or sooner if they grow faster and it's only available to companies who have sales as i said, less than a billion dollars. but that describes a great number of companies and i can tell you from personal experience, when a company is approaching that threshold of asking themselves should we go public, we could grow, we could use the capital, deploy it to hire more workers, make constructive use of it, they have to weigh the cost and the cost of compliance right now is huge. and we have seen a huge drop-off in the number of i.p.o.'s, we've seen a huge extension in the period of time between the successful launch of a company and the moment that they do an i.p.o. we've seen that ledgen dramatically sings we passed sarbanes-oxley, in part because it's so expensive to comply. what we'll be doing if we pass this legislation today which i certainly hope we will, we'll be making it a little bit more affordable for companies to make that decision sooner, hiring workers sooner, growing soon

perks which means more growth for our be economy, more opportunities for all of the people that we represent. so i am ve -- so i am very optimistic. i am really very pleased that we have been able to pull together such broad, bipartisan support. this overwhelming vote in the house, the endorsement of the president of the united states, the support and cooperation with individual democratic senators who've cosponsored key pieces of this legislation. i do think it's equally important that we defeat the reid amendment so that we don't actually go backwards in this process and have the unintended consequence of forcing currently private companies to become public against their will, forcing them to incur all kinds of costs that are actually counterproductive. but if we can do that today, then i think we can pass this legislation. we know the president of the united states will sign it. we should do it as soon as we can. and i just want to thank all my advancing us to the point r we're at today. with that, mr. president, i

yield the floor. mr. toomey: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: how much time is remaining in the debate on this measure? the presiding officer: 23 minutes total. 18 minutes on the majority side. mr. durbin: thank you, madam president.

i see the floor is vacant and i assume the time's being taken from both sides at this moment? the presiding officer: in the quorum call, the time is being charged equally. right now it is being charged to the majority party. mr. durbin: thank you. then i'll try to fill that time with something interesting. madam president, the united states has the best markets in the world because of strong regulation and oversight by the securities and exchange commission and other agencies. our markets are transparent and investors get accurate, detailed information. 100 million americans depend on these strong regulated market when they are making their savings for retirement or college. this is a creation that began back after the great depression when franklin roosevelt said that we needed to establish the appropriate regulatory agencies to set the economy on the right track and keep it there. strong oversight has helped pension fund managers who count on safety and transparency so

they can provide pension benefits to millions of american retirees. and investors from around the world bring their money here because of our investor protections. yet the senate is considering today a house-passed capital formation bill that rolls back the very protections that make our markets the best in the world. now, supporters of this bill claim that investors will just jump at the opportunity to invest in a company as soon as we reduce disclosure, auditing and accounting standards. they say this is a perfect way to create jobs. but why should investors choose to invest in companies under conditions that do less to protect their money? why should investors who were burned during the dot-com crash put more capital in companies that are exempt from the same rules we put in place to ensure it would never happen again? why would investors who were left with nothing after the financial crisis because of risky behavior by executives with golden parachutes find

companies exempt from compensation standards more attractive? the answer is, they won't. and the ones that do will be more exposed to deceit and fra fraud. the result won't be more jobs, it will be less transparency, less accountability. professor john coates of harvard law school agrees. and here what he said, "the proposals here not only reduce front-page scandals but they reduce the very thing they're promoted to increase, job growth." listen to what lynn turner said, "the proposed legislation is a dangerous, risky experiment with u.s. capital markets. i do not believe it will add jobs but may certainly result in investor loss." the house-passed bill, as written, won't create jobs but let me tell you what it will do. it would exempt firms with more than a billion dollars in revenue -- that's 90% of the newly public companies -- more than a billion dollars in annual revenue exempted from the standards that help ensure

audits based on facts, not on the managing -- not on who is managing the auditor's contract. these are the same internal controls that we just adopted after enron, after we were burned there after investors lost their money, after pension funds lost their investments, after people lost their jobs. we set up standards and said, let it never happen again. now in this euphoria, we are going to repeal the enron standards for these companies. this bill would allow companies to use billboards and cold calls to lure unsophisticated investors with the promise of making a quick buck investing in new companies. according to "the new york times," it will allow anyone with an idea to post that idea on-line and raise a million dollars without ever providing financial statements. this is a scam. how many times have you picked up your cell phone to see there's a nigerian opportunity

out there? be prepared after this bill passes. they won't be from nigeria, they may be from next door. and we are giving them the opportunity to ask people all across america for their hard-earned savings on investments that are not backed up with financial statements. last friday, s.e.c. commissioner aguilar joined the chairman of the s.e.c., mary shapiro, in raising concerns about this house-passed bill. isn't that fair warning that we ought to at least have a hearing on this bill before it passes? i ask unanimous consent to submit commissioner aguilar's statement for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you. commission aguilar said he shares concerns expressed by many that provisions of this bill would be a boon to boiler room operators, ponzi schemers, bucket shops and garden variety fraudsters by enabling them to cast a wider net and make securities law enforcement that much more difficult. others have raised concern. the north american securities

administrators association, the consumer federation of america, the americans for financial reform, the council of institutional investors, securities experts like professor john coffee and former s.e.c. chief accountant lynn turner, the aarp concerned that seniors will be bilked out of their savings with these phony solicitations for companies that may not even exist. i share their concerns. i believe there is a path forward to protect investors and make it easier for small firms to come up with capital. some of my colleagues -- several of my colleagues had a substitute amendment, senator jack reed, senator carl levin, senator mary landrieu, which would have done just that, made it easier to raise capital but kept the safeguards in place. it was defeated virtually on a party-line vote. it was defeated. it would have preserved the dodd-frank "say on pay" provisions to allow investors to weigh in if executives are getting exorbitant compensation and golden parachutes.

the amendment would have prohibited companies from advertising and selling stock to the unsophisticated, the unsuspecting investors. it would have included minimum requirements for crowdfunding web sites so investors around blindly giving money to someone with a good-looking web site that promises a good return that will never, ever happen. in short, the amendment would have responded to investors' concerns, the very same investors some of my colleagues claim the underlying bill will encourage to invest. and that's not all it would have done. the amendment also included a reauthorization of the export-import bank which makes loans to major companies and smaller companies too who want to export american-made products made by american workers. the reauthorization increased the bank's lending cap to $140 billion. this is the same export-import bank that received bipartisan support in the banking committee and was reported out on a voice vote. a similar reauthorization was

introduced by a republican the last time around in 2006, passed the senate without even the requirement of a record vote. however, yesterday both the landrieu-reed-levin amendment, which was the substitute, that included the export-import bank reauthorization, and the cantwell, senator maria cantwe cantwell, amendment failed to obtain enough votes to invoke cloture mostly on a party-line vote. two republicans voted to extend the export-import bank authorization. two. this is a bank which gives out of companies in america a fighting chance around the world to compete with those companies in other countries that are subsidized bie by their governm. we have the export-import bank to help our companies, companies in my state like boeing and caterpillar, good-paying jobs right here in america, sustained by exports, helped by the export-import bank -- defeated on the floor of the united states senate. only two republican senators

would step up and vote for that bank. and it used to be noncontroversial. we did it because we knew it was so good for our country. it turned out to be a partisan issue, too many turn ought to be partisan issues on the floor lately. it is clear that politics and the theoretical jobs created by a bill that significantly reduces investor protections are more important to some of my colleagues than the real jobs that would have been created by the export-import bank. this bank is responsible for supporting 288,000 american jobs at more than 2,700 u.s. companies. you would have thought it would have won more than two republican votes. 113 companies are in my state. one of the companies, holland l.p. in illinois employs 250 people. holland was able to sell two

