 
defend their sovereignty, and it is totally unrealistic and indeed 
irresponsible to think that we can make up for decades of military 
neglect and mismanagement inside Ukraine with a few million dollars of 
aid today.
  Ukraine doesn't need more small arms. Their problem isn't that they 
don't have them; their problem is that they don't know how to shoot 
them. There is no way the Ukrainians can effectively utilize more 
sophisticated weaponry like anti-tank and anti-aircraft artillery. The 
only way they could do that is with military advisers standing side by 
side with Ukrainians, and there is really no appetite here in the 
United States to commit personnel to a ground war in Ukraine.

[[Page 7897]]

  To be clear, I don't offer these cautions because of a danger of 
provoking Russia with an influx of U.S. arms. Russia is going to do 
what Russia is going to do in Eastern Ukraine regardless of what small 
investment the United States makes today in Ukraine.
  But I do worry that since any lethal assistance from the United 
States would have little to no effect on the ability of Ukraine to 
repel a Russian invasion, a Russian victory over the Ukrainian army, 
backed by U.S. weapons, would then be sold by Putin to his public as a 
Russian military triumph over the United States. That is a truly bad 
outcome, but that shouldn't stop us from more quickly delivering 
nonlethal support to help bolster the Ukrainian military in the short 
term--reasonable support such as body armor and communications 
equipment--that balances our limited direct interest in Ukraine with 
our humanitarian interest in saving lives. There is a middle ground 
between just sending a handful more MREs and sending tanks or automatic 
weapons, and we have had ample time to explore those options.
  Over the medium and longer term we need to work with Ukraine to 
rebuild its military institutions that were neglected for so many years 
by its leaders who were pilfering from the state rather than providing 
for the country's defense forces.
  Third, focus, focus, focus on the May 25 elections. The Russians 
occupy dozens--not thousands--of buildings in Eastern Ukraine. They 
have no hold or influence on other sections of the country near and to 
the west of Kiev.
  As part of the international effort, the United States has committed 
millions of dollars and thousands of hours of manpower into making sure 
the May 25 election is held in a free and fair manner. The Russians 
will likely do everything possible to stop this election from coming 
off. As of today they effectively have no straw man in the race, and so 
more likely than not the result will be a victory for a free, whole, 
sovereign Ukraine and a damaging blow to Russia's claims that Ukraine 
can't govern itself. Our State Department representatives in Ukraine 
are working feverishly to help Ukraine conduct this election, and we 
have helped deploy unprecedented resources from the OSCE to make sure 
Russia cannot dislodge this election from occurring. That is American 
leadership happening right now on the ground in Ukraine.
  Fourth, let's be crystal clear on what will lead to the next logical 
level of U.S. sanctions, which would be industrywide, sectoral 
sanctions against the Russian economy. We have moved deliberately so 
far because, wisely, President Obama has desired to move in relative 
concert with our European allies. But it is increasingly clear to me 
and to many others that Europe is simply not prepared to move at the 
pace necessary to send a strong message to Russia about the 
consequences of their continued aggression.
  So having primarily mounted a defense of the administration's policy 
in Ukraine so far today, I would make one additional, significant 
suggestion for amendment of this policy. I believe the highest levels 
of American foreign policy leadership, from the President, to the Vice 
President, to the Secretary of State, should make it clear today to 
Russia, right now, that if the May 25 elections do not occur in a free 
and fair manner, we will hold Russia--and only Russia--responsible 
because if not for their interference, there can be no explanation for 
why these elections could not come off properly.
  Further, we should make it clear that if the May 25 election is not 
allowed by Russia to be conducted according to OSCE electoral 
standards, the United States will immediately impose sectoral sanctions 
on the most important Russian industries, including but not limited to 
the Russian banking, energy, and raw materials sectors.
  Hopefully, significant Russian interference in the elections would 
prompt Europe to act with us in order to protect our most important 
democratic values, but we can't wait for them any longer. Let's make it 
totally, completely, unequivocally clear today that if the May 25 
election doesn't occur, the United States will move toward industry-
level sanctions against Russia.
  This is and can be a coherent, thoughtful U.S. strategy toward the 
crisis in Ukraine: Support Ukraine economically. Strengthen NATO. Don't 
overreact with reckless military aid to the Ukrainians. Do everything 
possible to make the May 25 election a success. Be clearer than current 
policy on what will trigger sectoral sanctions by the United States. 
And then act if Russia doesn't listen.
  I get it that this isn't all my Republican colleagues desire when it 
comes to U.S. policy toward Ukraine, but overreacting to this crisis is 
just as bad, if not worse, than doing nothing. I was in Kiev at the 
very beginning, standing on stage at the Maidan with Senator McCain, 
urging the Ukrainian people to demand more from their government. I was 
here, advocating for a robust U.S. response to support these 
protesters. I believed, as I still believe, the United States should be 
playing an active role in this crisis, and I was making this argument 
before anyone else in this Chamber. But this isn't the Cold War. This 
is a fight in Russia's backyard, and the cold hard reality is that the 
stakes are just simply greater for Moscow than they are for us. And the 
world is no longer organized around who is with the United States and 
who is with Russia. The foundational paradigms of global security now 
are about who has nuclear weapons and who doesn't. Who is allied with 
the Shia and who is allied with the Sunni. Where are the Islamist 
terrorists organizing and who is helping them.
  I don't mean to say that unchecked Russian action doesn't have global 
consequences. It does. China, for instance, is certainly watching to 
see if nations pay a price when they reset their borders through 
aggression rather than through diplomacy. But we ultimately won the 
Cold War by playing the long game. We knew that if we held true to 
democratic and free market values, the world would notice that an 
alliance with us was far more beneficial than an alliance with the 
Soviet Union. That, in fact, is the very reason for the current crisis. 
The Ukrainian people revolted because they saw the value of a Western 
economic and political orientation. We didn't need to use intimidation 
or bribery or little green men; we just showed them that our stuff is 
better.
  Of course, the irony is that the Russians used to be the kings of the 
long game. Kutuzov let Napoleon march into Moscow after clearing out 
the city and leaving only about 10,000 people behind. He strung out the 
French army and left it ultimately helpless.
  We don't have to resort to the drastic tactics of this old savvy 
Russian general. There are actions we can take and have taken to 
support Ukraine and send a message to Russia. But we shouldn't 
overinflate our national security interests in this crisis. We simply 
do not need to win every battle to win the war. And this body, the U.S. 
Senate, built by our Founding Fathers to see and play the long game for 
America, should understand this fact. We aren't the Russians in 1812. 
We must engage in a robust policy toward Ukraine that is much more than 
simply time and patience, but that doesn't mean there aren't some 
important lessons to be learned.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                               EXPIRE Act