complete m-track welding systems to a company in brazil. the c.e.o. said, without the export-import bank, this transaction would not have come to life. that's how the export-import bank can help companies my state and companies all around the united states. i have to say there will be an amendment offered this afternoon, the merkley, scott brown amendment. it would raise up to $1 million through crowdfunding web sites but put in protections for investors. the amendment would require all crowdfunding web sites to register with the s.e.c. that's a step in the right direction. it is one of the most important elements that needs to be changed in this bill, out of about eight elements. it's the only one we're likely to address this afternoon. i also urge my colleagues to support the amendment by senator jack reed of rhode island

requiring the s.e.c. to revise the definition of "holder of record." i will tell you that the financial industry has been working overtime to beat this amendment. they have been on the phones calling everybody saying, stop the reed amendment. according to a professor at colombia law school, the shareholder of record concept is archaic and it can be gamed. state securities regulators also share that same concern. the american securities administrators association said in a recent letter, it makes little sense to exclude any investor from the count of beneficial holders. the reed amendment would require the s.e.c. to update the definition of "holder of record" to revise an outdated definition that could actually hide the true number of shareholders that a company might have. i believe the bipartisanmarkly merkley-bennet and reed amendments may improve this bill but it still doesn't make it a

good bill. this bill should have at least had a hearing. we should have at least brought in some expert witnesses. i will tell you we will rue the day that we rammed this thing through the house and the senate without the appropriate oversight. i can almost predict to you, having seen this happen time and again, that there will come a time after we pass this bill when we start hearing from americans who are being lured into phony investments, losing their life savings and the the - and their retirement in the process, when we will step back and say, how did that ever happen? on march 22, 2012, we had a chance to make a difference, to slow down and stop this bill until there was an adequate hearing, until we put the safeguards in place which americans deserve. i am not against investment. i know there is risk associated with it. but we have said since 1932 under the creation of the

securities and exchange commission, we owe the americans when they make a decision about an investment some basic things: make sure the salesman is telling the truth and make sure what that salesman said can be backed up with audited financial statements. we can all remember the stories about people that used to blow into town selling penny stocks and $5 stocks and unsuspecting investors losing their savings as these folks caught the next train out of town. we don't need to returning to that in the name of job creation. if we are creating the jobs of new charlatans who are offering these investments, these are not the kind of jobs that america should encutting edge. i believe the house-passed bill should be defeated today. i think we should take the time to get it right, listen to the chairman of the securities and exchange commission, put the protections in the law so we can move forward with a bill that all of us can be proud of. madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. merkley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: thank you, madam president. i am rise to address the amendment on dliewf crowdfundint we'll be considering shortly on the floor of the senate. the goal is to enable americans to invest in start-up companies, to invest in small companies through the internet and to do so in a fashion that does not result in predatory scams but instead results in capital formation that helps small business thrive across our nation. now, the house bill, as it came over to us, has crowdfunding provisions that are simply a pathway to predatory scams, a

paved highway to predatory scams. what do i mean by that? well, they say basically that a company seeking to raise investment capital doesn't have to give any financial information of any kind about their company, and if they do provide information, they don't have to have any accountability for the accuracy of that i information. and by the way, they can hire people to pump their stock, and that's okay under the law. in other words, everything you associate with the worst boiler rooms, the worst pump-and-dump deems ischemes is made legal bye house legislation. that's why we need to fix this here on the floor of the senate. we lay out a provision that says, if you raise less than $100,000, you, as the c.e.o., assert the accura accuracy of tn fact you'r you are -- the accurf the information you're putting

out. you proceed to have an accountant-reviewed statement that you vouch for. if you raise yet more funds, a higher level of funds, thifn an audited -- then you have an audited financial statement. it streamlines it based on the amount of investment you're asking for. this amendment says then that the directors and officers take responsibility for the accuracy of that information. and that gives investors a great deal more confidence that what they're reading is actually truly the case. and that's the foundation for successful investment. there are many folks who have been looking at these crowdfunding positions, these different measures, and i thought i'd read from a letter from matoovi based oust north carolina. they have said on the house bill, "the crowdfunding language in the house bill lacks critical investor protection features, does not require offerings to be conducted through an intermediary which opens the door to fraudulent activity,

does not require appropriate disclosures or inspections. the bill does not require the investor to inform the investor of capital risks. crowdfunding is premised on openness. without disclosure, investors cannot protect themselves or accurately price the securities they are buying. if issuers are not willing to provide information over and above what is required, the house language does not provide investors with other alternatives short of giving up on crowdfunding altogether." they then comment on the bipartisan amendment that we're presenting here today on the floor of the senate and they note, "it strikes the right balance between disclosure and flexibility. the language is tightly integrated with existing security laws to provide investor protection. it places easily met obligations on the investo investor to makee they can make sound decisions. the bill is written in a way that reflects how crowdfunding

actually works." and again this is from a crowdfunding intermediary based out of north carolina, one that is actually working to occupy this internet space and wants a platform, a structure that works and makes crowdfunding a legitimate strategy for capital formation. the letter continues, "we think crowdfunding can be valuable, an integral part of capital formation. the crowd fund act is the right bill to make this happen." or there's launched, a crowdfunding portal provider. they say, "for the first time, we have a senate bill with bipartisan sponsorship, a balance of state oversight and federal uniformity, industry-starntsz d standard investor protections and workable funding caps. let's turn to the commentary from the start-up exemption, three entrepreneurs who have leaded charge for flexible

provisions for crowdfunding. "we write to suggest that if you consider the house version, you consider adding the following crucial components: senatonumber one, crowdfunding intermediaries to provide oversight, all-or-nothing financing sore an entrepreneur must hit 100% of his target, or number three, state notification rather than state registration so states are aware of who is crowdfunding in their states. this ensures they retain the ability to create an fcialt marketplace. " these provisions are added in the amendment we are considering, an amendment they have endorsed. and finally, we have a peer-to-peer lending site. their commentary: "this amendment is robust enough to provide guidance to a new industry but would also benefit the crowdfunding industry in the long term. as compared to a possible race to the bottom with no regulatory

approach, the disclosure and regulatory requirements will provide adequate information to investors advising of risk but also deterring fraud." "again be, this has long-term benefits to the industry, as a whole." so this hits at the heart of why these investo investor protectie so important. not only do they deter scams, fraud, not only do they protect vulnerable investors, seniors and others who have little experience in the investing market, but they build a strong capital formation market, a successful platform for capital formation, a market that puts capital where citizens would like to put it -- the wisdom of the crowd, if you will; a market that allows good ideas to rise to the top, ; a market that will create jobs now and in the future. i urge my colleagues to support amendment 1884. it will provide the right balance of streamlining and

investor protection. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mr. reed: madam president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. reed: i ask that the call be dispensed with. i ask unanimous consent to be allowed to peek for up to one minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: madam president shortly we will be voting on my amendment which will maintain the house's increase in the number of shareholders, 2,000, in order to remain a -- private. but what i do is actually ensure that the shareholders are the real share holders. that there is not an intermediary that's holding the stock in the name of literally hundreds, perhaps, of shareholders, but it's the real shareholders. there's been some criticism of this amendment about its effect on the esops, mutual funds, private funds and others. we've been assured by legal experts it does not affect any of these funds or entities. in addition the s.e.c. has assured us that it through rule making can clarify that esops,

mutual funds, private funds and other entities like this will not be affected. i believe that if a company has 2,000 real shareholders, those shareholders should have access to routine information on a regular basis and that is the thrust of this amendment. the presiding officer: under the previous order, all post-cloture time has expired and the question occurs on the reed amendment numbered 1931. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. "the new york post" appear the noes to have it. the noes do have it. the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the merkley amendment numbered 1884.

who yields time? mr. merkley: plant. mr. merkley madam president i want to encourage to you adopt amendment 1884. the house bill as it came to us on crowdfunding is a pathway to predatory scams. if the company provides information, it requires no responsibility or accountability for the accuracy of that information. it allows companies to hire people to pump the stocks, which is exactly what we all know from pumping-and-dump schemes is very devastating to any solid financial foundation for capital aggregation, capital formation. i wasn't to -- i want to applaud my colleagues, senator bennet, senator landrieu,

senator brown, who have worked together to bring this bipartisan amendment forward that provides the right amount of streamlining for the companies, the right amount of streamlining for portals on the internet and the right set of investor protections, information, and accountability necessary to make crowdfunding crowdfunding -- the exciting -- fulfill the exciting potential it has. thank you. the presiding officer: who yields time in opposition? the time is yielded back. the question is on amendment 1884. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? seeing none, the yeas are 64, the nays are 35. the merkley amendment number 1884 is agreed to. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the motion is reconsidered -- is considered made and laid upon the table. the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 334, h.r. 3606, an act to increase american job creation, mick growth by improving access to the public capitals markets for emerging growth companies. the presiding officer: may we have order, please. senators, may we have order, please. under the previous order, there

will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on passage of h.r. 3606, as amended. the senator from rhode island. and may we have -- please take your conversations out. the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: madam president, the house legislation has some very promising concepts providing access to capital. a senator: the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate is not in order. senators, please take your conversations out of the senat senate -- the floor of the senate. the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you, madam president. the house bill has some promising concepts and what it fails to do is adequately protect investors. we have tried, through our alternative, to protect investors. that alternative has been rejected on a cloture vote by the senate. we have made some improvements with the merkley proposal but

we're not quite to the point yet where i think we can be confident that investors will be protected. and as such, i think we should vote against this legislation, that we should, in fact, try again and get it right. that is why the head of the securities and exchange commission opposes it, the former head of the securities and exchange commission opposes it, the former chief accountant for the securities and exchange commission, the institutional investors oppose it. we are opening up vast loopholes without disclosure, adequate disclosure to investors. i think we will regret this vote. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: madam president, if i could claim the time in support of this legislation. i would just suggest, madam president, that we're on the verge of doing something very, very constructive for our economy, for small businesses and for job growth and it might be one of the most constructive things we're going to do this year in that area. this legislation makes it easier

and more affordable for young and growing companies to go public, to raise the capital they need to grow, to hire more workers. it also actual makes it easier for those that want -- it also actually makes it easier for those that want to remain private and to attract more investors and to do so without triggering the very own exprus expensive regulations -- onerous and expensive regulations that eand to being a public -- attend to being a public company. this is going to create more jobs, more growth in the economy. that's why it passed the house with a vote of 329-936789 that's why the president of the united states has endorsed this bill and said he will sign it into law. that's why there are dozens and dozens and dozens of organizations and groups and companies and trade associations who support this legislation, so that we can do something right here, right now, today that the president will sign into law which will help small and growing companies raise the capital they need to grow. and i urge my colleagues to vote "yes." the presiding officer: the question is on the passage of the bill, as amended.

the yeas and nays have been asked for. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will ask for the yeas and nays -- will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there anyone in the chamber who hasn't voted who wishes to change their vote? on this roll call, h.r. 3606, as

amended, 73 ayes and 26 noes. the provision is passed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid on the table. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration to the motion to agree to the house amendment to the senate bill 2038, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to concur on the house amendment to s. 2038, an act to prohibit members of congress to use nonemployee information derived from their positions for their benefit and for other purposes. the presiding officer: there will be order in the senate. take your conversations out of the well. under the previous order, there will be four minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form. mr. lieberman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: madam president, i thank the

chair. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan, now bicameral congressional ethics measure. this started out as a response to a story and allegations that members of congress would not be held liable for insider trading. it then developed into what i think is the most significant congressional ethics legislation that we've adopted in at least five years, containing a lot of other public disclosure and good-government measures. i want to give particular thanks to senator kirsten gillibrand and scott brown, who led the effort, took the initiative that got this good ball rolling. and i would yield the rest of my time to senator gillibrand. mrs. gillibrand: thank you, senator lieberman. we shall taking a significant step forward today on behalf of the american people to restoring some faith that our country has in their government.

i want to thank leader reid, senator brown and all of our colleagues here on both sides of the aisle who worked so hard to pass this legislation. i also want to thank my colleague from new york, congress woman louise slaughter who fought so hard and long towards this effort. this legislation was a rare instance where 96 senators came together to deliver results for the american people. we passed a strong bill with teeth that will clearly and expressly make it illegal for members of congress, their staff and their families to gain personal profits from nonpublic information gained through their service. i strongly believe that we have to make it clear that no one is above the law and that members of congress need to play by the exact same rules as every other american. it's simply the right thing to do. this is a commonsense bill, and americans can be assured that our only interest is in their interest. when president obama signs the stock act, we will have begun to restore some of the public's

faith in washington. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. ms. collins: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. i would ask to be notified after one minute. the presiding officer: the senator will be notified. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. madam president, let me begin by commending senator scott brown, senator lieberman, and senator gillibrand for their leadership on this bill. i want to point out that my colleague from massachusetts introduced the first bill on this topic in the senate. the stock act is intended to affirm that members of congress are not exempt from our laws and regulations prohibiting insider trading. it is important to send a very clear message that members of congress are not exempt from these laws and that is exactly what this bill does. at a time when public confidence

in congress is at an all-time low, we need to send a strong message that -- the presiding officer: the senator has consumed one minute. ms. collins: -- that elective office is a place for public service and not private gain. i yield the remainder of my time to senator scott brown. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: madam president, thank you. today we put america first and we passed a bipartisan now bicameral bill the president will sign and we took a step toward ending the deficit of trust. i want to thank senator collins and senator lieberman for marking this up so quickly. today is a good day. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. brown: madam president, thank you. the stock act will affirm that members of congress are not above the law. it will increase transparency by requiring members of congress and highly compensated federal employees to disclose all their

trading activity within 45 days. today america is a government for the people, by the people and for the people. that means our elected officials must follow the same laws as everybody else. we have taken a step towards reestablishing trust, and today we are one step closer to making every seat the people's seat. thank you, and i encourage everybody to support this passage. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the reid motion to concur on the house amendment to 2038, the stop trading on congressional knowledge act signed by 22 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to concur on the house amendment to senate bill 2038, an act to prohibit members of congress and employees of congress from using nonpublic

information derived from their official positions for personal benefit and for other purposes shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 96, the nays are 3. 3/5 of the senators having duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. cloture having been revoked, the motion to refer calls with inconsistent with cloture. all postcloture time is yielded back. the motion to concur in the house amendment with amendment numbered 1940 is withdrawn, and the motion to concur in the house amendment is agreed to. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations which the clerk will report. the clerk: nominations, the judiciary, david nuffer of auto to be united states district

judge for the district of youth. ronnie abrams of new york to be -- mr. leahy: could we have order, madam president. the presiding officer: order in the senate. the clerk: ronnie abrams of new york to be united states district judge for the southern district of new york. rudolph contreras of virginia to be united states district judge for the district of columbia. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form. the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, i ask consent and i would note this as in morning business that the bipartisan violence against women act reauthorization now has 61 cosponsors, and i thank senator crapo for his leadership and the senators on both parties who came to the floor last week. the presiding officer: the

senate will be in order. the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i thank those senators, both republican and democratic senators who came to the floor last week to speak about the importance of reauthorizing the violence against women act. i ask my full statement be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: i ask consent to include in the record the stock act, my statement expressing disappointment of the senate, with the house version stripped out of the bipartisan anticorruption amendment without a vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and madam president, i ask consent to put in statements regarding the judicial nominees that are here. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and madam president, i would note on this side at least -- i know we have to have a roll call on this first nominee. i have no objection if there are voice votes on the next two, but that will be up to others.