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to pass 
the tax extenders package that the Senate Finance Committee put forward 
which would reinstate a number of tax provisions to help with job 
creation and to especially help homeowners and workers get back on 
their feet.
  Yesterday I spoke to United Egg Producers which consists of a group 
of many family farmers and some larger farmers. My State is No. 2 in 
the country in egg production, second only to

[[Page 7898]]

the State of Iowa. I talked to Tom Hertzfeld, Jr., and his son Jordan, 
who are third and fourth generation egg farmers in Grand Rapids, OH, a 
community not too far from Toledo in northwest Ohio.
  The farm has been in the family since 1959. They produce about 
100,000 dozen eggs every day. It is a technical business. The eggs go 
from the chicken to the carton and then into the customers' hands. The 
production equipment requires major investment. So when farmers like 
Tom need to buy new equipment, build new barns, and acquire more 
property, they should be able to accelerate their writeoffs. Bonus 
depreciation and section 179 gives our small businesses the capital to 
invest in tools that are important for them to expand, hire people, and 
make their communities more prosperous.
  As we help existing businesses expand, we need to focus on reviving 
industries, especially manufacturing. We know wealth is created when we 
make it, mine it or grow it. We do all three of those in a significant 
way in my State. Ohio is the Nation's third largest manufacturing 
State, only behind California, which is three times our population, and 
Texas, which is twice our population.
  The new markets tax credit will help revitalize communities hit hard 
by shuttered factories by leveraging tens of billions of dollars in 
private investments. We know what the new markets tax credit has done 
for development in areas that are generally a little poorer than most. 
We want to be able to target manufacturing too, and that is what our 
Manufacturing Communities Investment Act does. Last year, for instance, 
in Portage County, the community of Streetsboro lost 300 jobs after 
Commercial Turf Products shut its doors. Under the Manufacturing 
Communities Investment Act, the city could access financing to bring 
new manufacturing businesses back to Streetsboro.
  For those workers who have lost their jobs and benefits, the health 
coverage tax credit, or the HCTC, needs to be extended. The HCTC 
preserves a program that Ohioans--such as the Delphi salaried retirees 
who worked hard and played by the rules--know, understand, and trust.
  Extending the tax credit for 2 years is fiscally responsible. We 
should improve the HCTC and make it permanent, as I have proposed in 
the legislation that I have introduced with Senators Rockefeller, 
Stabenow, Hirono, and Donnelly. At the very least we should renew this 
critical tax credit.
  Earlier this year I traveled across Ohio and met with homeowners such 
as Hattie Wilkins from Youngstown, OH. She was laid off, fell behind on 
her mortgage, and began the foreclosure process. Her bank--because it 
was in their interest too--forgave the $35,000 she still owed, but 
Hattie and thousands of homeowners across the country face higher taxes 
if we don't move to extend the Mortgage Forgiveness Tax Relief Act.
  In many ways it is a phantom income. If it is a short sale or they 
get a principal reduction--as I was discussing with Ohio realtors 
today--the homeowners never really get the money for it, but they are 
hit with the tax bill as if they had gotten that income. We have 
extended this tax forgiveness, if you will, in the past because Members 
of both parties recognize there is still a critical need for it.
  All of these items--as part of the tax extenders package--help create 
jobs, put money in homeowners' pockets, pay for health insurance, and 
allow people to stay in their homes. As I said, it also creates jobs 
and is good for our communities. It is important that we pass the tax 
extenders package as soon as possible in this Chamber.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________