but on the first one, i ask for the yeas and nays on the first. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call -- who yields time? all time yielded back, the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? on this roll call, the vote is 96 ayes, 2 nays. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the abrams

nomination. who yields time? mrs. gillibrand: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. the senate will come tthe senat. please take your conversations out of the well. reid madam president? er sph officer the majority floor leader. mr. reid: i we expect this to be the last vote. the next vote we can do by voice. this will be the last vote of the week. the presiding officer: the senator from move to reconsider is recognized. mrs. gillibrand: i am honored to offer my strong support for the nomination of ronnie abrams to the united states district court for the southern district of new york. i also want to thank president obama for acting on my recommendation and nominated another superbly qualified woman jurist to the bench. i have had the privilege of knowing her for many years, a fair-minded woman of great integrity. throughout her career, she's proulxeproven herself as an excl

attorney. when working in the united states attorneys' office, she supervised hundreds of prosecutions including violent crime, public corruption, drug trafficking and crimes against children. her record shows her commitment to justice and i can tell you she has a deep and sincere commitment to public service. there's no question that ms. abrams is extremely well-equal feud and well-suited to be a federal judge. i strongly believe our nation needs more women like her serving on the federal judiciary ands, an institution that i believe needs more exceptional women. i believe it is incredibly important that we do reach the point of balance in the judiciary. i recommend her most highly. the presiding officer: who yields too i am in opposition in -- who yields time in opposition? all fipple i time is yielded ba. the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second?

there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is is the any senator who wishes to change his or her vote? if not, on this vote the ayes are 96, the nays are 2, and the nomination is confirmed. the question is on the contreras nomination. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it.

the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid on the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. mr. reid: mr. president. the presiding officer: and the senate will resume legislative action. the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 337, s. 2204. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 337, s. 2204, a bill to eliminate unnecessary tax subsidies and promote renewable energy and energy conservation. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion that has been filed at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the reid motion to proceed to calendar number 337, s. 2204, a bill to eliminate

unnecessary tax subsidies and promote renewable energy and energy conservation. signed by 17 senators as follows -- reid, menendez, -- mr. reid: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i withdraw my motion to proceed. the presiding officer: the motion is withdrawn. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 also be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar number 296, s. 1789. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 296, a bill to move, sustain and transport the united states postal service. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby to move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar numbered 296, s. 1789, the 21st century

postal service act, signed by 16 senators as follows -- reid, carper, brown of ohio, begich, nelson of florida, lautenberg, shaheen, blumenthal, coons, feinstein, leahy, durbin, lieberman, murray, schumer and pryor. mr. reid: mr. president, this is an extremely important bill. that's the postal reform legislation. we have been waiting to get to it for a long time. we're going to move to that next week. i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask we proceed to a period of morning business, with senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i rise to speak about a disturbing made recently about the national football league. the national football league investigation revealed that the new orleans saints had allegedly been operating an illegal bounty program. under this bounty program,

players were reportedly given significant sums of money in direct exchange for intentionally injuring opposing players, for disabling them, for having them carried off the field in an ambulance. according to reports, compensation started at $1,000 for causing an opponent to be carried off the field. this was called a cartoff. the price was $1,500 for causing an opponent to be unable to continue the game. this was known as a knockout. these bounties reportedly reached high sums of money, $10,000, even $50,000. what is even more troubling is a -- is that reports suggest that these bounty systems might have reached far beyond the new orleans saints. reports surfacing as a result of the nfl investigation have indicated that other teams may have also been engaged in this practice. one former professional football player recently tweeted -- quote

-- "why is this a big deal now? bounties have been going on forever." end of quote. another stated -- quote -- "prices were set on saturday nights in the team hotel. we laid our bounties on opposing players. we targeted big names. our sights were set on taking them out of the game." end of quote. let me tell you why this is important and reprehensible. a spirit of aggressiveness and competitiveness is an integral part of many sporting contests, but bribing players to intentionally hurt their opponents cannot be tolerated. we have to put an end to this. just yesterday, to its credit, the national football league announced historic stiff penalties for those involved in the new orleans saints bounty program. the team's head coach, general manager, former defensive coordinator and assistant head coach were suspended for long periods of time. the team will forfeit selections

in upcoming drafts, and the team was fined. i commend the national football league for taking swift and decisive action to discipline those involved in the saints' bounty program. but we need to make sure this never happens again on any team, in any team sport. for that reason, i'll be convening a hearing of the senate judiciary committee. i spoke to senator pat leahy about this this morning, and he has given me his permission as chairman to move forward. we will have a hearing and put on the record what sports leagues and teams at the professional and collegiate levels are doing to make sure that there's no place in athletics for these pay-to-maim bounties. i want to hear the policies and practices in each of the major sports and collegiate sports that are being put in place and have one explore whether federal

legislation is required. currently bribery in sporting contests is a federal crime. it is illegal to carry out a scheme in interstate commerce to influence a sporting contest through bribery. this goes back to a law of almost 50 years ago, by senator kenneth keating of new york. here's what he said at the time about bribery that would influence the outcome of a sporting contest. and i quote -- "we must do everything we can to keep sports clean so fans, and especially young people can continue to have confidence in the honesty of the players. scandals are big news and can have an devastating effect on our youth whose sports figures are idols." as the department of justice stated at that time, the federal law, making it a crime to engage in bribery to influence the outcome of a sporting contest was enacted, federal legislation

was necessary to deal with inadequacies and jurisdictional limitations of state law." mr. president, most of us are sports fans. i would have to list my favorite sport as football with baseball a close second. i know football is a contact sport. i've got a bum knee to show from my football experience in high school. accidents will happen and injuries will happen. that's part of the game. i knew it when i put on my uniform and went out on that field. but i never dreamed that there would be some conspiracy, some bribery involved in some other player trying to intentionally hurt me or take me out of the game. that goes way beyond sports. i am heartened by the fact that many of the leaders in sports are now sensitized to the injuries that are being caused players, particularly in the football arena. we know that concussions can be devastating and can ultimately take the life of a player. the national football league and others are more and more

sensitive to this phenomena. i commend them for this. this disclosure srofrg the new orleans -- involving the new orleans saints goes to an outrageous level that none of us ever anticipated. i think it's time, whether we're talking about hockey, football, baseball, basketball, or any collegiate team contest, that we have clear rules to make certain that what happened with the new orleans saints never ever happens again. this hearing will invite representatives and witnesses from the major sporting leagues and the ncaa so that they'll have time to prepare. we'll call this hearing after easter, the easter break. but i hope to have it in a timely fashion. i want fans all across america, and i want players all across america to know that what happened in new orleans that led to this action by the nfl is not going to be repeated. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the

clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the

senator from california. mrs. boxer: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: you know because you're such a leader on the issue of jobs for america that the senate passed a very important bill last week. it's called map-21, moving ahead for progress in the 21st century. and what it did was reauthorize our transportation programs as they relate to highways, our bridges, and our transit systems. this was a very difficult bill to get done because it took a lot of compromise. my friend in the chair knows this. he comes from vermont, where they have had a lot of issues with rebuilding their roads after disasters, and he knows how important it is especially in those rural areas to make sure we have a good transportation system. both in our roads, our freeways, and our mass transit. so we got this bill done.

and, mr. president, it was remarkable. 74 votes, actually it would have been 75 votes, one of our colleagues was at a funeral. he was for the bill. so three-fourths of the senate supported that bill. and we exciteddedly found out that some house members were very happy with it and they've introduced it and that bill, map-21, is sitting over in the house. there's a lot at stake, and they are not moving this bill. they could take that bill off the desk and they could pass it in 15 minutes. i served in the house, i know the rules. it's not like the senate where you can filibuster and do amendments and all the rest. it's a very quick process. they have not done that. instead, they're talking about putting together a bill just

with the republican party, and not including democrats in that at all so they would have a very partisan bill. and they're not interested in going to the democrats. and they want to turn that bill into some offshore oil drilling, drilling in the arktics, grilling drilg this the lakes, drilling, drilling, drilling, when it has nothing to do with the bill and would only add contentious, nongermane issues to what is a very clear statement by the senate in a bipartisan way that in order to be a great nation and in order to have a strong economy, you need to move goods, you need to move people. now, this idea of a national transportation system came to us from a republican president named dwight eisenhower. he was a war hero and a general. he knew logistics, and he knew that if you're in a war zone, you have to move your artillery and you have to move your equipment and all the rest.

you need to have a logistics plan. when he became president, he knew we're moving products from one state to the next; it's commerce. we better get it right. and he started the highway system. and, mr. president, since that time, we have had bipartisan support for transportation legislation. whether it was bill clinton or whether it was george bush or george bush's father or it was jimmy carter or it was ronald reagan or it was richard nixon, we've had bipartisan support. so the american people must be really happy to hear that we were able to carry out that bipartisan spirit. senator inhofe and i, working in our committee, senator hutchison and senator rockefeller, working with their committee -- these are republicans and democrats

working together, republicans and democrats of finance, republicans and democrats i working it out. we asked the house to tank the bill -- we asked the house to take up the bill and pass it. so far we have heard nothing at all to believe us to the belief that that is what they are going to do. now, this entire program expires at the end of next week, and if they just send us an extension, without funding, if they send us an extension without changing law, it's going to wreak havoc this our states. we already have letters from the states saying that they're very fearful because this is the construction season, and you can't enter into an agreement if you only have a short-term agreement to keep the highway program operating for 30 days or 90 days or 60 days.

we call on them it take and pass this bill. i did a press conference today with democrats -- leader pell pi and steny hoyer and friends over there who work on transportation issueissues, nick rahall, the rg member of the committee, and mr. bishop, who has introduced the senate bill, and mr. defazio from oregon -- and we had one message. the message was, speaker boehn boehner, do what every great speaker has done before you: reach out to the other party, come to the table, and get 218 votes and pass this. so far we don't hear anything like that. and i am very worried, and i am concerned. why? mr. president, 1.4 million construction workers are unemployed. that would fill up 14 stadiums

-- football stadiums. 14 super bowl football stadiums filled with unemployed construction workers because we've had such a downturn in housing. we asked speaker boehner respectfully, take up the bill. put these people to work. our bill will save 1.9 million construction jobs, and it will create up to 1 million more. so we can take this 1.4 million, hire 1 million workers and, mr. president, you would bring down that unemployment rate way, way down at 17.1%. how about our businesses? our businesses need help. 1,075 organizations -- the vast majority of them are businesses, have begged us to do this bill. so we say to speaker boehner respectfully, listen to more than 1,000 organizations. pass the bill. now, i'm going to read you to an

amazing array -- read to you an amazing array of materials. i'll read them in part. the idea is, mr. president, maybe speaker boehner isn't listening. maybe he isn't paying attention, but the country is. here's an editorial, not from a blue state but from a bright red state called oklahoma. "bipartisanship in senate moves transportation bill." and this is what they said. "with rare bipartisanship, the u.s. senate on wednesday passed a madam chairwoman-needed and much-delayed national transportation bill that could create jobs and fund road projects ... " and they finish by saying, "house speaker boehner has called for the house to either take action on its bill or close it. that could clear the house to consider the senate bill. the country's infrastructure has been ignored for far too long.

it is in dire straits. this is an important and necessary extension of the transportation bill. it will make needed improvements to our transportation infrastructure. and it is a real job-creator." so this is an editorial from oklahoma, far from a blue state. they want us to finish our work and they're calling on speaker boehner to do it. now, here's another one -- another red state. "the stt worth star telegram." in texas. "what answer siting thipg to see the u.s. senate pass a surface transportation bill on a 74-22 vote. such bipartisan support for maintaining and improving this crucial part of the national infrastructure makes it almost seem like the good old days in washington ..." at one point speaker bain said, "he would put the senate bill up. and now he says, it's beginning to look like boehner doesn't have a clue what the house will

do ..." well, if "the star telegram" is right and boehner doesn't have a clue as to what to do, i would like to respectfully ask him to tank the senate bill and pass it. we just passed the bill they sent us with 73 votes. our bill passed with 74. we did it. they should do it. their bill that we passed, there's not one estimate of how many jobs will be created by it, not one. i mean, we're hoping there will be. it's the i.p.o. bill. this one is 3 million jobs, unequivocal. so they name a bill "the jobs bill." they send it over here, it gets 73 votes. we send -- we're going to pass it. we took it up. now they should pass the bill we passed. and they call it "the follies,"

"the congressional follies," it he doesn't act. this is from "the oregon register guard." it is called "a solid transportation bill." "by an impressively bipartisan 74-22 vote, the u.s. senate on witness day passed a two-year blueprint for transplantation. the house should pass this massive bill swiftly after setting aside an outrageous republican version that would link highway, bridge, and other transit spending to an expansion of oil drilling from the arctic national wildlife refuge." and it points thiewt our bil pol is supported by labor and business and will create 3 million jobs. i'm going to read you a few more of these. i hope somebody in speaker boehner's office is watching. i really do. because we are showing what is happening in the country, and everybody is calling on speaker boehner to pass the bill.

this is "the sacramento bee." "stop dithering, pass transportation bill." "the senate's two-year bill, while not ideal, would provide states stability through the end of 2013. it would give lawmakers a year to work on long-term funding." some house republicans are saying they won't act on a multiyear bill until after the easter break. that is unacceptable." that's what i think. and they quote something that i said, and i'm going to repeat it because i think it's important. "this was a bill that brought us together and lord knows it's hard to find moments when we can come together." isn't that true, madam president? it's hard to find times when we come together. well, we came together, three-quarters of the senate. speaker boehner, what more do you want? you had 22 republicans vote aye. take up our bill and pass it. then here's another one.

"highway bill would boost stability." how important is that as we climb out of this recession? "a two-year, $109 billion highway bill that passed the senate this week buoys the hope of interest groups like roadbuilders and the travel industry that the house can be prodded by the senators' action to pass its own bill before a march 31 expiration." the bill has no earmarks." oh, this is from mississippi, another red state. "mississippi could derive major benefits from part of the bill called the restore act, supported by wicker and cochran. it would establish a restoration fund for the gulf coast to repair the damage in the calamitous oil spill." so here you have newspaper after newspaper, and for my colleagues who are going to speak, i will be finished in about six minutes -- here's another one.

""chicago sun-times"." "for a better commute, pass the transportation bill." bhow this, "the u.s. senate just delivered a gift to the house: a bipartisan transportation bill at a time when america really could use a lift here's hoping the republicans don't mess it up ..." well, i've got news for ""the chicago tribune"." right now they're messing it up much because all they have to do is take our bill from the desk and pass it. and guess what that would mean? 3 million jobs. thousands of businesses relieved that they know they can enter into contracts to build our roads, fix our bridges, 70,000 bridges, madam president, in a state of disrepair, deficient, meaning they could have serious consequences. we saw bridges collapse. that's not a game. and the infrastructure is aging,

so i love this editorial. it says essentially -- "a spokesman for boehner tells us that the hope is that the house can coalesce around a more reasonable, longer-term extension." well, that's a hope. that's a prayer. they tried it for more than a year. guess what? they got nowhere because, madam president, they won't talk to the democrats over there. i served in the house for ten years. it was a wonderful experience. madam president, tip o'neill was a great speaker many they've had a lot of great ones over there. but tip o'neill knew, the way to get things done was to get to 218. he didn't care if the people voting were democrats or republicans. if he saw a need, he got to 218. he'd go to his friend, bob michel, on the other side, like i went to jim inhofe, and they worked together, just like we did. speaker boehner, reach your hand out to leader pelosi.

she's ready to go. she'll work with you. here's one from ohio. this is the state of speaker boehner. "akron beacon editorial." "the road to compromise." "on wednesday, 74 12340r senato, republicans and the democrats, join together in a real accomplishment. they approved a two-year $109 billion transportation bill. the timing couldn't have been better. authorization for federal highway spending ends on march 31. without action, construction, repair, and maintenance will halt across the country ..." "what will the house do? it should take the cue of the senate and quickly approve the legislation that won bipartisan support ..." this is speaker boehner. you know, in speaker boehner's state, at a minimum, 55,000 jobs are at stake. at a minimum. that's without our new program

that leverages funds. that could be double. but right now there's 5 5,000 jobs we protect, and we could -- but right now there's 55,000 jobs we could protect and we could create more. so i don't know what they're thinking about over there. i honestly don't know. what are they thinking about? here's one. this is from florida, editorial. "pass this transit bill." how could you get clearer? "in an all-too-rare display of bipartisanship, the senate by a vote of 74-22 passed a transportation bill of vital interest to south florida and the rest of the country. unfortunately," they write, "house members apparently haven't gotten the word. the senate bill extends funding for federal highway and transit and other surface projects for two years. that would save or create three

million jobs." "speaker boehner appears to have recognized this version favored by some g.o.p. hard liners in his caucus doesn't stand a chance of becoming law. but there's no immediate plan to go forward with a compromise. this uncompromising approach is why public approval of congress stands at 10% or below. mr. boehner should euz urge caucus to accept the bipartisan senate version. i'm going to repeat that last paragraph. "this uncompromising approach is why public approval of congress stands at 10% or below in recent polls. mr. boehner should urge the members of his caucus to set aside their job-killing intransigence and accept the bipartisan senate version before funding runs out." let's hold this here. i'm going to conclude here because i know senator franken's been waiting, and i so respect his right to speak.

but i did want to point out that this particular editorial comes from the newspaper that is home to the chairman of the committee over there, john mica. i'm sorry, this is not from his home state. this is. this is from a different florida newspaper. here's the one from his home state. the chairman of the t.n.i. committee, tr-plgs infrastructure. this is what -- transportation infrastructure. they say "congress is gridlocked again. surprise. this time over federal transportation funding. last week a bipartisan majority in the senate passed $109 billion measure that would maintain federal funding for highway and mass transit projects for two years. but a five-year bill drafted by john mica has stalled amid opposition from democrats and some republicans. rather than let transportation

projects grind to a halt, lawmakers should pass the senate bill as the only bipartisan vehicle available. then they should start -- get started on fixing the problems before the next bill becomes due." so i think i've shown you -- let's put up the very, very last one here, because then we'll close on this. this one is from "the tampa bay times." this is a part of florida that is pretty red. i'll close with this one. house should fix partisan potholes and pass transit bill. with new signs overweek the recovery is taking hold congress should be rell hreurbg the chance to pass a transportation bill. but house republicans are more keen to continue waging ideological wars in the run-up to the election than to bring much-needed relief to america's commuters and to workers hard hit in the instruction industry. the house -- in the construction industry. the house should follow the senate's lead and pass the transportation bill without

further delay. so, madam president, everybody seems to be getting the message, but i'm not so sure speaker boehner or leader cantor are listening. and they have to listen. because if they don't listen, and as a result of their inability to pass this bill or not want to pass it, what will happen is there will be another jolt to this economic recovery. because we're talking here three million jobs at stake, thousands of companies are hurting. and i'm hearing from states all over this great nation that they are in chaos because they don't know what the house is going to do. so we took up a house bill. we didn't play partisan games. we passed it in a couple of days. it got 73 votes. our bill, our jobs bill for highways and transit and roads and bridges got 74 votes.

i say you wanted us to do this, we did it. how about you take a look at this bill. how about you save three million jobs. how about you do the people's work before you go off on your break. they owe it to the american people. boehner owes it to the american people. coon -- cantor, mica, all of them. they said it's a priority and they do nothing. they are dithering, as the papers have expressed. today they can stop dithering. tomorrow they can get our bill ready for a vote. next week they could pass it, we can go home, we can all celebrate with our businesses and our construction workers and know that we've done something great for the american people. thank you very much, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. franken: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota.

mr. franken: thank you, madam president. i'd like to associate myself with the words of the senator from california and commend her for the tremendous work she did on the transportation bill, a bipartisan bill that passed overwhelmingly here in the senate. madam president, i'd like to join many of my colleagues who this week are talking each a little bit about the affordable care act which tomorrow celebrates its second anniversary of being signed into law by the president. even though the law won't be fully implemented until 2014, millions of americans and minnesotans are already enjoying benefits from important provisions in the law. for example, no child in minnesota, no child in new

hampshire, no child in america can now be denied health insurance coverage because he or she has a preexisting condition. parents across minnesota and around the country can sleep a little bit easier knowing that if their child gets sick, they'll still be able to get the health coverage they need. that's a big deal. speaking of parents, young adults can now stay on their parents' health insurance until they're 26, thanks to the affordable care act, 32,189 young adults in minnesota are now insured on their parents' policy. because of this law, health insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on

health benefits. just a few weeks ago i heard from a minnesotan in his 30's with hemophilia. he had already hit his lifetime cap three times. but because of the health reform law, he still has insurance. and no american can ever again have their health insurance taken away from them because they've reached some arbitrary lifetime limit. and i am proud of that. now let's talk about seniors. i go to a lot of senior stph*ets around my -- i go to a lot of senior centers around my state. i know the presiding officer goes to senior citizen centers around new hampshire. because of the health care law, more than 57,000 seniors in minnesota receive a 50% discount on their covered brand name prescription drugs when they hit

the doughnut hole, and an average savings of $590 per senior. by 2020, the law will close the doughnut hole entirely. you know who likes that? seniors. you know what else seniors like? the fact that in 2011, 424,000 minnesota ans received mammograms and free wellness visits with their doctors. i could go on and on about what we've already gained but i want to talk a little bit about a provision that i wrote with the catchy name medical loss ratio, which is sometimes called the 80-20 rule because of my medical loss ratio provision, which i based on a minnesota law.

health insurance companies must spend 80% to 85% of their premiums on actual health care. this is 85% for large group policies. 80% for small-group and individual policies. they must spend 85 -- large groups, 80%. and small group and individual policies on actual health care, not on administrative costs, not on marketing, advertisements, not on c.e.o. salaries, not on profits. but on actual health care. and we've already heard the medical loss ratio provision is working. plans are already lowering premiums in order so that the companies can comply with the law. for example, aetna in

connecticut lowered their premiums on an average of 10% because of this provision in the law. another key provision in the law is the value index. the value index rewards doctors for the quality of the care that they deliver, not the quantity. for the value of the care, not the volume. my home state, minnesota, is a leader, if not the leader, in delivering high-value care at a low, relatively low cost. and traditionally, we in minnesota are, our health providers have been well underreimbursed for it. for example, texas gets reimbursed 50% more per medicare patient than minnesota does.

now, this isn't about pitting minnesota against texas or florida. it's about rewarding those states, those low-valued states to become more like minnesota. imagine if we brought down medicare expenditures by 30% around the country. while increasing its effectiveness. it will bring enormous benefits not just to minnesota, but across the country because it will bring down the cost of health care delivery nationwide. that's what we need to be addressing, the cost of health care delivery. because we all know that bringing down health care costs is key to getting our long deficits in order.

in fact, there's probably nothing more important that we can do, and that's where the value index is so important. i've gone over a number of the benefits of health care reform that have kicked in but i obviously didn't mention them all. for example, health care reform is already adding jobs to our economy. according to something called the "wall street "wall street j" i barely touched on the great stuff that kicks in in 2014, like the exchanges, which will allow individuals and small businesses to pool with others to get more affordable health insurance if it's the right fit for them. and of course while presently no child can be denied health insurance for a preexisting condition, starting in 2014, no american will be denied health

insurance or penalized for having a preexisting condition. the congressional budget office, a nonpartisan agency of congress, has crunched the numbers and reported that the affordable care act will insure 31 million additional americans and bring down our national deficit by billions of dollars in its first ten years and by approximately $1 trillion in the second ten. i ask the american people not to fall victim to this information. there are no death panels. the affordable care act cuts the deficit. under this law, businesses under 50 employees don't have to

provide insurance for their employees, and won't suffer penalties if they don't. they won't have to pay fines and won't be dragged in to prison. there is so much junk, so much junk out there that is just plain false. and it's just doing everyone in this country a giant disservice. mapped, my colleagues and i disagree on many things. can we all at least agree to talk about this law in a factual manner? the benefits of this law are tremendous, and americans across the country are already experiencing them. i urge all my colleagues to acknowledge these benefits and to support the continued

implementation of the patient protection and affordable care act. madam president, i'd like to change subjects completely to introduce the rural energy for america program reauthorization act along with my friend, senator harkin from iowa. farmers and rural businesses form the backbone of this country, and rural communities are particularly crucial to minnesota's culture and economy. in fact, in my state, one out of every five jobs is related to the agriculture economy. we all rely on farmers for our food.

it's thanks to farmers that when we go to the grocery store, there is an abundance of fresh food at cheaper prices than in many, many other countries. and while family farmers and rural businesses work hard to keep our shelves stocked, they do so under difficult conditions weather and disease can wipe out a crop. profit margins can be really small. fluctuating market prices for their products can be devastating to a family farm. farm work is also very energy intensive and when energy and gas prices rise, farmers have to make tough choices. high energy prices mean laying off farm workers, increasing prices if they can, and squeeze budgets all around.

to make matters worse, many of our government programs that help manage rising energy prices are under attack, and the budget chopping block. reep or the rural energy for america program, can help farmers manage the cost of energy. the bill that i am introducing today will reauthorize this important farm bill program and help farmers and rural small businesses continue to cut energy bills and generate electricity on site. let me go through a few examples of what reap projects can look like. it's putting solar panels on barns. it's wind turbines in fields or wind turbines all over minnesota. anaerobic digesters on dairy

farms which use waste to generate gas and electricity. energy efficiency improvements in poultry houses and geothermal pumps and factories. it means that agriculture producers and businesses can reduce their costs and generate an additional stream of income. it means that rural america can make high-tech investments, great jobs, and leave -- lead the world in producing clean energy. i know in the presiding officer's state, new hampshire, there is tremendous biomass and potential for energy from biomass and the low carbon footprint that that represents. the rural energy for america program is a modest program, but it's a wise public investment that effectively leverages private funds. since it was created in 2002,

this program has helped almost 6,000 farmers and small businesses across the nation invest in alternative energy projects. the program has generated or saved enough energy to power about 600,000 homes a year. by providing just $192 million in grants and $165 million in loan guarantees, the program has brought in $800 million in private and state investments. plus, the rural energy for america program helps create demand for new jobs in rural economies. these are jobs in installation and operations and maintenance work, good jobs that rural america needs. it also bolsters american energy independence and fosters home-grown energy sources like wind and solar and biomass and geothermal instead of foreign oil.

the wood finishing and quality decorating in roso, minnesota, is one of the 6,000 that have benefited from the rural energy for america program over the years. roso in northern minnesota is cold in the winter. and in the fall. and in the early spring. and when shirley's heating bills spiked, she decided it was time to invest in a geothermal heating system to reduce costs in her newly constructed 6,000-square-foot facility. with the help of a $7,920 grant from the rural energy for america program, she was able to purchase -- time is expired? i would ask for another two

minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. franken: thank you. thank you, madam president. with the help of a $7,920 grant from the rural energy for america program, she was able to purchase and install the geothermal system in 2008. over the past five years, shirley has seen her energy bills reduced by 40%, saving thousands of dollars that she has invested in more productive parts of her business. the bill we're introducing today reauthorizes rural energy for america program to continue helping farmers and small business owners like shirley to make smart investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency, and it makes improvements to the program, too. well, the program has had a fantastic impact on the country's rural economy, farmers tell me that they are facing

challenges in accessing it, so our bill includes measures to remove barriers while ensuring that taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely. first, our bill simplifies the application process, making it easier for farmers and small businesses to access the programs, grants and loans. the new application process matches the complexity of the application to the size of the project. that way, farmers and usda can avoid unnecessary and costly paperwork if the project doesn't warrant it. second, our bill removes the regulation that currently requires farmers to use the program's funding to install a second electric meter that currently goes unread. in these tight fiscal times, i think it's important that every taxpayer dollar is well spent so the bill will eliminate this redundancy and remove an unnecessary burden on program participants. third, our bill requires the usda to include stronger health and environmental criteria when

evaluating potential projects, and it expands start-up support and funds for feasibility studies so that farmers and businesses can start projects with sound planning. we're very grateful for the strong support from the agriculture community, including the national farmers union, the minnesota farmers union, the environmental law and policy center, the national sustainable agriculture coalition, the agriculture energy association, the distributed wind alliance, the minnesota corn growers and the minnesota soybean growers. with the chair's -- with the president's indulgence, i have about 30 seconds left. i have an inner clock. i think i am up against my two minutes. i would just like to say i'm really proud to introduce this legislation with senator harkin, who is a true champion to farmers here in the senate, and going forward i look forward to working with all my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to

pass this reauthorization as part of the farm bill. i see senator johanns, the former secretary of agriculture, my friend, there who i hope to work with on this. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the record. thank you, madam president, for your indulgence, and i yield the floor. mr. johanns: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to speak up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johanns: madam president, the anniversary of any new law should be a time to celebrate accomplishments and new landmarks, but the almost constant flow of bad news, unfavorable reports and broken promises makes the second anniversary of the health care law anything but a celebration.

rather, it's something that even the produces seems embarrassed to mention. the truth is the policy behind the bill was flawed. the truth is that the law is fundamentally flawed. it raises taxes and health care costs for working americans. it puts bureaucrats between patients and their doctors. it tangles our nation's job creators and regulations and red tape, and it defies our country's most sacred document, the constitution of the united states. next week, the united states supreme court begins hearings to determine whether the health care law violates the constitution. it is one of the most important cases reviewed in recent history. the court has set aside a

remarkable six hours for oral arguments, more time than has been devoted to a case in over four decades. its ruling will have a far-reaching impact on our health care system, but it doesn't stop there. it will have a far-reaching impact on our economy and fundamentally on the expanse of congressional authority over the individual citizen. i hope the supreme court will resolve the countless problems in this law for good by striking it down in its entirety. the facts tell us that with the passage of time, things have not gotten better with this law. they have, in fact, gotten worse. take last week's report from the nonpartisan congressional budget

office, just one example. we learned something about the cost of this bill. before the bill was passed, many of us were saying that this bill was filled with budget gimmicks to make it look cheaper to the american people than it really was. well, we learned that the cost of the law's coverage provisions alone is projected to balloon to $1.7 trillion. you see, the problem is that c.b.o. only does ten-year projections, so the major provisions of this law were delayed until 2014. why? well, the reason for that is it was done to mask the true costs of this bill when it was fully implemented. when you eliminate gimmicks like this and consider the law's

first ten years of full implementation, i fully expect that the total cost of this legislation will not be the $900 billion promised by president obama. it will be $2.6 trillion. this law certainly doesn't bend the cost curve down. c.b.o. concludes that families buying insurance on their own will pay an astounding $2,100 more a year for that insurance. yet, then-candidate obama promised that americans would see their premiums decrease by $2,500 by the end of his first term. the recent c.b.o. report also noted that the federal government will spend

$168 billion more on medicaid compared to last year's estimate. the truth just keeps coming out. that means more people will be trapped on a broken program where waiting lines will, in fact, be longer, emergency room visits will be more frequent because that's the only place they can find care, health outcomes will get worse, and 40% of physicians today won't even see patients in this program. this law does not deliver better quality health care either. imposing medicaid on more people is like giving someone a ticket to ride a bus that has been broken down hundreds of miles away, but claiming that they

have got a ticket so in fact they have the opportunity for transportation. not only that, the law puts all the pressure and burden on our states to implement the medicaid program's largest expansion since 1965, placing $118 billion in unfunded mandates on states. when our states are struggling to figure out how they balance their budget today. as a former governor who has balanced budgets, i believe that this expansion dumped on our states to manage is a critical and fatal flaw in this legislation. c.b.o. also recently projected that up to 20 million more working americans could lose their employer-sponsored health

care coverage because of this health care law. that's an incredible shift. especially when you consider that our president promised no fewer than 47 different times -- quote -- "if you like your plan, you can keep it"-- unquote. in addition to a potential 20 million employees losing their current coverage, seven million seniors are likely to lose their medicare advantage plans. according to the congressional budget office director, more than 3,200 nebraskans enrolled in medicare advantage will, in fact, have their benefits cut in half. in families in 17 states, including nebraska, no longer have access to child-only health

insurance because of mandates in the law. wait a second. i just said that in 17 states you no longer have access to a child-only health insurance policy because of this law's effect. that's incredible. our nebraska insurance commissioner called this collapse of the child-only market -- quote -- "an example of the unintended consequences of this imperfect law"-- unquote. here we see the president's promise again flipped on its head. this law forces you to say goodbye to the coverage that you like for children. over the past two years, i've traveled across the great state of nebraska hosting hownls --,

town halls, round tables, meetings, and i'm finding the more folks know about this law, the more they detest it. religious schools and hospitals and charities are troubled because the law will force them to violate their deeply held beliefs. seniors are concerned that the law will limit access to care because it siphons $500 billion from medicare and uses it as a piggy bank to spend on other government programs. the administration's own medicare actuary has projected -- quote -- "the prices paid by medicare for health services are very likely to fall increasingly short of the costs of providing those services"-- unquote. the c.m.s. actuary continued that these medicare cuts could result in -- quote -- "severe

problems with beneficiary access to care"-- unquote. let me translate that. that means this law will make it more difficult for senior citizens to get health care because the federal government is not paying its way. others wonder what the 159 new boards established by this law will mean for access to health care. and hard-working nebraskans question how the law's half a trillion dollars in taxes will affect their families. approximately 428,000 nebraskan households making less than $200 billion -- 2 hoontsz will pay higher taxes. approximately 428,000. that's based on the joint

committee on taxation. small businesses across nebraska have shared with me that they're holding off on hiring because of the mandates of this legislation. at a roundtable last week business men and women expressed their concerns about the law's tax on health insurance companies and the fully insured market and with good reason. the health insurance tax alone would impose $87 billion in costs on businesses, and their employees, over the law's first ten years alone. an analysis by the national federation of independent business indicates this law will force the private sector, will force the private sector to cut between 125,000 and 249,000 jobs between now and 2021.

that's not just a statistic. those are families that will lose a job because of this health care bill. it is remarkable that in the midst of our economic situation, the president's signature legislation actually reduces jobs. these are some of the many reasons why nebraskans are demanding louder than ever that this law be repealed. now some of the law's supporters have taken up the mantra, don't re35 peel -- don't repeal it, repair it. that's a nice slogan. this law, though, is so fatally flawed no band-aid is ever going to fix it. i experienced firsthand how difficult it was to change this law when i worked to repeal the 1099 reporting requirement which

nearly everybody agreed was idiotic. it would have increased paperwork burdens on our nation's job creators by up to 2,000%. the administration even agreed that this pay-for in their law needed to go. and in the end, 87 senators supported full repeal of the provision. but it took nine months, seven votes, before my efforts to repeal a provision that everybody agreed was idiotic was finally successful. so anyone who tells you we can tinker with this law to fix it might as well offer you oceanfront property in the state of nebraska. the 2,700-page law is one of the largest pieces of legislation ever passed in this nation's history.

its provisions are interconnected, ill-fated, and far-reaching and they will affect every single american economically, socially, physically. we can't sit idly by and allow for the negative consequences to continue unraveling, and they will. as i said, i hope the supreme court strikes down this entire law, but if it does not, we will continue our fight to repeal it as nebraskans demand that i do. we must protect the rights of americans to choose their doctor, to select their insurance, to trust their care and to protect their conscience rights. we must ensure employers see reforms that reduce regulation and red tape and instead increase fisheses and address the -- efficiencies and create dreas the underlying costs.

we must let states run their medicaid programs in the best way that serve the populations in that state. this law is misguided. it stifles job growth and doesn't improve health care for millions of americans and it should be wiped off the books. americans are demanding it, nebraskans are demanding it, and they deserve that. madam president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: