quorum call:

mr. mccain: over the last few years i've spoken on the floor how the department of defense procures weapons systems, a system that is to a large degree broken, unfortunately. it is now even more important with defense funding likely to be restrained to reduce funding in the coming years, our legislators overseeing major defense acquisition programs to make sure they're efficient and effectsive is as important today as it's ever been. indeed, even more so. a recently released government accountability office, g.a.o., report that is highly critical of the navy's literal combat ship program brings me to the floor today. on that program, the navy plans to spend over $40 billion to buy

a total of 52 sea frames and 64 so-called plug-and-play mission modules. these are modules that would be moved on and off depending on the mission that the literal combat ship is engaged in. the combined capability of those modules with the sea frames is supposed to give thee ships their intended lethality. until recently, my main concern with this program has been the unbridled growth to the cost to build the sea frames of the lead ship. the lead ship called the freedom, the steel-hulled version, and the independence, which is an aluminum triomoran version. the navy appears to have addressed that problem. while the cost to build the sea frames for the follow-up ships is still did double the program's originally overoptimistic cost estimate, which is not unusual, the cost

to complete their construction appears to have stabilized at about $450 million each. today i'm concerned about another very serious problem that the navy will buy too many of these ships before the combination of their sea frames, with their interchangeable mission modules, has been proven capable of performing the missions these ships are supposed to perform. in other words, the navy won't know whether this literal combat ship meets the combatant commander's operational requirements until after it has procured more than half of the 52 planned ships. this is particularly troubling inasmuch as the literal combat ship complete will comprise more than one-third of the navy's surface combatant ships. the program works against small

boats, especially in the littorals. these three primary missions appear oriented towards countering, among other things, some of the littoral or access denial capabilities that have been fielded in recent years by potential adversaries. the navy took delivery of the first of these two ships, the freedom and independence, more than three years ago. the ship called freedom actually deployed, albeit with limited capability, to singapore in expharch has experienced many of -- march and has experienced many of the technical challenges normally associated with a prototype ship. the decision to deploy the ship freedom prior to the completion of critical development and operational testing may be good salesmanship on the part of the navy, but the current plan to buy more than half of the total littoral combat ship fleet prior to the completion of operational testing plainly contradicts defense acquisition guidelines

and best procurement practices. and amounts to a case of "buy before you fly" to borrow a frame from aircraft acquisitio acquisitions. it also increases the risk that the program will incur additional costs to backfit already built littoral combat ships with expensive design changes identified through late testing and evaluation, or worse, operational use. as is the case in several other major defense acquisition programs, the program -- the problem here is excessive concurrency; that is, an overlap between development and production that exposes the program to a high risk of costly retrofits to earlier units in the production run. it sounds simple, but this is the problem that for years rendered the joint strike fighter program effectively unexecutable and that led to the

terminations of the army's multibillion-dollar future combat systems program and the air force's expeditionary combat support system program. as to littoral combat ship, the general accounting office spelled out this problem -- general accountability office spelled out this problem in the report it released just a few days ago. according to the g.a.o. -- quote -- "there are significant unknowns related to key l.c.s. operations and support concepts and the relative advantages and disadvantages of the two variant. the potential effect of these unknowns on the program is compounded by the navy's aggressive acquisition strategy. by the time key tests of integrated l.c.s. capability are completed in several years, the navy will have procured or have under contract more than half of the planned number of ships. almost half of the planned ships are already under contract and

the navy plans to award further contracts in 2016, before the department of defense makes a decision about full rate production of the ships. the navy will not be able to demonstrate that mission packages integrated with the sea frames can meet the minimum performance requirements until operational testing for both variants -- the freedom and the independence -- is completed, currently planned for 2019." i repeat, "2019." i again voice my concern that the navy plans to purchase many, if not most, of the littoral combat ships in the program before knowing whether the ships will work as advertised and as needed. the g.a.o.'s report bottom-line recommendations is to limit future sea frame and mission module purchases until the l.c.s. program achieves key

acquisition and testing milestones that would help make sure that the program delivers required combat capability. i agree completely with the g.a.o. g.a.o.'s concerns are shared by the pentagon's independent chief tester and even the navy itself, in an internal report, called the op-nav report, or peres report. i highly recommend that anyone who has an interest in the littoral combat ship read these reports. in terms of the costs to national security and to the taxpayer, we simply cannot afford to continue committing our limited resources to an unproven program that may eventually account for more than a third of the surface combatant fleet. the l.c.s. sea frame and mission modules are at different points along the acquisition life cycle. we need to put a pause on additional ship purchases and

synchronize the plans for testing the sea frames and the mission modules to make sure that the navy is executing a coherent acquisition strategy that will deliver combat capability responsive to what our operational commanders actually need. also, the navy has to lay out a clear top-level plan on how these ships will be used in response to reasonably foreseeable relevant threats around the world. in other words, it needs to decide the concept of operation, or conops, that this ship class will support. according to a declassified internal navy report released last tuesday -- and i quote -- "there are two options. building a conops" -- that means concept of operations -- "to match the littoral combat ship's current capabilities or modifying the ship to better meet the needs of the theatre commanders." the report goes on to say, the

ship's current characteristics limit operations to a greater extent than envisioned by the concept of operations." the second option is to modify the ship to support the war-fighting requirements. our review identified opportunities to modify several of the ship's characteristics to more closely align with the intent of the original concept of operations." right now, it seems like whatever combat capability l.c.s. can muster is driving its mission, not the other way around, as in most ships. in other words, the littoral combat ship appears to be a ship looking for a mission. but just to perform its three currently intended primary missions, the navy is looking at significant design changes and increasing littoral combat ship's crew size even though it has already bought about 30% of

all of the l.c.s. ships it intends to buy. and that could increase its procurement and life cycle operation and support costs well beyond current estimates and strain its affordability. given how many frigate, mine sweepers and patrol craft the navy currently plans to retire over the next five years in favor of a littoral combat ship, this is particularly troubling. notably, the government accountability office

bto buy the next four cls's and certify on the basis of sound written justification arising from sufficient initial operational testing and evaluation that the l.c.s. ships will be adequately perform their intended missions and provide our operational commanders with the combat capability they need. the american people are quite rightly tired of seeing their taxpayers wasted on disastrous defense programs, such as the air force's failed ecss program or the army's future combat system program or the navy' navs lh-71 presidential helicopter replacement program. littoral combat ship must not be allowed to become yet another failed program in an already unacceptably long list of amorphous acronyms that after squandering literally billions

of taxpayers' dollars have long since lost meaning. mr. president, on the l.c.s. program, the navy must right its course today. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: i ask that the call of the quorum be terminated. officer without objection. mr. reid: i ask that the senate recess until 2:15 for the weekly caucuses. the time be counted postcloture and charged equally to both sides. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until senate stands in recess until >> so the senate is in recess now so senators can attend their weekly party meetings. the senate is scheduled to reconvene at 2:15 ian. today senators voted to move forward with one of the president's nominees for the national labor relations board. we are expecting votes on several other nominations to the nlrb. also this week the senate is working on a spending bill for transportation can and housing programs. we spoke with a capitol hill

reporter about the spending bills pending in congress. andrew taylor is the budget and appropriations reporter for the associated press. while the house and senate are back to work this week on a government spending bill for transportation and housing programs, what can you tell us about the measures being considered? >> well, the first thing to know is that they're very, very different. this is an unusual year in the appropriations process because the house is working from a very much lower figure for the grand total for the bill than the senate is, and this is because the house is incorporating these across-the-board cuts known as sequestration. they're anticipating they continue whereas the senate is incorporating an assumption that a deal will be worked out, and they're writing bills to that level. so this transportation and housing bill is a prime example of the choices that are being made when the house works from a much lower figure.

for instance, they really cut community development grants that are very popular with mayors across the country. they cut amtrak subsidies. they're not able to do as much for road and bridge repair. and in the senate the democrats who control the chamber over there are trying to demonstrate that, well, look, our bill will do more to create jobs, it will do more to house people. but what's going on, you know, the mismatch really is just sort of preliminary to a showdown that's going to happen later on this year. >> how unusual is it that both chambers are considering their individual versions of this legislation at the same time? >> well, it's very unusual for the simple starting point that the senate hasn't considered a stand-alone appropriations bill in something like two years. and, you know, whether or not -- i mean, typically the house is supposed to go first, send the bill over, the senate picks it, they get all this inside

congress stuff. but the fact that they're doing it at the same time is really more of a coincidence. >> you mentioned a few of them. what are some of the key issues coming up in debate? >> well, i think there's going to be efforts to restore some of the cuts on the house side to things like subsidized housing, amtrak and the like, but, you know, under the rules you need to find be money someplace else -- find money someplace else to replace a cut, and the house measure so sort of starkly written, it's something like 20% below the levels that are passed in march, give or take a few percentage points, that it's going to be really hard to move much money around and, you know, create or to, quote-unquote, fix some of the problems that people who support these programs see with the bill. >> as you know, the congress is

set to start their five-week summer break at the end of this week. what kind of progress are they making on the list of the dozen spending bills that that fund the federal government? >> not very much. this'll be the fifth one to pass the house, and if the senate manages to pass it, it'll be the first. i mean, the appropriations process has been going on, but they're really just kind of marking time. i mean, quite frankly, until they figure out some sort of broader budget solution, these bills don't really amount to very much as far as what's going to, the way things are going to turn out in the end. so they're going to need what we call a stopgap measure or a continuing resolution in september, and that's going to be tricky, but, you know, i wrote a story last week which suggests that, you know, be you hear about all this -- if you hear about all this talk about a government shutdown at the end of september, maybe to view that kind of talk -- [inaudible] >> so what exactly is the conflict?

what spending levels is each chamber using, and how far apart are they? >> well, as i was saying, i mean, the senate is using an overall cap. and, remember, we're talking about what is known as discretionary spending. this is what congress passes each year to do sort of day-to-day operating budgets, you know, medicare and social security is in a whole different box. and they have chosen a spending level of 1.058 trillion, i believe. and the house is using a spending level that's, like, $91 or $92 billion less. and inside that 91 or 92 billion they move money from domestic programs to help the pentagon out. so these domestic spending bills like this transportation and housing bill are vastly different depending on which chamber's producing it. >> how involved is the obama administration as congress gets closer to its deadline for getting the spending bills done.

>> they don't seem to be very involved, quite frankly. i think they're anticipating in the fall some kind of, some sort of catalyst that gets a broader budget negotiation going. now, republicans think they need to raise the debt limit, it's going to provide that spark. but the president is going around saying, well, look, you know, two years ago -- which parenthetically he was getting ready to run for re-election, he accepted all these spending cuts as a condition for increasing the borrowing cap. and if you don't increase the borrowing cap, pretty soon you can't pay off your bondholders, pay social security recipients. it's a real economic catastrophe. and he's saying he's not going to be held hostage to the threat of that catastrophe again. so we have a conflict right now, you know, between the republicans who control the house and the obama administration. and everybody is kind of hoping that as the fall goes on they

find a way to sort of massage that and get a negotiation going that gets this budget with agreement, some kind of budget agreement worked out so you can, you know, alleviate some of the sequestration cuts, and, you know, do some, do some real budgeting for some of these agencies. >> many reporter andrew taylor of the associated press, we thank you for joining us today. >> sure. >> and right now the u.s. senate is in recess. the senators can attend their weekly party caucus meetings, reconvening at 2:15 eastern. the senate is considering nominations to the national labor relations board today. also they'll be working on the transportation and housing spending bill when they return at 2:15 eastern. former senator harry byrd of virginia has passed away. he served from 1965 to 1983 first as a democrat and then as an independent. the associated press reporting that senator harry byrd opposed

racial integration, defended virginia' strategy of massive resistance to school desegregation. he was 98 years old. the u.s. chamber of commerce and aarp last week hosted a discussion on encouraging americans to save for retirement. from the national press club here in washington, this is about 45 minutes. >> good morning. so to start things off, you've heard some statistics, i'm going to throw more at you, because there's a couple out there that, to me, are real eye openers. so the center for retirement research at boston college estimates the retirement savings gap, which is the difference between what people have saved and what they need to save, is about $6.6 trillion. the employee benefits research institute, using a different model, different data, different assumptions, estimates that the

retirement savings gap is about $4.3 trillion, and that's just for baby boomers and for generation x. these are astonishingly large numbers, and they say the same thing. we are not saving enough in this country. the retirement research center also comes to similar conclusions regarding who is at greatest risk of not being able to maintain their standard of living and retirement. so they find that generation x, which is my generation and i'll say is two years away from turning 50 is more at risk than baby boomers. low income households, which include many african-americans and hispanics, are at greater risk than high income households, and women are at greater risk than men. so the goal of this first panel is to learn more about the barriers to retirement savings for women, african-americans and and hispanics. how we do that -- to help me do that are three experts in the field, and we have going from if

my left to my right patty by york who's director at aon hewitt. we have re tissue shah miranda, national council of la raza, and cindy hunzell. so thank you for joining me. and i will say we're going to try to have this as a discussion so there's no formal presentations. what we'd like to do, what i'd like to do is also have questions as we go along, and so if you have a question as the mood strikes you, just raise your hand, and we have a mic come around, and i would ask you to just identify who you are for our panelists. and with that i'm going to start things off with a couple questions just to kick things off, and we'll go from there. so we heard statistics about how unprepared americans are for retirement. and my first question, i think i'm going to start at the end with you, cindy, just to get your take on this is how concerned are women based on the research that you've done about being prepared for retirement,

about being able to save enough? >> um, i think pretty much every study has shown for about the past 20 years, since lake research started this in the early '90s, that women -- that's one of their top priorities. they're very worried about retirement. and there's always a lot of surveys that give a glimmer of hope where, you know, the market's doing great, and the economy's doing great, and people feel better about it. but underlying is women live longer, and that's a big issue. they go into the nursing homes, and they see who's there. and it's a scary prospect. >> okay. so from what i've read, it's women are living longer. also they typically have interruptions in employment, so they don't have the lower lifetime earnings. so those are, i guess, the bigger factors, the hurdle? >> right. and twice as likely to work part time as one of the questioners already sort of mentioned. i mean, women have always, you

know, tradition aally worked part time because of family, caregiving issues. >> louisiana tissue shah? hispanics, are they concerned about retirement security? >> yes, hispanics are definitely concerned about retirement security. hispanics are more likely to earn less money, and we do have a longer life expectancy than other americans. and, unfortunately, we tend to be the people who are working in companies that do not offer any type of a retirement savings plan to their workers. so our community is more dependent on social security than every other racial and ethnic group in the country. about 53% of hispanic seniors depend on social security for almost all of their income. so these are really important be issues to our community, as well as social security and helping

to make tour shah remains strong for these workers. hopefully, we can create a better retirement system that will include low-paid workers as well. >> so, patty, what do we know in terms of hispanics and african-americans in terms of planning for retirement? >> oh, that's a good question. we did a joint survey with aerial investments, and we got 19,000 responses. so 20 percent of the people responded, be can i think that's pretty significant. i think they wanted to hear what we had to say. we asked do you have a financial plan in place today, and we heard from whites and asian-americans, one out of five -- one out of four had a plan in place today. and for asians -- hispanics and african-americans it was one out of four. and then we asked are you saving enough for retirement, do you feel like you're saving enough? and 43% of african-americans

said much less than i need to, and hispanics was 36%, and then asian-americans and whites were 9 and 30. but -- 19 and 30. but i think the point was nobody knows how much they need to save because they don't have plans in place, and everyone feels like they're not saving enough, so they must be pretty nervous because, you know, what is enough? i don't know, i don't have a plan, and everyone just has that feeling i'm not saving enough, so -- >> okay. let me ask this question because this is something that i hear as an argument that folks make that low income people don't have the ability or the desire to save. you hear along with that is that social security will be enough. i'm just curious in terms of the work that you guys have done, what is your experience with that? how do you react to that statement? and then we'll go back to cindy to start and work our way down. >> a lot of the work that we do is with moderate and low income

people, and i would just like to say that they want to save as much as anybody else. they want to have access. a lot of times what happens is that they end up not having the money after a long period of time because they just, they need it for other things. but the ability to save, they want to be able to do that, and it's really important. and we, we're working right now on a project with caregivers, i mean, care -- in-home businesswomen, caretakers of children. and it's ahazing. i mean, they've shown up. i never think people will show up four weeks later, especially moderate, low income people who have so many demands on their lives like other jobs, and they do it because they want the information. they want to know how to do it. >> yeah. i would concur with that. sometimes i do talk show radio in spanish, and i've had farm workers call me in the central

valley when i'm talking about retirement security saying i really wish i could save more money, but, you know, what can we do to raise the minimum wage because most of my money i use -- i have to eat. and so, but it's a very important issue. ask we actually did at nclr recently do a survey of hispanics in california whose annual earnings were approximately 25,000 a year, and we found that 73% of them were saving their money in some way or another. even when they don't always have access to a bank account because a lot of banks require a lot of id and social security numbers and so on. so that is a barrier for many in our community who still do not have legal status in this country. so it's even hard for them to open a a bank account, but people are still finding a way to save money, and they do want and know that this is important, and they want a retirement, a way for them to save and put money away from their retirement. i've had very low income people

call he about that. >> let me just follow up with a question about that, because you mentioned about financial institutions. and one thing that i've heard is hispanics and african-americans tend to be less trusting. perhaps of financial institutions or they certainly feel less welcomed at their local financial institutions. is that a barrier to saving? >> well, having a bank account is correlated with saving more monies, being able to save money. so we saw that in our recent survey that we did. be what we found -- what we found was customer service and feeling welcome were two very important issues for people when they're select ising a financial institution the of where they can save money. we didn't really ask about the trust issue, just customer service, language access, that kind of thing, feeling welcome, those were really important issues. >> okay. >> so i'm going to go back to the aerial study we did again. it covered 2.4 million participants and 60 large plans. and we looked at by salary, i

looked back to see people that are paid 0,000 and less --0,000 and less, how are they contributing? and then when you put in automatic enrollment which is going to be a a big part of this conversation, that band typically we'll see whites and asian-americans contribute like three-quarters, 75, 80%. but two-thirds of african-americans and hispanics will contribute to a plan. but when we put this automatic enrollment, it almost neutralizes and eliminates that whole race issue. everyone is at that band level, up to 80%, because they're probably new hires, younger generation and low paid, and they're not opting out. so it's getting us to almost a flat band across the board. >> let me just pause there and see if there's any guess from the audience before i go on. okay. don't be shy. please raise your hand, and i'll try to -- actually, we do have a

question here. >> will sorry. have you any information about savings or enrollment among people who work at rell tvly low -- rell thetively low paying -- relatively low paying retail establishments, mcdonald's? >> a lot of our retailers were part of our survey, so we did see the participation levels significantly vary by race. so whites and asians, asians being the highest and then whites and then african-americans and hispanics. but we did have retail as part of that, and it is much lower than the average, which we know. but automatic enrollment is not a silver bullet unless it's put in right. it does help everyone to increase their rates. we just need to have that escalation and other features tied to it and default at a higher rate. it is impacting other areas as well. >> and you're talking about the default rate? >> yeah. >> okay.

>> you know, 50% of plans are doing 3% or less. but really, like you said earlier in the discussion, it should be 6, 7, 8, 9 and escalating up past 10. and if we're putting those defaults in lower, we have to escalate, but we'd like to see them put in higher and continue to escalate. otherwise savings rates for those that aren't automatically enrolled are significantly, are significantly lower than those that would opt in on their own. i said that kind of off. if you have automatic enrollment, your rates are going to be lower than if you opted in on your own. if you're not defaulting at the right level. >> i have a question. >> there's been a lot of media attention on 401(k) plan leakage. i wanted to know with your work with low income workers is that an issue that you see more common with low income and

minority workers than other groups? [inaudible conversations] >> yeah. so the question is on leakage, is that how big of a problem is this for low income earners? and do you have any information on that? >> i mean, i think what the data shows is that for sort of women generally have less income, i heene, and they have less savings -- i mean, and they have less savings, all of that. so when they leave the job, their rollover benefit is going to be much lower, and so that probably incompasses a lot of low -- encompasses a lot of low income workers as well. and especially in the occupations we know it's going to be lower, people are going to take their money. i think ebry did some work, but i had heard a number like five billion a year is the penalty a month that people are paying for taking, you know, taking out

their money early, and a lot of that is low income. the treasury department has a very complicated paper on all of that. but that's the only place i've ever heard of that really. >> we did look at leakage, like, withdrawals and loans within a plan. by race and by pay bans. so that where we really see the senate differences that african-americans are taking -- significant differences that african-americans are taking high volumes of loan withdrawals and gender females are taking higher volumes. but the highest level is happening in the mid range, those are the ones tar tapping at their accounts. the lower levels are, too, but not as high a percent. so when we look at loans, african-americans it's about 50% have outstanding loans where whites are at about 26. so you can see that there's a significant issue there. and the same for withdrawals, more hardship withdraws. >> so leakage, of course, is an issue when you have assets

actually withdraw. so one thing i want to ask leticia is what do you see are the major barriers from your perspective for getting hispanics to save more? >> right. well, the huge elephant in the room for our community especially is the fact that we do not -- we work for companies that do not offer any form of employer-sponsored retirement plan. so people have no way to save through their paycheck as, you know, was discussed earlier. so two-thirds of hispanics work at a lace that doesn't offer -- at a place that doesn't offer a retirement plan. and i know it's about 50% for off workers, and it's lower for our white workers, about 40% of them. so all of these questions, leakage and so forth, these are things that are irrelevant to the majority of our community, so until we do something, we need to change our private retirement system and make it inclusive for low and had rate

income workers. until we do this, i mean, these are nice little interesting conversations to have, but they're not relevant to the retirement security for our community and for all kinds of low and moderate income workers. >> i want to go, cindy can, to you. what do you see as the barriers? >> well, i mean, i think a lot of times women especially save money for their children, and they don't save money for -- and they just believe that that's culturally, i think we found that with a lot of latino woman that if you save for them save for retirement, they'll say they're safing for their children's education. so tell them to join the 401(k) -- >> have you seen that in data? if i don't have data, i'm data-oriented. >> well, it's just because we've been doing that level of education for maybe 20 years or something. but with, i mean, that's what happens. i see it a lot. or they don't have access at all. >> was there a question -- >> 100% agree --

[inaudible] in a lot of cases even willing the ability this opening it up to a broader -- >> yeah. i mean, especially access to a well designed plan. i mean, the data in aerial hewitt research as well as other research by really prominent researchers in this field show that if you do an automatic enrollment process, these racial disparities disappear, you know? so, you know, common carry aside and anecdotes asideyou look at the the data, do a well designed plan, and you're going to address this issue. >> i agree, but a lot of people don't have access. >> yeah, that's the solution. it's a structural change. >> okay. >> question's mostly for leticia, but i'm curious about your other thoughts on the panel. do you feel for many of the folks that you work for that their employers would be more likely to respond only to just enhanced incentives like refundable tax credits that

would pay their administrative costs of operating a plan, or is it your sense that you really need some sort of mandate that employers offer these plans to employees in order to make sure that that access is there? >> well, we're getting to solutions. well, if you look in california, they did pass a bill. it hasn't been implemented yet, they're going through the federal process, the california secure choice retirement land, so that is a mandate on all employers that they offer a way for their employees to save from their paycheck. so it does not require them to do a hatch, and it would be pooled money, the money would be pooled and then professionally invested. so it doesn't require much from the employer other than, you know, they probably give them a paycheck anyway, and it's just an automatic deduction. so i think things that are not onerous and that address the issues of small employers, those are -- they're important parts of the solution, and i believe

something should be done that's mandatory because this voluntary system that we have has resulted in the situation where, you know, millions of smaller employers volunteer to not provide a retirement program. and the workers that are left out are low income, people color and women and so forth. we all need a better retirement security and, you know, the solutions, i think, are more universal than what we have now. >> i would encourage you to ask that question again in the next panel and maybe in the panel after that. of laugh -- [laughter] >> chandler with finra and an initiative called retirement made simpler with aarp which works a lot with autoenrollment escalation issues. to the point of giving people more access, do you see any resistance on the part of these small employers to this concept

that my employer, my employees just don't make enough money to justify a 401(k) or in particular automatically enrolling them at a a level of savingsing that really makes a difference in their lives? i think what we're finding, excuse me, in our research is that the employees themselves like this idea of automatic enrollment. they don't have a pushback to it. but maybe sometimes employers may use that as an opportunity perhaps to cop out or not be part of that program. >> so i'd asked a similar question early on, but i i this this -- i think it's an important question, so i'd like you all to respond again because that is an argument we hear from employers and others that low income everybodiers just -- earners just don't have the ability or desire to save and that could be used as an excuse. >> yeah. our recent survey shows that 73%

of the people who earned 25,000 a year were saving their money. notes inly for retirement, but they were -- not necessarily for retirement, but they were doing some sort of saving. so people definitely understand the importance of savings. it's human paver. if you take the money away and put it somewhere and let it grow and make it hard to access it, it's going to be there later. i think those are just general things about all humans. yeah, i don't know what else to say. >> anybody else want to respond? >> i mean, everything i've ever heard is that if people don't have access to it, if they think it's locked away, they're not going to contribute because they have so little. and this is true of a lot of women. and, you know, studies have this in the past that you're locking your money away and you had a roth and you knew you could get to your money, people are much more likely to do that. it's just so much harder to be setting up these nontraditional

accounts is what they think of them. >> right. >> so it's like there's a trade-off that in order for people to, perhaps to encourage people to say they need to know that if they need to in an emergency, they need to get the money out. >> right. and they need more education to do that as well. >> we did ask employers why they're not implementing automatic features, a lot of cases it was because of cost, and that's the match. so if you eliminate the match and it's just to give automatic features, that they said, okay, they're not going to be upset by it. but we actually asked people would you be upset if your client automatically enrolled you? 20% were like i'm not going to like it, but the other majority said, no, i'd kind of like that. they're kind of recommending something to me. so i think things that employees aren't going to like it, they will like it if it comes. and ifst not a cost issue -- if

it's not a cost issue, payroll deductions are the easiest way to save. it really is a nice feature for everyone if you can get people access to it. >> right. >> do we have a couple other questions? >> does any research show an interaction between health care costs and the willingness to enroll in retirement savings plans? be i'm asking this in part because of if obamacare turns out to be fairly successful, there should be a subset at least of the population that will find that their costs for health insurance will fall significantly, and that might open up an income opportunity for people to save more. >> anybody want to handle that? respond to that? >> i haven't seen that data

directly, but rockefeller foundation used to do an american workers' survey, and it showed for hispanics the main reason they dipped into their savings, the number one reason was to pay medical bills. and hispanics are also the most likely seem to not have any form of health insurance currently, and even if we have immigration reform, they're cutting out all the new people who will gain their legal status, they not have access to affordable care act subsidies for at least ten years. some of them want to extend that. so that situation of insecurity due to health care costs is a big issue, and it affects retirement savings ability. >> so let me, we've already touched a little bit in terms of we're hitting hard, i think, on automation, so autoenrollment and access. but let me more generally, are there things that we know from the research in terms of what

works or more importantly what doesn't work in terms of getting african-americans, hispanics, women to save for retirement? i'll go to -- >> well, yeah. i mean, the data's so clear with the automatic features, the autoenrollment features, and those were really spelled out in the most recent aerial hewitt study. not so much the first, but the second study. yeah, you move from, i think it was 59% of hispanics when it's in that mixed pool, some in autoenrollment, some without. so when you don't have autoenrollment, 59% of hispanics participated. but when you had autoenrollment, 80% of them participated. so it just has huge, important benefits. and you could extend that if we had a more universal system with an automatic ira and a mandate on employers to permit employees to save money, it would be awesome. >> and i think there's a lot of

segmentation going along those days, is i think when people get e-mails and they have access to something that they think is important, everything i've seen the companies are doing and football companies especially -- financial companies especially that focus on women will get people really excited was they don't take time to do this on their own. so it's like if they're being forced to go to a lunchtime event and people are talking to them one-on-one in a way that they can understand, they'll make all sorts of changes. so there's good evidence out there. >> yeah. there's good evidence on communication and the right kind of web tools or access to mobile. you know, some people want to have a quick version, but the other piece i would add is that health products are very good to help people, because once you get in, how do i invest? that's another good tool to help people guide them through the process as well. >> would you agree this is more

effective if if it happens at the workplace? >> yeah, within the program. >> yeah. okay. >> hi, i have a question about what you think offering a match not necessarily by the employer, but perhaps through making the saver's credit refundable, putting money on the table since these low income workers don't really get a lot from the tax benefits that are much more of an incentive to higher income people. if they knew they would get a refund l tax credit, what effect would that have both on the participation rate ask on their ability to accumulate a more significant amount of money that might encourage them the keep on contributing and have a sense that they're really getting somewhere? >> so the question is making the saver's credit, and there is a save's credit right now in the law, but it's not refund refundable. what do you think about that idea of making it refundable to

make it more effective? >> yep. and that's the model that i mentioned earlier with the in-home childcare workers, that's what we're doing, to see whether it works or not. and we're doing the refundable double the credit that they normally would be getting just to, rather than just a 1% or a 3% match. and i think that's why they're showing up every week. [laughter] there so are you seeing some results now? are you getting some -- >> yes. >> okay. >> and these are people that have never had any retirement savings ever. and so, you know, they want to do this. i mean, that's -- we all know that. >> right. >> so everybody wants it. >> and is the design such that is the folk just retirement savings or savings more generally? >> well, it's i-bonds, and if we had a retirement bond, that would make for another opportunity for people. >> okay.

any thoughts on rebummed bl safer's credit? >> yeah, we're definitely supportive of that. and as we go into the tax reform debate, we've included that in the priorities that nclr cares about. currently, the tax incentives for retirement are completely screwed to top one-fifth of workers, and it's so unfair. we're going to spend $2 trillion on those tax incentives over the next ten years. can we do something to, you know, make these kinds of incentives refundable and available so that low and moderate income people can also benefit from some of that $2 trillion? that would be great. >> super. so is let me -- so let me, this was alluded to earlier from a question, i think, when bonn randles was talking. and it has to do with part-time workers and contingent workers, and i think we're seeing

something like 30 million part-time workers today, and we know that part-time workers are less likely to have access to a plan at work. and we know that women, african-americans and his pan bics are probably -- hispanics are probably more likely to be part-time workers than whites. so my question if you have any thoughts in terms of how do we bring these folks into the retirement system, how do we build assets, retirement saverrings for these -- savings for these folks? is there any thoughts out there in terms of how to bring these folks into the system? >> be i this think the first thing's, right? >> what? >> the thirst sing is giving them access to it, and then we can treat them like everything else to see what's going to help. if you're part-time, a lot of people aren't going to have access to these types of employer plans, so they're not going to have the ability to do it. >> right. no, i think we've been talking about that for, you know, many

years because women are much more lickly to work part time. -- likely to work part time. >> so if we had a universal retirement system, making sure employees were involved, then all workers would be eligible for that. and, you know, it would have to be portable and so on and so forth so as people change between jobs they would continue to have their pot, you know, of retirement money continue to grow and follow them around. >> okay. any other questions? [inaudible conversations] >> hector ortiz, consumer financial protection bureau. we are seeing a higher percent of minorities and low income populations in general carrying debt into retirement, and i was wondering how that interacts

with both the decisioning to claim social security, but also the decision to draw into some of these key assets for retirement? >> so the question is really the higher debt, which i think is a growing problem. so have you guys -- >> it's a big barrier to why people can't save, and there's more of it, you know? so i don't know what we do about that except pay people more so they can afford to pay their bills. >> right. i'm not the debt expert, but i have other colleagues who are. but they work a lot with the organization, so i can't really speak very much about it. >> i think there's agreement that growing debt is a problem, and i think there is, of course, building assets, increase your debt is not necessary hi the best thing to do as well -- necessarily the best thing to do as well. i think there's an order in terms of getting your debt down

and building your assets and retirement savings. >> when you look at the elderly, a lot of the debt that they're accumulating is because of health care, you know, medications, things like that that they just go to the pharmacy and charge. demos has done good work on that too. >> any other questions? okay. so let me, met me come back for a -- let me come back for a second with respect to this, what you're doing and is west virginia, cindy? so there the focus is largely on simulating a saver's credit, a refund be bl saver's credit. are there other experiments that you know of or innovative approaches that are occurring? i know we've hit so far that, number one, is access. number two is the design of the plan itself and all enrollment. and there was some mention of tax incentives and education.

but is there, that's a rate big with bucket. we're capturing a lot of stuff. are there other things out will that people are experimenting with to increase savings? >> well, the ida people do a lot of that. it's just that retirement isn't allowed under the, you know -- >> the ida is -- >> individual development account. >> okay. >> and so, you know, people try to do that, and they sort of simulate and do iras that are supposed to be geared toward retirement, and they focus on certain age groups. and those have been successful too. i could provide you with that data. >> right, right, okay. [laughter] and let me, let me -- asset building. because i think someone had a question more along on the small account argument that if you have low income folks and they're not contributing very much, they're going to have small assets in these accounts. my understanding is there is a literature on asset building and the importance of having savings

and what that means for people in terms of their flexibility, confidence and economic mobility. do you guys have anything on that that you've looked at? okay. great. are there any other questions before we move on? we are ahead of schedule, so -- no? >> right here. >> yes. as part of the structural issues that need to be addressed, have any of you thought about for those who are low this many and don't have the access ability to invest and they have the debt, that it perhaps might be a better idea for them to put money into a savings account where the money is guaranteed through payroll deduction, and then once they get to a certain status where their debt is in line, they can then start investing in the mutual funds. i think when we hear saving for retirement we make that topsy

anonymous with investing. and there's a difference because when we're saving, it goes to an account where money cannot be lost. that's one of the reasons why as i travel the country talking to people, the reason that they don't invest is fear of the market. market may not be be where the it's going to be when they need it. but if they put money first into a savings account where the money is accumulating, it's going to to be there, not lost through payroll deduction, then they can start graduating from that oinlt forward into an investment account. the problem is the gatekeepers, and those are the payroll department. they don't want to open up payroll accounts to allow people to have any other type of retirement vehicle other than a 401(k). so from a structural point, that might be something that needs to be addressed, and maybe you can address that. >> well, i mean, that's why i was saying that i think, you

know, the roth is sort of a better solution for a lot of people, because it does allow you to save and, you know, you're not supposed to do that, of course, with your retirement and account. but that's the only way people actually do save. i mean, if they're at their job, they don't is have access to what you're saying. so that's part of the problem. so we either have to have two or three new accounts for people to be able to put money into, but we haven't been able to get one, so i don't know how we're going to get two other -- so, yeah. but, i mean, that is, you know, there's a lot of things, right? that people need. people need help with. >> just to be clear, the roth irs is the -- ira is where you put in after-tax dollars, and you get distribution without paying any taxes. >> and i'll tell you, there's a group that we've worked with for a long time called some, and if you're a d.c. person be, you probably know them.

and they do that, they actually have a retirement account, a 401, it's amazing pause they have a lot of -- because they have a lot of employees because they run a lot of homeless shelters and things like that. if you don't want money taken out for the 401k, you can go to the payroll or the hr people and say you can't do that, and they also allow them to have a savings account that's separate. but that's because they're in the business of doing, and, you know, this is like a bigger issue for the rest of the world here. >> so following up on your question, is volatility of the market something that really discourages women, african-americans, hispanics to take that first step in saving in a 401(k)? it seem like you have options for fairly seem investments. >> mr. i -- like, i remember the data that aerial hewitt had on the percent of the assets that

were in equity, and for hispanics it was just a ant the same as it was for -- about the same as it was for everybody else. you know, those decisions are being made, you know, by the mutual funds now. so i have, you know, i haven't seen data on that, so i don't know that that's an issue. yeah. >> go ahead. >> no, you go ahead. >> no, i was going to say i just saw something a couple of days ago, a study showing that, actually, women were saving more once they got into the 401(k)s, so they'll put in more money than the men. so that was that study a few days ago. it'll be something else next week. >> yeah. we see it in more higher income levels but lower at lower. as you said, equity exposetures tended to flatten out. >> yeah. and ours was the same as it was been ours wasn't faroff from the

norm anyway, before the advent and spread of targeted if funds. >> if most people are like me, they pull be it in and don't look at it. so i guess the first step is hopefully ignoring it and not tinkering with it too much. so one follow up on that question is it seemed like what was asked is this idea of having, you know, a starter savings account, something that's very safe and then transitioning once it perhaps hit a certain level, certain asset level into something more. what do you guys think of that? is that something that you think would encourage savings? >> at the beginning it's not targeted for retirement? >> so it would be principal protected because the idea of the investment up front and then perhaps once it reaches a certain threshold, i'll just thousand out a number, 3,000, whatever the case may be, it

then perhaps gets rolled over into something that has a mix between equities and bonds. i'm just looking for a reaction. is that something that you think could make a difference in terms of savings if there is a strong fore of volatility of the market? >> i know that in that california secured choice land they guarantee that you won't -- plan they guarantee that you won't lose your ec by the city, and they guarantee a small rate of return. it's more of a bond type of thing. so, and they found that to be something that helped them get the bill passed, you know? most californians don't know about it yet, but they -- he thought it was an important feature, the respond or of the bill. >> and do you think it's an important feature for hispanics, that they would see that, having that guarantee which would make it more likely for them to participate in. >> yeah, possibly. i think possibly, yeah.

i haven't seen data on it, but it kind of stand to reason that people would prefer something they're not going to lose their principal on. .. about what you think should be done to encourage small businesses to do these things. have the owner take it out of their pocket. >> so, if they want to respond. the next two panels, i think, will speak specifically to those issues.

[inaudible conversations] >> i'll say something. i run a non-profit, so, you know, i get exactly where you're coming from. [laughter] and i think there need to be incentives. that's why nothing happens. i see paul here. i was telling somebody yesterday that she and i did this at the press club about 22 years ago when i was at the pension right center. we did an event how are we going to get women covered and small business. here we are twenty years later. there needs to be done something different, you know, [laughter] than what happened in the last two decades. >> i would say some of the innovative ideas that are coming out and bubbling up more of the state level are not putting requirementses that -- the california secure choice plan does not require the employer to do any match. in fact, it prohibits employers from giving a match. they want not to be subject to the law. the employers prohibiting from

giving a match in the california secure choice plan. fyi, look it up. all they're asking in the payroll deduction to offer them the payroll deduction. to let the employee dededuct part of their own earnings. their own earnings and money what you pay them. and let them save that money. people are bending over wards -- backwards to make it something small employers it is can do. it's critical whatever idea come out need to be extremely appropriate for small businesses. because for his -- hispanics we're more likely to work for small business who have less than 100 employees who are unlikely to offer any sort of retirement plan. it's because, you know, the industry has not offered -- products that are relevant to small employerses who have

low-income workers. we need new idea. it's important to make sure that businesses not be burdened financially or with liability and so and so forth so they will do this. but, i mean, i think people are kind of a moral responsibility to try to help improve the retirement security situation of all workers in this country. >> i want to point out the automatic ira also does not -- employers cannot provide a match. there is a i know certainly in the president's proposal and other there is an enhanced employer start-up tax credit. and i think we're out of time. so thank you. thank you very much. and i'm going to call david. you can clap. [laughter] [applause] the u.s. senate remains in recess. they reconvene at 2:15 eastern. the senate is considering nomination for the national labor relations board today. it they'll be working on the transportation and housing spending bill.

you can see live coverage of the senate on c-span2. the house returns at 2:00 p.m. eastern with live coverage on the companion network c-span. they'll be continuing work on 2014 spending for transportation and housing programs. they'll provide about -68d billion for transportation. $29 billion for housing. on c-span 3 this afternoon energy secretary beginning at 2:00 p.m. eastern testifying before the senate energy committee. that will be this afternoon on c-span 3 starting at 2:00 p.m. eastern. when did we reach a point where you have to have a certain philosophy because of the color of your skin? when did that happen? [cheering and applause] you know, a reporter asked me why i didn't talk a lot about

race. i said because i'm a neurosurgeon. [laughter] [applause] they thought that was pretty strange. i said, you see when i take someone to the operating room and cut the scalp and peel it down and take down the bone and open it up. i'm operating on the thing that makes the person who they are. the cover doesn't make them who they are. when are we going to understand that? >> surgeon and author taking your calls, e-mails, facebook comments and tweets in-depth three hours live sunday at noon eastern. on book tv on c-span2. are any chief of staff raymond odierno said the sequestration budget cuts are hurting military readiness and could mean american casualty. he spoke yesterday for about an hour. >> good morning, everyone. welcome, thank you for joining

us for our second joint steve of staff series with each of the chiefs. we are so lucky to host general odierno this morning. particularly because as chief, he has -- depending on the way he looks as it. he has few loss. chairman, deep tear secretary. very demanding but have. or 1.1 million bosses. [laughter] who are talking to him every day. either way. last week all the senior bosses were out of town. he's a lit busy and needs to get back. we're grateful for his time and carved out an hour to come to aei. we're going to be casual and engage with you. my nam is mac ken city he needs little introduction to most of you. he's the reason you're here. not me. a native of new jersey, a west point graduate in 1976. a field artillery officer.

the 38th chief of staff. before he assumed this job he basically had both senior positions running u.s. forces multinational in iraq from 2006 to 2010. including the surge of u.s. forces in which i'm sure he can speak to at length. he's just about hitting the two-year mark as chief. i would say now he's more senior and ready to talk about the issues. you will certainly be a man in the history book. we invite those watching live online to join the conversation with general odierno. you can reach us through #aei. or #sequestration. you can just use our handle @aei. to reach us. with any questions we'll try to get them to general odierno as we can throughout the event. we'll also be having microphones throughout for you to join us in our conversation. i'm going kick it off with a quick moderator prerogative

questions, and hopefully get the chief warmed up for all of you. and we'll just kick it off. i want to start with welcoming the chief back to the states. he just returned from a trip to india. , this is a country that two recent visit from other senior officials including one from china. where the chinese premiere made india the first overseas visit which speaks volume, i believe. there was an unofficial visit who chinese forces crossed in to india territory earlier this spring. i think these two events capsulate a lot of what we're watching and seeing from a far in the region. there's a hope of better relations and peaceful prosperity. there's also quiet risk of old fashioned power politics. i would -- love for the chief to talk about his trip and saw there and any thoughts about how we can work with india to advance our policy in egypt. >> well, first thank you for having me today. i truly appreciate being here

and having the opportunity discuss lots of issues. we would like to spend eight hours talking about all the issue. first, it was my second time in india. the last time i was there when was about five years ago. at that time i was the military adviser to secretary rice. very different times back then. that was the end of 2005 beginning of 2006. so for me it was really important visit. my first visit with my counter part, general singh i had a opportunity to talk to him about a variety of issues. one thing we realized how much we have in common. the two largest democracies in the world. we have -- we are based on professional army -- two very professional army and much we can do together to learn from each other. so we talked a lot about the way it head the region, the importance of operation in the region, and then i had a chance --

they took me to the northern command, which is their most important command, which is responsible for the borders of pakistan and china. and i had a chance to meet with their staff and their commanders. what really caught me was the fact what they've been doing for the last twenty years is what we've been doing for the last twelve years. counterinsurgency protecting their space. there's a lot of lessons learned that we have that we have. there's a lot of knowledge that we can share. so i think that will be the basis of our continued relationship is the sharing of information about what they face on a day-to-day basis. up in the area of the pakistan as well as with china as you just talked about. so i think there's a lot we have common in sharing lessons and professional development. a lot of developing future

leaders, a lot of understanding techniques on what we see will be potentially prominent as we deal with future problems. not only around the world. whether it be or the middle east. i think there is commonality. i think with that, it's very important. i think the other thing i would say is as it is in many of the asia-pacific countries, the army is the dominant service in those countries. india is a prime example. it's by far the largest service. it is by far the most influential. it's important for us to build army to army relationships with them as we continue to work our strategy and try to rebalance toward the asia-pacific. >> absolutely. i have a feeling somebody in the audience want to discuss the army's role in the asia-pacific going forward not just with india but throughout the region. it's a good segue to the next topic. which is one you are too familiar. a painful one which is the draw

down of the u.s. army. it's a decision made over a years ago, it's well gorped way now and personally overseeing that. you recently announced the reduction of ten brigade combat teams that are slated to be eliminated that's 80,000 active duty service-members. it's one of the biggest organizational changes for the army since world war ii. you are the man in charge. i worry as a scholar or follower of defense policy that in the circles that with the people with whom you speak and whom i speak even. there's often not enough awareness about the fact that this budget decision is the result of the three years of budget draw down that proceeded sequestration. some includes the budget control act. not the sequester cuts which is an additional half trillion. the army and the other services are absorbing the first that

started in 2010. the last peak year of defense spending. it's been a downward trend. it's the fourth year. three of which predates sequestration. this is a significant change for the army. and if sequester continues to next year 80,000 might look like it's in a significant overwhelming number. it might -- there may be more. you alluded to that. how much worse can it be? what are you thinking about as you implement this and talk to people about the awareness? >> there's calm of things. the initial cut are the $7 billion budget reduction we agreed to prior to sequestration. and this -- the initial cut were basically because, you know, we had increases the size of the army in the 2000 because the commitment in afghanistan and iraq. going back to before '90s it was

a difficult decision one that i think at least was somewhat in line with the new defense strategy. as we now look ahead and look toward sequestration. there's a couple of problems. the couple problems is that the -- if you even agree with that we needed to cut the military to extend we wanted to according to sequestration. i would say the way we go about it is really not right. it's so fast that it gets us really out of balance. so as the chief of staff, my responsibility is to maintain balance between proper modernization to give us the best system possible to make sure our soldiers are successful. second, is to make sure we may be -- maintain a certain level of readiness. the third piece is the end strength we think is appropriate. you center to balance that. you have to balance that for a number of reason. first, you have to remember we want to have the capability and

catch that is able to deter those who i call miscliewt. -- miscall cliewt. or the capacity to respond. so that's one issue. the second issue is based on sequestration. we have to come down so fast we can't take enough people out fast enough. because what happens is as you take more people out, you to pay benefits and other things as you let them go. and so there's only a certain number you can have. what we have to do is an imbalance it's going effect specifically modernization and readiness. so as look ahead here. people often ask me what keeps me up at night. what keeps me up at night if i'm asked to deploy 20,000 soldiers somewhere, i'm not sure i can guarantee they are trained to the level i think they should be over the next two or three years because of the way sequestration is being enacted.

that's really a concern for me. what does that mean? it means, yes, we'll send soldier and train them to a lower level and individually ready. but they will not be able to train collectively the way we would like. what does that mean? operations take longer. most importantly, probably equal more casualty. that's the concern. so even if i saidlet do sequestration, it should have been written for differently which gave us time to execute it properly. where we can do it in the back years. in other words complete by this year and get there in the right way. we're not taking so much risk this year, next year, the year after which is the case right now. the other comment i would make, i do worry about the size of the cut. for us, we'll get a -- in order keep it balanced, because one thing the secretary of the army and i have been very clear we're not going to keep an army to keep an army. it's got to be ready and

modernized. we have to continue to reduce the size the army. i believe potentially we're going to be caused to get a point with size that we're going have to completely relook the strategy and relook how we think we can use the army in the future. those are being continued substitutions that we have to have as we move forward. >> i know the budget impact is particularly severe on the army because once the reprogramming request are porkses were recent approved. the air force was able to get grounded flying unit in the sky. the army is not able to turn things around. furlough as well. i know the impact has been pretty significant on the army civilian work force. i sympathize. three years ago, i staffed the bipartisan blue ribbon commission. it was a remarkable effort because it was stood up in 2010, president obama's first year in

office, secretary gate was historic first bucket request with the president that sought to change strategy and the two war construct. begun canceling a lot of modernization initiative underway at the time. 50 major program 240 big and small. and the budget reduction continued. this commission that was stood up to stress test the pentagon defense strategy and budgeting in 2010 was remarkable. it stood up when the president's party controlled both chamber of congress. as part the effort my colleagues, we helped think about at love the issues. the panel was concerned about the health and viability of the all-volunteer force three years ago. right. when defense budget started coming down and priorities starting changing and our strategy chart shrinking. as a variety of thins we undertook a stress test of the

all-volunteer force. i want to read a couple of findings that the commissioners issued as part of the final report. there was concern back then, of course, you recall this is post the beginning of the recession. but nonetheless, it wasn't where we are today economically. but there was reason to doubt that recruiting and retention in the military could stay as strong as it had been in previous years. once the economy started to recover. some specialty and poring of the country geographically were already seeing weaknesses in recruiting and retention. there was concern among the panel about the ability to recruit future use for america. the 16 to 24-year-old age group of which is 26 -- i should say which is the key target for all the services. particularly the army. that the number of prime military is rising. however, more are choosing to attend college wan year of high school graduation the propensity to serve is declining and number of influencers talking to

americans are declining. and the significant number of youth eligible to serve. i know, it's something you probably think about. and finally, the rise in brain injury, ptsd, and other behavior problems. which affect soldier's ability to deploy. and the other barometer and indicators. that was in 2010. if you can give us an update how soldiers are doing three years later not just the stress of winding down iraq and post surge in iraq and afghanistan device, and still engage with over 70,000 u.s. forces or roughly there about right now. absorbing four years of defense budgeted cut. how is it going? >> what i would say is, first, obviously the demand has gone down quite a bit since 2010. the peek was 2010 because we were engaged significantly in

iraq and just beginning the surge in afghanistan. so that was probably one of the higher point of numbers of people deployed for 2008 might be a little bit higher. '08, '09, '10 were the three highest year. that was the highest stress we had on the army specifically. sin we were carrying the largest burden of both of these wars. but a couple of things i would say as i look back at this, then i look forward. what is all-volunteer army perform super belie. there's stress on the force and pushing tsa. there's tbi, yes, there's some problem with families. but as we have gone back historically to what we county have an all-volunteer army. the problems are not much different. so i think the volunteer army has held up. i think that we have to make sure that our worry is we can't forget that we have these issues. in other words, we're okay now.

there's a lot of attention on ptsd. there's a lot of attention on tbi. there's a lot of attention on making sure our would wounded warriors are taken care of. there's a lot of attention to make sure we have the program in place. what i worry about five years from now. how about ten years from now? we know that this part of in generation will be effected for a long time. we have to make sure with the budget cuts that we keep our tension on this. the one good thing that happened during this, the va has not been subject to sequestration, and so for me that's important because they're the ones who will be responsible ten years from now, fifteen years from now, from taking care of these young men and women who sacrificed so much. i think that's important. one of the indicators i look at when i look at the health of the force. first, i will tell you that in term of -- i look at it differently in term of recruiting. the problem we have is that the 19 to 24-year-olds that you just

talks about are 18 to 24-year-old. the problem we have is not the propensity to serve, the problem we have is are they qualified to meet our requirements to serve. that is a high school graduate, most importantly. it's obesity and physical fitness and so what we're finding is about 23% are qualified to come to serve. so for me, that's a bigger problem. what we're trying to do is work different programs where we increase physical fitness, increase nutrition. our recruiters have program in place. they help a recruit if they show an interest the help to get themselves prepared to serve. to me, that's the real problem. now, we do watch the economy very closely and the process when unemployment gets below 6%. we start having a bit more difficulty in recruiting. but so far, actually, the last

two years has been in term of how we measure quality the best quality we have taken in in a long time. we are seeing a propensity to continue to serve. we are meeting all of our requirements. for the first time, last year anyone who wanted reenlist in the army was allowed. we turned some away. part is because of the downsizing we're going through. but for now we are okay. but the issue becomes three years from now, four years from now, five years from now. we have to continue to make sure that we remain in the consciousness of our country, understand the importance of service, and make sure we have young people very much interested. the other piece we get is officers. west point this year had more applicants than its ever had. the and the quality of the applicants is higher than it's been. i think there's a number of reasons for that lately west

point has scored very high for the academic standing in the country. it's recognized as a probably the best one of the best -- not the best leader development institution in the country, if not the world. and so i think there's people who want to serve, and there's young people who want to serve. but one of the reasons people ask me -- one of the reasons obviously women are becoming more important in the army is because we have -- we want to make sure that we make the opportunity available to the available pool of qualified men and women. we have to make the best use of that talent as we move forward. for us, it's really important that we increase those opportunities. so we maximize the talent that is available to us. i think overall the health of the force is good. the next couple of years, though, we have to watch it very carefully as we come out. we still -- suicide are higher than we would

like, obviously. we are making some progress but not as much progress as we would like. we have to continue monitor and ensure that we have the right care for our young soldiers who have the unseen rules of ptsd and tbi. we continue to work that very hard as we go guard. >> well, i share your concern about meaning to keep awareness for years to come not just right now while, you know, the debt ceiling in the news or something. and these issues that are going to persist for you for -- and your successor we'll be counting on our friends like congressman cotton. thank you for coming, sir, today to keep it in the consciousness of members of congress and their constituents throughout the future. you and the fed chairman will be watching the unemployment rate closely. i know, it's one of the things we talked about in the panel was not just the impact on recruiting and retention when our economy turns around, but also the impact within the budget which is historically the

services attended that cut rerouting dollars in the which is when you want to ramp it up. it's remarkable your statistic if 23% are eligible. that 77% are ineligible. it's a remarking number. it's something we should be concerned about for a variety of reasons. my last question before we kick it off to all of you is to the briefly back to your trip to india, and note that you recently promoted head of the army pacific to the three to four-star position. you said it was partly due to the growing importance, of course of asia to the pentagon strategy and the white house to everyone, really. in the meantime, the secretary of defense announced an initiative similar to his successor who try to bring down headquarter staff sizes, flag and general officer. particularly with the emphasis on headquarter and command staff

is a key finding of the strategic choices and management review. this kind of drill needed to be undertaken. if you could talk to us about the position and why you elevated it. and concluding thought about the army's role. >> so, first of all, we are going to reduce our headquarter 20%. we are working that very hard. we are making some decisions in the army that will probably go down to two-star level headquarter. by 20 percent if not more. we are doing a review of that and look how we go about doing that. in term of a four-star in the pacific. first of all, the navy and the air force had a four-star in the pacific for a long time. we reduce significantly the amount of our general officers in europe. we used to have a four-star in europe. it's now a three-star. we eliminated the headquarter in europe which was another three, two, one-star eliminated. we are in the process of

eliminating general-officer positions. based on it we reinvested based on the priority which is asia-pacific. and we have a, you know, we have there's a four-star in korea. a u.n. commander. the u.s. commander. what we needed is a four-star who would work the rest of the asia-pacific region and be on par with their counter parts. whether it be in china, whether it be in thailand, whether it be in japan, whether it be in india. so we thought it's important for us to have the representativation that allows us to work the many tough issues we have in the asia-pacific region. as i said earlier, the eight of the ten largest army in the pacific. they play a major role in development of policy. they play a major role in the development of cooperation agreement between us on the nation. so i think it's critical that the army was able to talk army to army. and that we have the capabilities to do that as we move forward. we have invested -- people don't

realize the army has 82,000 soldiers in the pairveg. actually more than in any other service. what happened over the last three or four years. a lot were serving in afghanistan and iraq because of our war there. in '13 it will be the last year serving in iraq and afghanistan. we have prioritized them to the pacific. we will continue to do that as they continue to conduct several important engagement. we have one now, a huge exercise -- first corps. which is assigned to u.s. army pacific being certified as a joint task force and joint force opponent command. we conducted airborne operation with our partner this week. we have a significant amount of activity going on in the pacific to help by bilateral relationship to help develop

country's capability. and the other thing that assures us access. and so for me those are some of the key contributions we have as we support the admiral as he continues to shape the asia-pacific region for the future. >> you're correct. it's not a well known statistic. and it's significant contribution that you're making to our effort there. i'm going stop talking and open up the floor for rest of you. i'll keep the eye open on the congressman to see if he has anything to say. please do a favor and wait for the mic. let us know your name, please, state your question -- your an in the form of a question. reminder #aei or #sequestration. it you want to submit something online. >> good morning. my question has to do -- brookings the question came about about cut in the naicialt

guard. you said we have right now. the future cut everything will be on the table. the air force had a huge problem with the initiative generally schwartz, they are coming back on the guard [inaudible] met in congress decision last week the language came out was the cancellation of the army's initiative of retiring the c23 former chief of staff last week in the testimony in front of a commission for the future of the air force sad we need to look at the militia construct increasing the national guard and reducing active duty force. your comment? >> my job is to make sure prepared for the next conflict in order to do that we have to have the right plan between active guard and reserve. they play a significant role. clearly the large marchty that come out of the act is component. but the talk of any increase in any part of our force right now, to me, is unrealistic with the

budget cuts we face. we are trying to sustain that right balance, and what i want is a certain amount of the force, you know, i -- i like football. i care compare it tob if. to football. the guard gets to practice 39 or 40 i dids out of year. do you want a football team that can do one practice a month and two weeks of spring training versus a force that can train every day. there's a difference. we need the guard. we need that. we have proven that over the last twelve years and the army reserve. we continue to build an army built on the total army concept. so what we should be looking at is what is best for your future. that's right. for me it's we have taken 80,000 out of the active component based on sequestration and have to talk take a little bit out of

the reserve. the overall percent able of all component will be higher than the active component. it was higher than the return component. i think that's the right balance. we have to look how we are going to deploy that not just rhetoric about certain part of the force. so i think we are going work with them very carefully through this. we will continue to work with them. my job is make sure we develop the best army possible for the future. that's what we're going do. >> we'll take more questions. we'll go to -- [inaudible] a little bit further back, if you could. my neck doesn't do nap hi. sydney breaking defense news general. let me ask your india trip it's impossible talk specific. and even india without looking at china. we have in fact a long and kind

of con -- not always happy triangle and unlovely triangle you might say. they found each other in the past. they still get annoyed when somebody puts a map with the wrong border. how do we engage with, you know, especially a superpower like india. but with any partner on the land in the pacific, the vietnam comes to mind as well without getting the chinese worried we are take them. that we are triankle braceletlating against them. >> it's how you go about doing it. the first comment about india specifically. one of the things we have to remember is we have to mike -- make sure they maintain their own strategic an ton my. we help them build capacity. where you get positive containment you start having large land forces forward stationed in countries.

that's not our plan. our plan is, you know, we are kind of rely on the west coast of the united states sane sign a pacific command and continue to build partner capacity and continue to do exercise ranging from mission from humanitarian assistance disaster relief to other missions. so by doing that. it's about building cooperations, it's about building confidence. we can work together to resolve and continue to move forward together in the asia-pacific region. to include china. this policy is not excluding china. it's to work with china. everyone has had the opportunity to continue to move forward. it's about economic. it's about making sure everybody has the right access to the economic capabilities that are reside in the asia-pacific region. so ours is not to contain china. ours is to build relationship, to build better support to the pay come commander as he intends

to ensure we don't get in the conflict. we don't build animosity between the major powers and asia-pacific. our strategy will be built around that as we move forward. and develop it as we go along. again, this is about supporting the commander. locklear is developing shaping strategy. what i'm working with him on is making sure he has the army capabilities necessary in order for him to shape his environment. in order to prevent conflict. to prevent great raising tension in the pacific to everyone can continue to move forward economically in other ways as well. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> and as we move forward, we will learn from the lessons of the last ten or twelve years continue to apply the lessons as we move forward. we'll work with other countries

in discussing what these lessons have been. >> here. >> good morning, general. thank you very your insight. i want to followup on the question on the asia-pacific. what are the capabilities you think are sort of essential for the army contributing to security joint operational access. for example, army air and missile defense and other high demand potentially the army developing field artillery relevant in the region. what are innovative options? >> i think obviously, ballistic missile defense is key as we go forward. and, you know, the requirement around the world are really ballistic missile defense capability. and so we're working through how we do that in an innovative way. cheaper way, smaller way. for the army and the future it's about how we are scaling our forces in order for us to be able to be globally responsive.

to move quickly, small element to meet specific needs depending where it is. that's what we're working toward now. i think as you see, as we go forward, you can see us deploy smaller packages to mean a variety of missions whether it's missile defense, build partner capacity. put an element on the ground, do work or operationally employ to protect some u.s. interest. that's what we are looking do. so i'm not looking to see the hundreds of thousand or thousand of soldier in the pacific. that's the intent at all. it's about having the small scale capabilities that allow us to gain access and build capacity and build relationships that allow us move forward in the asia-pacific region. >> all right. we go to tom donly in the back. and then in the front. >> i can't believe we have gotten two-thirds of the way

through the conversation and haven't talk about the middle east at all. that's unprecedented probably in your career. and even though we are withdrawalling from afghanistan and iraq. the region is hardly peaceful. as a force provider, as guy steward of the a. -- army. what are your thoughts in a reink that -- region that is still very violent and uncertain. >> yeah, so as part of the defense strategic guidance we balance asia-pacific behind that closely is continue to maintain stability in the middle east. it's an important mission. as you said, you know, there's -- i talked quite often credible uncertainty right now. a lot is in the middle east. probably the most uncertain i have seen it in my time in the

service. we have to watch it carefully and be prepared for that. so as i prepare for scaled operations if asia-pacific. we also have to prepare for scaled capabilities in the middle east which could end up being a bit larger depending what we're asked to do. we have to be able to maintain the breadth of the capability. everything is related. and i think sometimes we look what we look at syria, e look at what is going on in egypt. we look what is going on with iran. to me, they are all somewhat inner connected. so we have to watch it very carefully. i think it's -- as we look ahead, we have to watch it. one thing i don't want to do is make the mistake we have made -- let's say back in 2003. not understanding what we were getting involved with. so as an army, one of the things i'm absolutely focused on is

making sure our leaders as we prepare ourselves understand the social, economic, and other factors involved within the middle east because they are quite complex, they are quite difficult, they are quite difficult to un. and for me, as we prepare. that's one of the most important things we need to do. to make sure we understand what is going on in syria. what is going on the impact or lebanon, the impact on iraq, the impact that egypt could have on the rest of the middle east we are still looking at closely too tunisia and what impact it could have. and libya is another one we are looking at carefully. all of the things we have to look at very carefully. and, you know, one of the things that i worry about is, you know, this precursor to the sunni fight -- we have to be understanding of

that and be prepared. we think about a lot. we are training to understand that better. we will maintain the capability if necessary to conduct high end operations. >> yes. in the back. do you have a question? all the way in the back. by the window. >> thank you. steve luck i work in the study in the city. thank you, general, appreciate it. good to see you. very personal note at the outset. i was a few rows behind you saturday. one of my seat mate was the 85 years young ed. of massachusetts. i told him i would be here today. he wanted to thank you and the joint chiefs, and the services in general for all the accommodation and especially for the young junior grunt running around the tree with water and

such making sure people didn't fall. especially to thank captain langston turner. to follow up on the issue of india. you came back. you had a twenty or twenty five minute briefing. you learned about the 50,000 troops stilled up on the border. you like wise also heard about the con -- contest of china against india and india's exploration. how did the u.s. interpret those remarks and those actions? thank you again. >> well, i mean, i think again, i think -- as you look to the asia-pacific. it's about competition for resources unlimited resources. it's about making sure that everyone is able to sustain their own sovereignty. and meet their own interest. the conversation we have is how to we go about the military perspective how do we look at this and be prepared to respond. the discussions we had were really about, you know, where can we help each other and learn from each other as we look ahead

how we try to ensure that some of these issues don't get blown out to something much bigger than it needs to be. so i think those are the kind of discussions that are important as we have mill to mill discussions. we'll leave this program and return to the live coverage of the u.s. senate. lawmakers coming back from the weekly party caucus. who yields time?

mr. isakson, madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i ask, what state -- are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. mr. isakson: i'd like to be recognized for the purposes of making brief remarks. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia is recognized. mr. isakson: madam president, i'm pleased to come to the floor and i'll be joined shortly by senator murray from the state of washington to announce that tomorrow and in the help committee, we will be introducing the reauthorization of the work force investment act. quite honestly, the work force investment act was passed in 1998 and not reauthorized in 15 years. during that period of time our country particularly in the last six years has gone through a sustained period of unemployment. we also have periods where employers can't find a match of workers trained for the jobs that they have, work force investment and training is important for those with disabilities, those without jobs, those with skill sets that need to be improved and this bill addresses all of

those. senator murray has been a tireless senator in working to find common ground on issues critical to both the democratic party and the republican party but more important to the workers of the united states of america. i want to pay tribute to her staff who has worked tirelessly with my staff and i want to thank tommy you inland on my staff for his dedication and hard work. this bill is a real step forward and i'm pleased the business roundtable issued a release of their end.o.e. of the base bill we're putting forward in the committee. hopefully it will be on the floor when we come back from the summer recess he is we can move forward on lowering the unemployment rate in the united states of america. i'm pleased this bill provides flexibility to governors in terms of transferability of funds, it provides for business majorities on the boards and the business member to be a board chairman and the state chairman to be a businessperson which means those doing the employing will be those guiding the work force development act in their state. i'm also particularly proud of

the fact that we focused on a reasonable approach to work force investment. so oftentimes you get so many work force boards in one metropolitan area you have a very individualized focus and not a regional focus. a regional focus is important for workers. it's important for all of us. so i am pleased to you a announce today on my behalf, senator isakson on the help committee along with senator murray and tomorrow we will markup the work force investment act and i look forward to the support of all members of the senate to do a better job to provide jobs for working americans. i yield back my time -- no, i don't yield back my time. i can brag about her. i've been saying nice things while you were on the way. i want to thank you for your cooperation and the spirit of cooperation you've given us and the fact we finally breached an agreement between ourselves and our staffs. i met with my decide this morning, i know you've done the same thing. we have a good platform to move forward on the first reauthorization of the work

force investment act since 1998 and i defer to the senator from washington. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i want to thank the senator, senator isakson has been absolutely great to work with. we've been spending a lot of time on this and let me just add a few words here. over the past several weeks and months we've spent a lot of time here in the senate debating everything from the federal budget to separate spending bills and throughout those debates members of both parties have agreed it is that it is absolutely critical we work to write laws that put hardworking americans back to work and help our businesses grow and invest and compete our economy to win in the 21st century. we've had some disagreement on how to achieve those goals but as our nation recovers from the recession, our first priority has to be getting americans back on the job. so i want to join with senator isakson today to talk about the tremendous progress that we have made in the help committee, and

that is the work to reauthorize the work force investment act and to do just that, put americans back to work. madam president, before i get to the importance of the bill itself, i do want to take some time to talk about the bipartisan process that we've had at the committee level to move this forward. from the very beginning of this process, i've worked very closely with my republican cosponsor, senator isakson who you just heard from, and though i know we represent very different states with different industries and different issues, we've each remained committed to writing a bill that works for all american businesses and workers. this process has never been about scoring political points or 3eu9ing interests against each other. i think it's been a rare and needed example of true bipartisan legislating and i want to thank my friend, senator isakson, for his hard work and commitment throughout this process. i also want to thank our

committee chairman and ranking member, senator harkin and senator alexander, who have both worked extensively on this legislation and have now signed on as cosponsors as well. madam president, it has been 15 years since we first passed the work force investment act. perhaps more importantly, it's been a full decade since the legislation was due to be reauthorized so this law which was first written in the late 1990's was designed to be changed and updated back in 2003. and since then as we all know our country and our economy have changed a lot. in the late 1990's, the internet was changing the way we do business and driving our economy, and the housing sector was the strong -- as strong as ever. we all know, unfortunately, both of these industries went bust. but back then, we here in congress were willing to take the long view and make meaningful commitments to and ?ressments our work force

investment -- investments in our work force investments. we passed the work force development act to help our indicators and businesses respond to an economy that was changing faster than ever before. lately we haven't done much of that, but i'm very optimistic that by improving and reauthorizing wea we can get back on track. this is the very law that was help us respond to a changing economy and really provide the framework for our nation's work force development system. but it's still written to address the issues that we faced more than ten years ago. so, madam president, working with senators from both sides of the aisle and the business and labor and education communities, we are bringing to our committee tomorrow a very strong reauthorization bill that brings w.e.a. into the 21st century. this bill puts more than a decade of data to use by doing a couple of things. it requires a single unified

work force plan in each state and replaces all the overlap and confusion between separate state agencies. it recognize as that we need data and analysis to understand which work force programs are working well, what makes them work well and how-term prove them and just as importantly, which programs are underperforming and why and how to fix them. and it makes the changes to align our work force systems with regional development and labor markets. this bill is focused on using real-world data to measure the returns that we get on our work force investments. and getting good return on our federal dollars we invest is capital what americans are calling for today. so wile we're making important changes, i want to finish my remarks with an example of incredible success that this law has already had in helping our economy. last year, the adult and

dislocated worker programs produced remarkable statistics. over one million adults and dislocated workers were placed in jobs. those workers earned more than $12 billion over just the first six months of their employment. in that same period, w.i.a. funds spent on those programs came to about $2 billion. let me say that again. in just six months an investment of $2 billion yielded return of more than $12 billion. so, madam president, the investments that we make through w.i.a. programs are having an incredible impact on our economy and the important point is we can do more. that's really why a lot of organizations across the country have called for a modernized 21st century version of the work force investment act. organizations like the national business roundtable, the national metropolitan business alliance, labor, education

leaders, greater chamber of commerce in my home state, all of these organizations are supporting the efforts that we've put together. so, madam president, we're here today to announce to our colleagues that tomorrow we're going to begin marking up our reauthorizing bill in committee and i look forward to continue working with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. you know, in a time when bipartisan legislation has become difficult to achieve i hope that we can set an example of what we are still capable of doing together to really strengthen our economy and our economy and i gent want to thank senator isakson and all those who have worked really hard to put this bill together and i'm proud of what we've accomplished and look forward to working with him as we move through the process. thank you very much and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. hatch: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. about an epidemic -- mr. hatch: i rise today to talk the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: madam president, i rise today to talk about the epidemic in the american work force which has wreaked havoc on our labor markets and caused undue hardship for millions of our nation's workers. i'm talking, of course, about the eradication of the 40 life hou40-hourwork week brought by e so-called affordable care act. as a result of this law, businesses around the country are instituting hiring freezes, downsizing work forces or reducing worker hours.

as you know, the president's health law requires employers with 50 or more full-time employees to offer health coverage of a minimum value or pay a penalty. one of the intended but not unforeseen consequences of the law is that a number of employers are opting to unilaterally limit the number of full-time employees in order to escape this burdensome mandate. the affordable care act defines -- quote -- "full-time" employees as those working at least 30 hours a week. as a result of this odd defense, not every employer seeking to avoid paying penalties is laying off workers. instead, an increasing number of businesses have opted to simply cap workers' hours. this is happening everywhere, madam president. for example, a recent reuters survey of 52 wal-mart stores found that half of the stores were only hiring temporary workers, something the stores typically only do during the holiday shopping season.

according to a recent article in "the washington times," wal-mart has overall increased the share of its temporary staff from between 1% and 2% last year to 10% this year. keep in mind, wal-mart is our nation's largest employer and though the company has denied that this change in policy is the result of obamacare, it's hard to believe that this is all just a coincidence. small businesses are also being impacted. for instance, here is the example cited recently -- there's the example cited recently in the "wall street journal" where rod carsonson, an owner of several del taco restaurants in the denver area, was forced to shift the majority of his work force from full time to part time as a result of obamacare. mr. war carsonson -- mr. carsonson only had 40

full-time employers. but that would have imposed as much as $400,000 additional dollars per year in additional costs. as a result, he is now in the process of switching to 80 full time and 380 part time workers, none of which will work more than 28 hours per week. like i said, this is happening everywhere. it's stupid. according to a survey contacted by the u.s. department -- u.s. chamber of commerce, 71% of small businesses say that the president's health law makes it harder to hire new employees. and amongst small businesses that will be impacted by obama care's employer mandate, 50% say that they will either have to cut the hours of workers currently employed full time or replace their full-time employees with part-timers in order to avoid this vicious mandate. but it's not just happening in the private sector. public schools, states, and municipalities are also limiting

employees to part-time work in order to avoid paying costly benefits. for example, the second largest school district in my home state of utah recently implemented a policy limiting part-timers to 29 hours a week. according to "the washington post," this impacted roughly 1,200 employees, mostly substitute teachers. that's 1,200 employees in a single school district that will see their hours and their wages capped as a result of obamacare. likewise, the state of virginia recently enacted a policy reducing the hours for as many as 10,000 -- 10,000! -- part-time employees that, until recently, worked more than 30 hours a week. offering coverage to these workers would have cost the state as much as $110 million a year. understand -- understandably, rather than paying those crippling costs, virginia was forced to reduce workers' hours

and, therefore, their pay, thanks to the demands and inefficientness of obamacare. as i stated, this is reaching epidemic levels. it makes you wonder, what -- what is in the brains of those who support obamacare. nationwide, employers have added far more part-time employees in 2013, averaging 93,000 a month than full-time workers, which have averaged 22,000. last year, the reverse was true. it isn't just businesses that are noticing this epidemic. labor -- labor unions, some of the largest supporters of the law when it was originally drafted, have also weighed in on the matter. as has been widely reported earlier this month, the leaders of three prominent labor unions sent a letter to the democratic leaders in both the house and the senate expressing their concerns about some of the unintended consequences of th

the -- quote -- "affordable care act." one of their major concerns was that, in their own words -- quote -- "the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees' hours below 30 hours a week. numerous employers have begun to cut workers' hours to avoid this obligation and many of them are doing so openly. the impact is twofold. fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits." according to these union leaders, obamacare threatens t to -- quote -- "destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week that is the backbone of the american middle class." i couldn't agree more with tha . president obama is apparently starting to feed some of -- or feel some of this pressure. indeed, despite his recent efforts to paint a rosy picture of the impact of the health care law, i think president obama knows full well that the

affordable care act -- or should i say -- quote -- "affordable care act" is not living up to its name. why else would he decide to delay the implementation of the employer mandate, as he did earlier this month? obviously there are political considerations. the recently announced one-year delay on the employer mandate conveniently puts the implementation of the mandate past the 2014 midterm elections. so from that perspective, i guess it makes perfect sense. setting aside the politics, this delay also makes some sense in terms of policy. the epidemic of employers reducing employer -- workers' hours is taking a huge toll on the american work force. indeed, the policies established under the health law are killing jobs, reducing wages, and stagnating growth. that being the case, the bigger question is: why is the

president only delaying the employer mandate for a single year? does he really believe these problems will simply go away if businesses have one additional year to prepare? or is he just thinking of the next election and getting his people through that who have voted for this? regardless of when this mandate goes into effect, it's going to send shoc shock waves throughoue business community. it's going to eliminate jobs, and it's going to weaken our recovery. weak though it is today. that's why, despite the announcement of the one-year delay, employers throughout the country are refusing to reverse course when it comes to downsizing their work forces and limiting employer -- employees' hours. most news reports surrounding this issue are showing that this is precisely the case. that's likely the cairs fo likee state of virginia. it's definitely the case for my

home state of utah and utah's grant school district, just to mention one aspect of our problems in utah. if the president is serious about getting our economy back on track, he should work with congress to ensure this mandate never goes into effect. while we're at it, we should also permanently delay the individual mandate. for the life of me, i can't see why president obama would extend his limited lifetime -- lifeline to the business community and at the same time leave individuals and their families out in the cold. this is from a president who claimed that he's for families and for the individuals and for the poor and for those who are middle class. they're being left out in the cold. if businesses are currently facing enough difficulties to justify delaying the employer mandate, shouldn't we assume that individuals are going to face similar difficulties complying with the individual mandate?

isn't it only fair that we extend the same benefits to individuals and families that are being offered to businesses and employers? why not get that beyond next year's election, too? not according to the obama administration. as it stands today, american businesses will get a one-year reprieve from the job-killing employer mandate. american businesses. but the american people are still squarely in the sights of obamacare as the individual mandate for them remains in place. this is the height of unfairness, madam president, and it needs to be rectified. the house of representatives, for its part, has acted responsibly. two weeks ago, the house passed two pieces of legislation -- two pieces -- relating to obamacare. the first bill would simply codify president obama's one-year delay of the employer mandate. the second would provide similar relief to individuals and

families struggling to comply with the individual mandate. not surprisingly, president obama has threatened to veto both bills, even the one that would simply put his own administration's policy into statutory form. still, that shouldn't stop us here in the senate. madam president, if we're serious about helping the business community as well as individuals and families, we should work to delay permanently this catastrophic law. if president obama wants to officially deny the american people the same type of relief he's given to the business community by not working with congress, then so be it. the senate needs to act responsibly. if the president is refusing to do the same, we ought to at least act responsibly. make no mistake, madam preside madam president. i don't think that a one-year delay on the employer and individual mandates is enough. we ought to get rid of both.

i'm the author of two senate bills that would repeal both of these egregious provisions of obamacare. and in light of the president's recent recognition that the employer mandate should be delayed, i have publicly called for a permanent delay of the implementation of the entire l law. given what we know about the problems associated with obamacare and, quite frankly, given what we don't know, the essential approaches to delay it permanently until working together on reforms that will actually lower health care costs, not just promise to do it but actually do it. i believe we can fix these problems for everyone -- for employers and for individuals alike. but only if the law is permanently delayed to give us a chance to do so. it would give us a chance to be bipartisan for a change around here is work together for the best good of this country. this is what makes sense.

and when that's what fairness dictates. if we're serious about avoiding even what some of my democratic friends have called a "train wreck," that's the least we can do. madam president, i'm really concerned about our country. we've increased taxes a trillion dollars on obamacare. we've increased taxes $600 $600 billion as a -- in the fiscal cliff legislation. and last week the majority leader and others, the preside president, the majority leader, senator schumer and others have called for almost a trillion dollars more in tax increases. it would be one thing if all that money would go to reduce spending, all that money would go to balance our budget. but, no, they're going to spend every dime of it. and here we are headed towards problems that we have presented eve -- plenty of illustrative

information on, problems like greece is going through and -- has gone through and is going through. and other countries as well what are just profligate when it comes to their economic wherewithal. i like the president personally, but for the life of me, i don't see why he doesn't see all this. and i really don't see why my colleagues on the other side don't see it. or should i say they ought to see it. they ought to know that this is not what the american people prely want. they would like to have health care; there's no question. but this is going to diminish health care all over the country as we see the high percentage of doctors who are giving up on medicaid patients. they won't take them anymore. now just this week a high percentage of doctors is giving up on medicare patients. they don't want to take them anymore. and what's the administration's answer to all these spending

programs? they're going to cut the providers. already the providers -- the doctors, the hospitals, the health care providers -- are complaining that they can't deliver the services that obamacare requires and at the low-level costs that obamacare gives. we've got to come up with a better system. we've got to work together. we can't keep going down this pathway. i just hope my friends on the other side will wake up and realize we've got to find some way to solve these problems because they're just too large. they're going to wreck our country if we don't. what's worse, they're going to hurt the health care of millions and millions of people who won't be able to afford it. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the

republican whip. mr. cornyn: madam president, sitting here listening to the distinguished senior senator from utah, senator hatch, who in many ways i consider my mentor in the united states senate, i couldn't help but reflect on what we were all doing on christmas eve at 7:00 in the morning 2009. we were here on the floor of the united states senate making, casting an historic vote on the president's atpoerbl care act -- affordable care act, or obamacare. and sadly, that piece of legislation became a partisan exercise in power, and all -- on the floor all republicans voted against it. it was an inauspicious way to start reform of our health care system. and the president pretty well

got what he wanted. he got the 2,700-page piece of legislation made into law with $1 trillion-plus tax increases, with promises that if you like what you have, you can keep it. and he promised that even families of four could see a reduction in their health care costs of roughly $2,500 a year. well, whether you were against obamacare from the beginning like i was, because you never believed it would actually work, or you were for it and you actually believed that it would perform as advertised and as promised, i think everyone has to now acknowledge that it has not turned out the way that even some of its most ardent supporters had hoped it would. the first indication perhaps was when the secretary of health and human services began to issue waivers in excess of 1,000

waivers from having to comply with the law itself. and there are many questions upon -- about the basis upon which these waivers were issued. were they given to friends of the administration and denied to adversaries of the administration? but that's what happens when you pass a sweeping piece of legislation like this and then you cherry pick who it applies to and who it does not apply to. and that started with the granting of waivers. well, we found that most recently even the president of the united states has determined that the employer mandate, the mandate on employers with more than 50 employees, that they provide this government-designed insurance policy or else they get fined, that even the president has acknowledged by his action delaying the implementation of the employer mandate for a year, it's having

a devastating effect on employment in america. the reason we know is that is because many employers are shedding jobs so they can get beneath the 50-person threshold for the employer mandate. or they're taking full-time jobs and making them into part-time jobs causing a lot of people who want to work and provide for their families, creating the inability for them to do so according to their needs. now we know that the individual mandate, the house of representatives has passed a piece of legislation that says if you're going to delay the employer mandate for businesses, shouldn't you show the same consideration for individual americans who unless they buy this government-approved insurance will have to pay a penalty. the president hasn't accepted that delay and the implementation of the law. but there's another important

piece of legislation that i filed in the senate that the house is also considering this week. and that is given the scandals associated with the internal revenue service, the fact that clearly the i.r.s. has more on its plate than it's capable of adequately performing, that we ought to get the internal revenue service out of the implementation of obamacare, that with everything else that it has to do, especially given the scandals that are currently under investigation in both houses of congress, we ought to be delaying the implementation of that individual mandate. we ought to be delaying the implementation of the employer mandate. we ought to be cutting the i.r.s. out of the implementation process for obamacare. now i confess, i voted against obamacare from the very beginning and i voted to repeal it kwrefrp chance we could possibly have and i voted to cosponsor legislation that would

defund it. but i just want to cosome of-- o some of the words of the distinguished senator from utah. at some point those of us who were against it from the very beginning and would like to repeal it and defund it have to work together with ours colleagues who perhaps hoped that it would actually work as advertised, realizing now that even organized labor is writing letters to us saying please protect us from the provisions of this law because it's hurting our jobs, it's making it impossible for us to keep the insurance that we have. so we need to work together to try to come up with a solution at some point when, as the distinguished wraepl, distinguished finance committee chairman who said the implementation of obamacare is clearly becoming a train wreck. that if we don't visit the pain of that train wreck and that fall lure to the american people

that we provide them a reasonable alternative which will provide people access to high-quality care at a lower cost. and there are plenty of great ideas out there. madam president, i want to turn to the appropriations bill that's pending before us. last week in another one of the president's much publicized pivots, the president turned his attention back to the economy. of course most americans don't have the luxury of pivoting tor from this sluggish economy. the american people don't have the luxury of pivots. they have to live with this sluggish economy and high unemployment day after day. but we should welcome the president back to this conversation. he's talked a lot about middle-class families which, as we all would agree, are the backbone of our country and a source of immeasurable strength. that said, the president has been a member of the middle

class for some time, and i think he along with some of our colleagues could use a refresher. american families set their budgets, and they have to stick with them. in lean times, they trim their budgets. and in times of plenty, they set money aside for the future should they need it. os -- astonishingly this seems to have been lost on the president and the author of this legislation. this takes the first step towards violating the budget control act which president obama himself signed into law in 2007. -- 2011. that law sets clear limits on spending levels which the democratic majority by bringing this bill to the floor has chosen to ignore. they ignored it when they wrote their budget earlier this year. and they're ignoring it today with this proposed bill which is

11% above the c.b.o. numbers and 4% the president's numbers. that's $54 billion, how much this bill would appropriate in discretionary spending, more than $5 billion above the current level of spending for this particular appropriations bill. as i said, it's more than the president himself has requested. it's more than $10 billion above the house bill which unlike this bill, was written in accordance with the existing law. now, i understand that as a negotiating tactic, while our democrats friends might think high balling the bill is is a gd thing but it is a charade. the american people can't understand why congress and the federal government are having such a difficult time doing with 2.4% less than we spent before the budget control act went into

place. 2.4%. yet here inside the beltway you'll hear talking about the budget sequester and the budget control act as if it were the end of the world. well it's not. it's called living within your means. that's what we tried to do when the law was passed and when president obama signed it. i think it's also telling that the majority leader chose to bring this particular bill to the floor before the august recess. we could have passed any one of a number of other appropriations bills to fund our veterans' hospitals or to pay our border patrol agents. the house and senate really aren't very far apart on the appropriations bills that would do that. conceivably we could have had them on the president's desk by the end of this week. instead the majority leader

would rather leave them in limbo while attempting to pass this bloated bill which has zero chance of becoming law. my hope is our friends on the other side of the aisle will demonstrate a willingness to operate within the law and the budget control act. unfortunately they are not off to a very good start with this particular appropriations bill. madam president, i yield the floor. and i'd suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. p.m. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the snowe from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. durbin: i ask consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: jennifer kerr was a single mom who wanted to improve her family's future. in 2009, she signed up at vaderot college. she went to the local campus. she told the admissions representative that she wanted to study to become a nurse. the admissions official told her that although the school did not offer a nursing degree, it did offer a medical assistance degree that would allow her to earn $15 to $17 an hour and put her on a fast track to becoming a nurse. after securing more than $27,000 in loans and being in the program for more than a year, jennifer kerr learned that she wasn't even enrolled in the medical assistants program. she was in the preliminary medical office assistants program. if she wanted to continue and pursue the medical assistants degree, she would need another 30 weeks of study and another $10,000 to be paid in tuition.

in a gutsy move, jennifer kerr sued vaderot education centers for misleading her even though there's a clause in her contract with the school that i.d. said she would never sue the school if she should -- i'm sorry, that if she ever sued the school and lost, she would be responsible for vaderot's legal costs. a jury in missouri decided that the school deceived jennifer kerr, ordered the company to pay back the $27,000 she borrowed for tuition and fees. the jury then ordered the company to pay kerr an additional $13 million in punitive damages. the punitive amount the jury awarded far exceeded the maximum under missouri law, but it showed the sympathy of the jury for situations like jennifer kerr's. she borrowed tens of thousands of dollars to earn a certificate, not even a degree, at a for-profit school which turned out to be virtually

worthless. after she left vaderot, she tried for six months to find full-time employment, earning her medical office assistant diploma not only put her in debt but it couldn't land her a job anywhere. now, take away the court victory, jennifer kerr's story is common to an industry, the for-profit school industry that frequently uses unscrupulous tactics to deceive people who are just trying to get an education. some trade schools provide quality training for reasonable prices. i acknowledge that, but throughout the for-profit college industry, abuses are well documented. admissions offices at for-profit schools are often a guise for aggressive sales operations targeting students from low-income families. they end up enrolling with inflated expectations for their employment and salary prospects upon graduating from for-profit colleges. because 96% of the students who

enroll in for-profit colleges take federal student loans, 96 for-profit colleges, it's 13% for those going to community colleges. 96% of those in for-profit colleges take federal student loans. nearly all the students who leave these for-profit schools have student debt, even when they don't have a degree or a diploma that can lead to a job. most for-profit colleges charge significantly more in tuition and expenses than similar programs at community colleges or even state universities. in 2008 and 2009, more than one million students started at schools owned by for-profit companies that were examined in an investigation by senator tom harkin in the senate help committee. by mid 2010, 54% of those students that started at these for-profit schools had left school, 54%, without a degree or

a certificate. among associate degree students, 63% dropped out without a degree. vatterot made national news itself in 2009 and early 2010 when three of the top employees of this for-profit school of the midwest, including kevin earl woods, the former director of the kansas city campus, pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to fraudulently obtain federal student grants and loans for students who were ineligible for these loans. the senate help committee looked at vatterot in the course of chairman harkin's investigation of the for-profit industry. what they found was discouraging. in 2009, 88%, 88% of the revenue going to this for-profit school was federal money. of the money it took in, vatterot spent 12.5% on advertising and marketing, took out 19% of this federal money in profit. here is another way to look at

it. vatterot, a for-profit school, spent $2,400 per student on instruction in 2009, but it spent $1,345 on marketing and $2,000 it took out in profit for each student. in contrast, public and nonprofit schools generally spend a higher amount per student on actual ininstruction. like a st. louis community college that spent $5,000 per student on instruction, vatterot, $2,400. the company continues to operate the kansas city campus. the default rate on loan repayment for students who attended vatterot in kansas city is 25%. one out of four students who went to this for-profit school default on their student loans. the national average is 15%. jennifer kerr fought back and won but the for-profit college

industry won't be cleaned up in the courtroom. not every student with a bad experience has a strong legal case. most are just victims of a system that allows unscrupulous schools to collect federal loan and grant money from students regardless of outcomes, heaping debt on these students, many of those students will carry that debt for a lifetime. when the programs and the schools don't deliver and jobs don't materialize, the student gets the debt, the federal government bears the risk, and the school takes the money and runs. the for-profit sector took in $31 billion in u.s. department of education money in 2011. about 1/4 of all the federal aid went to these for-profit schools. even though they only enroll 12% of all the students coming out of high school. i might add one other statistic. the for-profit schools account for 47% of all the student loan defaults in america.

12% of the students, 25% of the federal aid to education, 47% of the student loan defaults. federal u.s. department of education regulations state the schools that engage in substantial misrepresentation about a program, its fees or its job public safety can be denied federal money. and yet, vatterot is not the first school or the only school to substantially mislead these students. abuses in the for-profit college industry will continue until congress steps up and does something. it's about time for to us establish standards of accreditation that apply to all schools across the board. how can you expect a student or a student's family to know whether or not this school that is advertising on the internet or on the buses or on the billboards is a real school? or just a phony operation to lure kids into debt, have them drop out, or end up with a worthless diploma.

i worked with my colleagues who feel as i do on this issue. senators tom harkin and jack reed among others will continue to tell these stories here on the floor of the senate in the hopes that when the senate has its higher ed reauthorization bill we will finally tackle this for-profit school industry. last congress, senator tom harkin joined me in introducing a bill that would include military education benefits in the calculation that limits how much of a school's revenue is derived from federal funding. today i announce the defense appropriation bill for the next fiscal year. it was reported out of my subcommittee of the senate appropriations committee. we called in representatives from the major services and asked them what's going on with the training of our active service members and their families, and what they told us is more than half of those active service members and their families are going to these same for-profit schools. some are good. most are awful.

these military men and women and their families are not only wasting their time, they're wasting a once in a lifetime opportunity we give them for the proper training and education to prepare them to be even better in the military or to have success in civilian life. and because they are lured into these for-profit schools they waste their time, waste their money, many of them deeply in debt. senator hagan of north carolina has proposed banning schools from using federal education dollars for marketing. she's right. many for-profit schools literally take the federal money to bombard students with messages that entice them to enroll, bringing the schools more federal money. i also want to take a look at the system of acred taiption. -- accreditation. our current system provides a seal of approval for tattoo many schools, many of them for-profit colleges that is really little more than a license to rake in federal

dollars as opposed to educating and training students. i hope jennifer's court victory can serve as a wake-up call to congress so we can work together to correct the abuses of this system. we need to be better stewards of education money. on behalf of the students we have to improve to a system that may or may not prepare them for a career or lead to a degree but in almost every case leads to debt. mr. president, i ask consent that the following statement be placed in a separate part in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: last last week "usa today" published an article that highlights the stories of people and families 34ur hurt by -- hurt by taking title taxpayer supplements containing the chemical d.m.p. it's a pesticide that was used as a weight loss drug before 1938. then the f.d.a. declared it to be toxic for humans. in 1938. 75 years ago.

the article in "usa today" featured matt cahill, a die taxpayer supplement manufacturer with a high school education and no chemistry training who illegally added this toxic pesticide to exercise and weight loss supplements. some people who used his product suffered liver failure, some died. cahill was arrested, crippleally process -- criminally prosecuted and sent time in prison but he's back, selling supplements that raise concerns. the article raised serious questions about whether we can do better to protect the american public. now, dietary supplements have become a common health aid in medicine cabinets. more than half of americans use dietary supplements and you may be one of them. most supplement makers are ethical and responsible. i take a multivitamin every day and believe it's safe. but most people assume that

supplements on the shelves in stores have been tested by the federal government. how could they get on a shelf without a test? most people think like drugs that are prescribed these supplements are tested for safety and effectiveness. that's not true. unlike more traditional supplements like calcium and vitamin c this there are many new and complex supplements on the market promising to help people lose weight, find energy, bulk up, prevent disease, you name it. consumers need to be carolful. if a product is promising something too good to be true they need to make sure they are safe. we need to know the information on the label is not misleading and the f.d.a. needs to be more about these products. this week senator richard blumenthal of connecticut and i are reintroducing the dietary supplement labeling act. listen to what this bill would require. this bill would require more

information on labels of dietary supplements. and it would help ensure that the f.d.a. has the information it needs if it turns out any of these products are dangerous. many people would be surprised to learn that the f.d.a. does not know, does not even know how many dietary supplements are being sold in this country. the "usa today" article clearly states that when this cahill character first sold his harmful dietary supplement tainted with d.m.p. he sold it on line. f.d.a. had no idea it was even on the market. how does f.d.a. learn when a market is on the market? people get sick and they die. another example is kava, a root people take to alleviate anxiety. now he would wee know kava is associated with liver daniel and death, it would be useful for the f.d.a. to have information readily available about the

products on the market containing kava. our bill would require dietary supplementmakers to give the f.d.a. the name of each supplement they produce along with a description of the product, a list of ingredients and a copy of the label. is that too much to ask? if you're going to sell this dietary supplement in stores across america shouldn't the food and drug administration at least have a copy of the label and the ingredients? with this information, the f.d.a. would know what products are on the market, what ingredients are in them and be able to work with supplement manufacturers to address any problems. this is a commonsense provision. it's supported by the consumers union and already practiced by many responsible supplement makers. let's ask all the companies to provide f.d.a. this basic information. in addition to asking manufacturers to tell the f.d.a. when a product goes on the market this bill would require more information on the label of

these products. some ingredients may be safe for the general population but not for kids. or pregnant women. or perhaps those who have a compromised health condition. st. john's wort is used safely by many people but it can cause side effects in people who are bipolar or undergoing surgery. information like that should be clearly listed on the label. this bill would help ensure the information necessary to make an informed decision by consumers. we've all seen claims in supplement stores and i was in a train station saturday night with my wife and went into one of these supplement stores and the shelves were packed with these products claiming all these things. some promised they'll booth boost your immunity, enhance atlantic performance or make

you -- athletic performance or make you a better husband. this would, consumers should be skeptical of any product making big claims and they should take time to learn if the product is safe and effective. but we need to give the f.d.a. the authority to request evidence to support any claims made on these labels. the bill would help curb the growing practice of foods and beverages with potentially unsafe ingredients masquerading others date taxpayer supplements bidirecting the f.d.a. to establish a definition for conventional foods. pile aisle exactly challenge whether it's west virginia or illinois or washington, d.c. or your home state. go to the cash register at the gas station. what do you see? energy supplements. those little red bottles bottles. they're everywhere. products like energy drinks, the small ones and the huge one in 24 and 32-ounce cans and baked goods like mellow bunchies

brownies contain medical melatoe marketed as dietary supplements that are safe ways to get a boost of energy or even to relax when in reality they are foods and beverages taking advanced of the regulatory standards for dietary supplements. did you know that the food and drug administration regulates a food product known as cola? you pick it, pepsi, coca-cola. did you know that the food and drug administration in regulating that food product says how much caffeine they can put in each bottle of cola? they do. but when it comes to the monster energy drinks if you pull out your magnifying glass and look closely you'll notice it isn't listed as a food product, it's called a dietary supplement and what are the regulations on limitations of caffeine in monster energy drinks? none, nada. had a sad case recently in virginia. a girl 15 or 16 years old,

two, 24-ounce high powered energy drinks in a 24-hour period of time and she died. died from two energy drinks. way too much caffeine for a person her age and her size. i'm working with senator blumenthal to try to get the f.d.a. to establish some standards here. these are not benign products. they're certainly not benign products for young people and if they're consumed in quantity, they're dangerous. people get sick and people die. i've had press conferences in chicago with emergency room physicians, you would be shocked to snow how many people -- know how many people show up having taken energy drinks and consumed too much caffeine and worried they're about to die. that is a reality. and it's time for us to establish some standards to proict consumers and -- protect consumers and families. most dietary supplements available are safe and are used by millions of americans as part

of a healthy lifestyle. as i said, i take my fish oil, i take my multivitamin, i don't believe i should have to get a prescription to buy them. but we also need to regulate how -- to recognize how the regulation of supplements can be improved to protect the public in america. in the "usa today" article a representative from the anti-doping agency, a nonprofit designated to oversee testing those who participate in the olympics said companies like matt cahill's are not fringe players. these are mainstream dietary supplement companies and products that are in your mainstream health and nutrition stores. it's not that there are a few bad actors, there are a lot of bad actors. ensuring healthy consumers will take cooperation from responsible people in the dietary supplement industry, the food and drug administration, and congress in both political parties. senator blumenthal and i have

put in a bill which includes commonsense steps to make sure risks for supplements are on the label, products are registered with the f.d.a., and manufacturers can be forced to back up their big claims. i look forward to working with my colleagues to enact that legislation. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. i also ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business and to engage in a colloquy with my republican colleagues.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: mr. president, reserving the right to object and i don't intend to object. i'd like to modify his unanimous consent request that i follow for 15 minutes after his colloquy. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president, today i rise in support of parents, families, students, employees, taxpayers and other hardworking americans who, as of january 1, 2014, will find themselves unfairly impacted by obama care. bio obamacare. an ill-conceived, poorly crafted and economically damag damaginge of legislation. we've known for some time now that obamacare would create a dangerous set of circumstances that would make health care unaffordable. it's unaffordable from several stand points. number one, for the country, for the united states government. the congressional budget office , a nonpartisan --

the congressional budget office, a nonpartisan entity, recently reported that this law is going to cost the united states government about $1.8 trillion over the next ten years, significantly more, some would say roughly double what the initial estimates given to congress were when this law was passed. this is an enormous amount of money, especially an enormous amount of money for a government that's now $17 trillion in debt. and is adding to that debt at ate rate of about a trillion dollars every single year. it's not as though we have an overabundance of money within the federal government. it's not as though we can afford to be taking on newer, more expensive programs like this o one, especially when they run price tags that are substantially above and beyond what they were presented to us with. it's also something that's proving to be unaffordable for american families. there are a number of studies

that have been conducted in recent news tell us that premiums are going to become more expensive. the law, the name of the law, of course, was the patient protection and affordable care act. this implies, of course, that this would protect patients and it would make health care more affordable, not less. and what we've found is that this is a misnomer. what we've found through these studies that have been released recently is that it's going to make health care less affordable for american families and not more. now, the interesting thing about these studies, mr. president, is that they're all over the map. we don't know exactly how much health care is going to cost us. we don't know exactly less affordable health care will become under the affordable care act because there are so many uncertainties created by this law. the 2,700-page bill that became obamacare has been modified and will continue to be modified by countless pages, tens of thousands of pages of regulations.

this act has also been modified in significant ways on a couple of occasions which we will get to in a minute. but all of these modifications have created additional uncertainty that really is a source of a lot of concern to a lot of americans. but what we do know is that it is likely to result in premium increases. so one study concluded that even on the low end, the increased premiums that families would be paying in a small group premium context would go up between 13% and 23% on average. other studies, including one that was conducted in the state of indiana, suggested that premiums would go up in that state by 72% for those with individual plans. i'm told that maryland's biggest health insurance provider has proposed raising premiums for

individual policies by an average of 25% next year. for young people, these numbers are in many instances even worse and they are also numbers that suggest there's a lot of uncertainty that we really don't know, it's almost impossible to know. an analysis of more than 30 studies has showed that premiums are likely to increase for young people seeking health insurance between 145% and 189%. in utah, my state, there's a study suggesting that for young people seeking health insurance, their premiums are likely to increase between 56% and 90% with respect to individual policies. this law's also bad for america's workers. businesses are cutting hours. they are moving workers to par part-time. and in many cases, they're not hiring at all. according to a recent u.s. chamber of commerce survey, 74%

of businesses will fire employees or they'll cut ours. cut -- cut hours. 61% will not hire next year. daniel kessler who's a professor of law and business at stanford university has predicted that 30 million to 40 million americans will be directly harmed by obamacare through higher premiums, stiff penalti penalties, cutbacks in ours and job losses. so again, mr. president, we've known for some time as a result of these studies that obamacare was going to make health care unaffordable. we now know it is also going to be unfair, fundamentally unfair. it's because the president recently admitted that the law's not ready for primetime he admitted that he's not ready to implement the law as it's been written. and that because obamacare was so poorly crafted, he's simply not going to enforce it the way it was crafted.

he's going to selectively enforce its provisions. most importantly, mr. president, the president of the united states has said that while he's going to require hardworking americans, individuals to comply with the law's individual mandate, a provision of the law that according to one recent study only 12% of the american people actually support today, he is going to implement and enforce that provision. but at least for the first year of the law's full effect next year, won't be implementing, he will not be enforcing the employer mandate. so hardworking americans have to imply. big business doesn't. this is significant because the law doesn't give the president of the united states the power to rewrite the law. the law sets forth the specific set of time lines, a specific set of deadlines that cause the law's various provisions to kick

in. this did not give the president the authority or the discretion to decide which among the law's several provisions could be favored or disfavored by the president of the united states. and so you've got hardworking americans, individuals and families on the hook. and you've got big business being thrown a big bone. this is not fair. this is not something that is consistent with the rule of law. this is not something that the american people ought to tolerate. so the affordable care act, as it's called, will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits but it will in many instances destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week that's become the bac backbone of the american middle class, and it will do all of this in a way that will contribute to and be a part of a system of selective unfair enforcement. the american people deserve better. the american people demand better. and the american people deserve

not to have this law implemented and enforced if, as the president of the united states has told us, it's not ready for primetime, it's not ready to be implemented. and so i would ask of my friend and my colleague, the distinguished junior senator from florida, how he feels about this and how the people in his state, the state of florida, feel about the selective implementation and enforcement of a law that americans already knew was going to be unaffordable and a law that they now know will also be unfair. mr. rubio: i want to thank the senator from utah for organizing this effort. let me answer that question by coming up with a couple of things that i think we can find some consensus o. the first thing is i think all of us would agree that the american middle class is one of the things that makes us exceptional. every country in the world has rich people. unfortunately, every country in the world has people that are struggling. but what made america unique and different from all these other countries is we have this

vibrant middle class. you know, people that work hard, they make enough money to own a home and take their kids on vacation and save for their college expenses and kind of fulfill many of their dreams. i grew up in that environment. i tell people all the time, i didn't having everything i wanted but we always had everything we needed because we, through hard work and sacrifice, my parents became part of that great american middle class. working-class americans who had the opportunity to give us the life they never had. so i think we can all agree that the middle class is very important for american because it's one of the things that makes us exceptional and unique and sets us apart from the rest of the world. it's one of the reasons why people want to live here and love being in america because it creates those opportunities. now, what strengthens the middle class? and we're having a debate about this in this country, what strengthens the middle class is that a bunch of government spending, is it a bunch of government programs? is it u.s. senators? is it the president of the united states? the answer, no. what rationally makes the middle class possible, vibrant, broad middle class is jobs that pay middle-class salaries. that's what makes it possible.

is you have jobs that pay that kind of money so that people can join the middle class and give their kids a better life. and where do those jobs come from? do they come from the government? do they come from the white house? do they come from the u.s. senate or from our laws? they don't. they come from a vibrant private economy thealing that's creatine jobs. and how those jobs are created is not that complicated. one or two things has to happen for jobs to be created. number one, people need to start new businesses. or, number two, they need to grow a business that already exists. those are the two primary ways in which middle-class jobs, in fact, most jobs, are created outside of government. where the only place you're going to find the kind of growth that we need for a vibrant middle class. so we should analyze every issue for this body through the lens of the middle class and through the lens of whether it makes it easier or harder for someone to start a business or grow an existing one. and so let's examine what you've just asked me about obamacare in the context of that. and the answer is that it is clear that obamacare makes it harder for people to start a

business or grow an existing one for a number of reasons that you've pointed out. number one, it has an incentive for your business not to grow. it tells you you have more than 50 full-time employees. i will have to meet these sets of rules which will make it very expensive for you to start a business or grow anis anist andg business. other thing is creates is a tremendous amount of uncertainty. it goes back to the point you just raised. these laws are being canceled on a whim. the president is deciding we're going to enforce this part of it but not that part it was. that creates this scwiewtion queution. imagine you're a business and you've got money set aside to grow. but you don't know how much it's going to grow. and so as a result you don't grow and the jobs are not created. how about the jobs of that describes. the senator from utah described this. in florida just yesterday, the commissioner of insurance said that the individual marketplace in florida next year because of obamacare, rates are going up 30% to 40%.

does yourself: does it make it easier to start a new business or does it make it harder? does is it make it easier to grow an exaising business or does it make it harder? and think about awrl of this uncertainty. add to this the following. right now there's an incentive to having part-time workers. that's why you read company-x is moving people prosecute full-time to part-time so they can avoid the penalties in this bill. let's say you've got imperial exr and you're happy with it. this law may require your employer to put on a new insurance or put you on an exchange. which means that your doctor who knows your case history and has been dealing with you for ten years, that might not be your doctor next year. as a result of obamacare. and as a result, we have a holding pattern. the people in america who create the middle-class jobs are in a holding pattern waiting to see what direction this goes. but they're always headed in a very poor direction because of this. and so when you talk about and you ask the question, what

impact am i hearing? that's what i'm hearing. i'm hearing thank -- law makes it harder for people to create jobs. this bill is going to make it harder on the middle class. it's going to be hearter for middle class jobs to be created in america. because it makes it harder to grow an existing business. so i would just -- i imagine the senator from utah has heard similar stories in his home state. and the senator from texas has joined us here in a state even larger than minds. and i'm sure he'll share the input he's getting from his home state and across the country. but that's what i've been hearing from my constituents over the last six months. mr. inhofe: will the senator yield for a unanimous consent request? it's my understand my understanding that you have the floor occupied until 4:30 and i'm recognized -- will be recognized at that time. so i'd like to lock that in with a unanimous consent request i be recognized at 4:30. mr. leahy: mr. president,

reserving -- the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. leahy: reserv leahy: rereset tofnlrightto object. i understand the leader is about to make a request. i wonder if the senator could withhold his request for a couple of minutes. mr. inhofe: i understand that. i withdraw my request and i'm going to use time perhaps tomorrow. thank you very much. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i see, mr. president, we've been joined by my friend and colleague, the junior senator from texas, and would like to ask him if his observations from his interactions with his constituents in texas has been similar to those that have been shared today by the junior senator from florida. mr. cruz: i want to thank the senator from utah for his leadership on this issue. i am proud to stand with senator lee, with senator rubio and with so many others. i can tell you in the state of

texas, texans overwhelmingly understand that obamacare isn't working, that this legislation is failing and it's hurting the american people. if you look at jobs, there is no legislation currently in effect that is damaging the economy more or damaging jobs more than obamacare. in response to the law 41% of small business owners have held off hiring employees. the u.s. chamber of commerce reports 71% of small businesses say obamacare makes it harder to hire workers. beyond that, one of the most pernicious aspects of this law is it is forcing more and more employees to be moved to part-time employment, moved to working 29 hours a week or less to get under the obamacare 30-hour threshold. in 2013 employers added more

part-time employees, averaging 93,000 a month seasonally adjusted than full-time workers. it is important to understand who it is hurt the most by obamacare. it is not the c.e.o.'s, not the wealthy. it is young people, hispanics, african-americans, single moms. according to the most recent census data in 2011 the poverty rate for those who worked full time was 2.8%. the poverty rate for those working less than full time year round was 16.3%. mr. president, i'm reminded of earlier in this year when we were debating the issue of obamacare and i read from a newspaper article out of the state of oklahoma that quoted a single mom working in a fast-food restaurant and she and all of her coworkers had her hours forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week or less, and this

single mom said i got two little kids at home. i can't feed my kids on 29 hours a week, and neither can the other single moms struggling to make ends meet. beyond the impact on jobs, on the economy, beyond those being forced into part-time work, we also have the compliance costs. according to federal agency estimates, obamacare will add paperwork burdens totaling nearly 190 million hours or more every year. and, mr. president, to put that in perspective, mount rushmore, which took 14 years to build, could be instructed 1,547 times with the paperwork obamacare requires in one year. not only do we see jobs being hurt, hours being reduced, paperwork going up, but we're seeing premiums going up, premiums going up far too high.

and it's hitting those who are suffering the most. on monday florida's insurance commissioner told the palm beach post that insurance rates will rise by 5% to 20% in the small-group market and by 30% to 40% in the individual market. mr. president, to those who are at home in florida watching what's happening, as they're seeing their insurance rates go up, they're going up because of the impact of this failed law. the ohio department of insurance announced that obamacare in ohio will increase the individual market health premiums by 88%. mr. president, if you're in ohio right now and seeing your premiums go up, you can thank the men and women of the u.s. congress. according to the wyman firm looking at young people, young people in particular are hurt by obamacare. the wyman firm estimates that 80% of americans age 21 to 29

earning more than $16,000 will pay more out of pocket for coverage under obamacare than today. mr. president, if young people at home are watching this today and wondering about are they going to get a job, how are they going to climb the economic ladder? how are they going to achieve the american dream? obamacare is driving up their health care premiums right now. and we all know that the president promised the american people at the time obamacare was being debated if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. mr. president, the facts have conclusively proven that wrong. according to a february 2013 report by the congressional budget office, seven million people will lose their employer-sponsored insurance. mackenzie and company, a very well-regarded accounting firm found 30% of employers will definitely or probably stop offering health insurance in the years after 2014.

mr. president, this bill isn't working, and i would note that there is a growing bipartisan consensus on that front. as the facts have come in, the american people have kept an open mind, have looked at this bill and have seen that as it's being implemented, it is not working. it's hurting the economy, hurting jobs. according to an abc/"washington post" poll, in 2010, 74% of moderate and conservative democrats, there are a significant number of democrats that describe themselves as moderate or conservative, in 2010, 70% supported obamacare. in july just 46% supported obamacare. not only that we have seen the lead senate author of obamacare, a senior democrat in this body describe obamacare as headed towards a -- quote -- "huge train wreck."

we have seen over and over against unions which initially supported obamacare turning as they realized the consequences. in april the united union of roofers and allied workers called for -- quote -- "repeal or complete reform of the affordable care act to protect our employers, our industry and our most important assets: our members and their family." mr. president, if you listen to the voice of unions, unions are saying obamacare is failing, it's not working. the international brotherhood of electrical workers released a white paper in july explaining that obamacare -- quote -- "threatens to harm our members by dismantling multiemployer health plans." and then really quite striking, james hoff jr., the president of the teamsters union, wrote a

letter to senator reid and nancy pelosi saying -- quote -- "obamacare will destroy the well-being of our members along with other hardworking americans." why? mr. hoffa explained obamacare is stkroeugt 40-hour -- destroying the 40-hour work work that has been the backbone of the working middle class." mr. president, if you have a concern of the american middle class, listen to the bipartisan voices that are rising up saying obamacare isn't working. and most strikingly, mr. president, with president obama himself who just a few weeks ago was forced to unilaterally and without legal authority delay implementation of obamacare for large corporations, with companies for more than 50 employees he unilaterally moved the employer mandate until after the next election. mr. president, i would suggest there are at least two things we can derive from president

obama's decision to do that. number one, if obamacare were a good thing, if it were working, we can be sure president obama would want it to go into full effect before the next election. he would want to take credit with the american people for the benefits of this signature bill. the fact that the president was forced to concede the wheels are coming off and to move the employer mandate until after the next election, i would suggest is highly, highly revealing. but number two, mr. president, it raises the obvious follow-up question. why is president obama willing to grant a waiver for giant corporations but not for hardworking american families? not for the men and women who are struggling to make ends meet, who are climbing the economic ladder, who want like our parents and grandparents before them to achieve the american dream. obamacare is standing in their

way. so what are we to do about it? well, mr. president, the most important constitutional check and balance that congress has on an overreaching executive is the power of the purse. and the framers of the constitution wisely gave authority over expenditures of money to the united states congress, and that is why the senator from utah, the senator from florida and i, along with many others, are standing together and saying this isn't working, and congress should defund it. in 62 days the continuing resolution which funded the federal government will expire. each of the three of us along with a number of others have publicly stated under no circumstances will we support a continuing resolution that funds one penny of obamacare. if 41 members of this body stand together and make that same statement, or if 218 members in

the house of representatives stand together and take that same position, we can do something different than we've seen this year. the past couple of years we've seen 39, 40, 41 votes to repeal obamacare, all of which have been effectively symbolic because none of them had a real chance of passage. mr. president, with a continuing resolution, we have a chance to successfully defund obamacare. now right now we don't have the votes in this institution. if the vote were held today, we would not hold 41 senators to defund obamacare. but we've got 62 days until september 30, and every one of us takes very seriously our obligation to represent our constituents. and if in the next 62 days we see what i believe we're going to see, which is the american people rising up en masse, hundreds of thousands, millions of americans standing up saying

it isn't working, it's hurting our jobs, it's hurting our economy, it's hurting our health care, it's making our lives worse. stand up and defund it. if enough americans speak out and demand of their elected officials that we do the right thing, mr. president, i'm confident we will. i'm confident republicans will. and i am hopeful that members of the democratic party will as well. that every one of us, mr. president, i believe the american people should hold their elected officials accountable and that most assuredly includes me. it includes all of us. we should be held accountable by our constituents. and the american people know this bill isn't working. there's bipartisan agreement on it. and we have a potential in the next 62 days to show real leadership. not to give a speech. not to give a meaningless symbolic vote. but if we stand together to actually defund it. and let me make one final point, which is those who disagree with

the position that is being taken by senator lee and senator rubio and myself say that taking this stand will mean that republicans will be blamed for a government shutdown. let me be clear what i think should happen. i believe the house of representatives should pass a continuing resolution, should fund the entirety of the federal government except for obamacare, and should explicitly prohibit further funding of obamacare, should adopt the legislation that i've introduced as a condition to the continuing resolution. now the next step, there will be partisan critics who immediately charge republicans with threatening to shut down the government. mr. president, i would suggest that we then take the argument to the american people. that it is the american people that should decide if there are members of this body who are willing to shut down the american government in order to

force obamacare down the throats of the american people, in order to say president obama will tkpwrabt a waiver to -- grant a waiver to giant corporations but not to hardworking american families, let's take that argument to the american people because i think the american people want economic growth back. that should be our top priority. nothing is killing jobs more. nothing is hurting the american economy more than obamacare. there's bipartisan agreement on that, and i am hopeful that members of this body will stand and lead. and i thank the senator from utah for taking the lead on what i believe is the most important battle that this congress will confront. mr. lee: those of us who share this position feel strongly that it is indisputably constitutionally the prerogative of the united states congress to exercise the power of the purse. this means that we don't have to

vote to fund something with which we fundamentally disagree. some have suggested that because this was passed by congress three years ago, we somehow have an obligation to fund it. well, i remind my colleagues who might make that statement that the congress as it existed then is not the same congress as it exists today. that was two congresses ago. the congress that enacted that law was fundamentally changed, in part because it meacted that law. the law has not been popular. it has not been good to those who et vod to enact it. -- who voted to enact t ever since the majority party in the house of representatives changed due in large part to obamacare, there have been a lot of people that have suggested that republicans in congress need to defund obamacare's imhementation and enforcement. for a variety of reasons, that hasn't happened. we've continued to pass continuing resolutions with no restrictions on obamacare's

implementation and enforcement as it relates to the ultimate implement and enforcement of the exchanges and the individual mandate and so forth. republicans have had reasons for doing this. some of those reasons are included the effect that, well, the supreme court is going to knock it down. it is unconstitutional. of course it isment. if the majority of the supreme court concluded that it was unconstitutional. but the supreme court instead rewrote the law not just once but twice in order to save it. some republicans have also justified continuing to vote for funding bills that contain obamacare implementation revenue, money, funding because they believe the republican president would be elected in 2012. and he would stop obamacare. that didn't happen either. we've gotten one last opportunity to defund the implementation of this law before these provisions that i just mentioned kick in on january 1, one last opportunity. and that's in connection with our current spending bill, our

current continuing resolution that is set to expire on september 30, just 62 days from right now. so what we're saying is, if you agree with us, if you agree with the president that this law is not ready to be implemented as it was written, as it was enacted by congress, if the president is not going to follow the law, then the american people shouldn't have to fund it. if you don't like it, if you agree that it's not ready, don't fund it. we can and we should and we must fund government but not obamacare. so i'd ask the senator from florida if these are sentiments that are consistent with what you have been thinking, sentiments that are consistent with what you've been hearing from your constituents in florida? mr. rubio: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: in response to the senator from utah, i would say i have because i think there's a pretty clear understanding growing every day, as evidenced

by the senator from texas a moment ago, went thriew wants tf these groups out there, so its increasingly damaged. the question i get is, what can we do about it? there's almost in resignation by people, what can we do about? it's already in place and is there anything we can do? so i think there's three things we should be able to do and i'll summarize those quickly. the first thing we should do is not continue to double and triple down on this thing and i think both the senator from texas and the senator from utah grew up at the same time as i did, so they will remember something that a the although of the younger people here probably do not remember. there was a time when coca-cola came out with something called new coke. it was a new coca-cola formula, after about 100 some years they changed the formula and they came out with something called new coke. it was a disaster. everybody hated it. they hated it, they said if we wanted to drink something that had a that kind of sweet,

there's other options on the market. we like old coke. what did coca-cola do when new coke began to flounder? they backed away from it. they went back to the original formula. they learned from their mistake and didn't double down. that's the way it is in the real world. that's the way it is in the private sector. but not government, not washington. in washington if something is going wrongs, here they double and triple down. it is like an invitation to move forward. we shouldn't do that. that's the first thing i would say. the second thing i would say is we've got to stop this from moving forward. the implications of this law are already being felt, but the regulations around this lark the mandates in this law, the fees and the costs and the new rate increases in this law, those things are only going to start to be felt in the right now. in the next few mofntses you'll begin to feel what it means to you, your business. now is the time to afnlgt people ask, what can we do about it? let me tell you what is not

going to work in the short term. you're probably not going to get president obama to sign a bill at that repeals obamacare and you're not going 0 get the votes in the senate to do that. so these repeal vote -- i'll vote for every single one of them. but the problem is, our chances of getting that accomplished are minimal as long as president obama is the president of the united states sms so truly our last opposing is to stop paying for this thing. why would we continue to pour billions and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into a disaster? why would we double down with your hard-earned money on a program that's going to hurt you? and we have a chance to do that in september, because in september, in order for the government to continue to function, we have to pass something called a short-term budget. i wish it was a permanent budget. but it is supposed to be a short-term busmght andal we're saying is, in that short-term budget, fund the government. keep the lights on. pay the military. make sure social security checks go out. the only thing you shouldn't do is you should not fund and pay for obamacare.

the bushback we get from that from some people is well, that's crazy, because that means you're willing to shut down the government over obamacare. that's not the way i see it. the way i see it is, if we pass a budget that pays for everything except for obamacare, and the president says he'll veto that it is he who wants to shut down the government. it is he who says he will shut down the government unless it pays for obamacare. it is unreasonable because it law is so bad. his own allies are coming to him and saying, please stop this from moving forward. we're going to give you a chance, mr. president. by refusing to fund it. and here's my last point to my colleagues in the republican party who i know every single one of the are senate members here in the republican party are against obamacare. this is our last charntion our last best chance to do something about this. when this thing starts to kick in and starts to take root, it is going to be very difficult to undo major portions of this,

despite the damage that it is going to create. now, i only speak for myself, although i think i can speak for the other two senators that have joined me here today in this effort. i want to be able to go back to florida, no matter how this thing turns out, a say to the men and women who sent hey here in 2010 that i did everything i could to keep from this happening to you. when someone comes to me and say, i just got moved to part had time because of obamacare, way tonight say i did everything i could. when someone say, i just lost the insurance i was happy with i now have this new insurance plan which i'm not that familiar with and my doctor, who i've had for 30 years, isn't on that plan. i want to be able to say, i did everything i could. when someone comes to me and says, i was a pretty successful business. i was going to open a new business or grow this one but i'm not because of obamacare, i want to be able to say did everything i could. and if we pass a budget in september that funds obamacare, you did not do everything you could. you paid for this.

you doubled down on it. inuation that will have irreparable harm to our economy and to our country. this is our last best chance, and to those who say they're against obamacare, i believe you. but let kneel you something ... if we are not willing to draw a line in thed sand on this issue, what issue are we willing to draw a line in the sand on? if we're not going to go throiment on this issue, then what issue is there? is there an issue that we are prepared to say that we will not move forward because of this? is there an issue that we're -- that we are willing to do everything we can and lay it all on the line? is there such an issue? if it is not this one, which one is it? that's the choice before us. and i truly believe you cannot go back home and say you did everything could you to stop obamacare, if you vote for a budget that funds it. and i would ask the senator from texas, if he, too, shares those thoughts and those feelings?

cruz yous mr. chairman, i dmr. o indeed share those thoughts and feelings. and i would ask the senator from utah if he would yield for a series of three short questions? lie lee yes. mr. cruz: the first question is, there has been much talk of a shutdown and am i correct that we don't have to hypothesize what a shutdown would look like. we have in fact seen that in 19 959 with two temporary partial shutdowns that occurred when republicans in the house stood up to president clinton. when that occurred in 1995 we saw several things. number one, we saw the parade of hocials that is brought out, did that thnot ohio cur. social security checks continued to flow. the military continued to be funded. interest on the debt continued to be paid. planes didn't fall out of the

sky. and indeed what occurs if democrats decide to block a continuing resolution and force a temporary shutdown in order to force obamacare on the american people is a partial, temporary shutdown where nonessential government services get suspended for a period of time, not a shutdown of essential services such as paying for the men and women who are fight for the military and providing social security checks. we have seen that in the past cht is that correct? lie lee that is correct. that is correct and it's how it has happened in the past. this is not something we want. this is not something we've threatened. this is something that we think can and should be avoided and that we want-to-a void. mr. lee: the unfortunate, completely avoidable event would be largely as you described. mr. cruz: a second question i would ask is this week we saw the rather -- stunning news that

the i.r.s. employees unions shall, the men and women at the i.r.s. charged with enforcing obamacare are asking not to be made subject to obamacare. indeed, the union leaders have sent to their union members draft letters to send members of this body saying we, the i.r.s. employees' union, do not want to be subject to obamacare. likewise, obamacare subjects members of this body and their staffs to obamacare. and i am not are awa are not awe senate office tha that is not dy concerned about that, that is not faced with staff quitting the office because the harms of obamacare are so significant and there has been many a panicked discussion among democrats and republicans about what to do about subjecting members and their staff to obamacare. my second of three short questions is what does it say to you that the i.r.s. employees

union is asking, let us otofrom obamacare and that members and congressional staff are deeply concerned about the harms obamacare is going t to do to tt them? mr. lee: it tells me that those who are part of the union do not want to be subject to the provisions of the law that they will be enforcing. what it also tells me in the bigger picture is this law creates uncertainty. that's why we see so much angst amongst people on capitol hill who are facing the very real prospect, the very real future in the next few months of going on to these exchanges. because nobody knows what this is going to look like. nobody has any idea. one thing americans don't like in this world of a lot of unavoidable uncertainties are more uncertainties heaped upon them by dictate of the federal government. we've got enough uncertainties in life. we don't know when somebody is going to get sick. we don't know when accidents are going to happen. so we should be able t. a void

those things that government thrusts upon us. this is one of the many reasons why there is so much angsting within the i.r.s. and within the ranks of the capitol hill workforce. people don't want to go on to those exchanges because they have absolutely no idea what this is going to look like. mr. cruz: and my third, brief question is for those in this body who have chained at home, who have told their constituents they're opposed to obamacare, on january 1 the exchanges going up and you running, the subsidies begin, and the history of the modern entitlement state is that any time a subsidy has been put in place, it has proven politically virtually impossible to undo; indeed, no major entitlement has that has been implemented in modern times havers been undone. for those who say they oppose obamacare, what is the alternative to defunding obamacare with the continuing resolution? and let me ask it a separate way. if we do not defund it, am i

correct that come january 1, republicans will essentially be surrendering that in all likelihood obamacare will be a permanent feature of the economy, hurting the economy, hurting jobs, hurting low-income workers, hurting our health care system? and if that's correct, has any reasonable alternative been proffered by anyone on this side of the senate to stop that harm other than what you and senator rubio and i and remembers are trying to do? mr. lee: based on historical precedent, we have ever reason to believe that once this new entitlement program kicks in, it is not going away. it is a one-way ratchet. you've got death, taxes, and entitlements. once created, they don't go away. and to answer the second part of that question, i'm not ware of any plan among any republican aside from this one, aside from the plan that says don't fund

obamacare, fund government but not obamacare, that would address this issue. i am ape not aware of any plan. the only other plan that i am aware of would be one that says let's wait and see what happens. let's wait and see what a horrible disaster this will be. let's wait and see how awful this will be for the american people, how utterly intolerable they will find it. and let's just hope that this will provide enough political momentum for us perhaps to win elections at some unknown point in the future. this is not a good way to run a government. this is not a kind thing to do to an unsuspecting public who hopes and expects that we have their best interest at heart. and so to all those in this body who support obamacare, this argument might not be all that persuasive to you, although you ought to look at the fact that the president who signed this into law said that he himself

isn't ready, isn't willing, isn't able to enforce and implement the law even handedly as it was written. and so maybe that ought to give you pause as to whether you fund it. but for those of you in this body who are in fact opposed to obamacare, i ask you how can you oppose to be against it and yet fund it? and so i would invite you to consider the possibility that what you're doing in thinking about funding it isn't really where you want to go. consider what might be said about this. defund it or own it. if you fund it, you're for it. this law, mr. president, was enacted without a meaningful opportunity for the members voting on it to read it. 2,700 pages long. after it was enacted into law, it was rewritten a total of four times, twice by the supreme court of the united states,

twice more by the president of the united states. the president's rewrites came just a few weeks ago. the supreme court's rewrites over a year ago. but what the president did was acknowledge that this law is not ready for prime time. this law is not ready to implement. this law is not one that he's willing to implement as written. he's going to implement it and enforce it selectively, holding hardworking americans, individuals and families to the fire while throwing a big bone to big business. this, mr. president, is not acceptable. this, mr. president, is un-american. this, mr. president, is not something that those of us who purport to be against obamacare can support by funding it. and so i invite my colleagues to join me in this cause to vote to fund government but not obamacare. thank you, mr. president. mr. reid: mr. president, even though i disagree with my three friends, i appreciate their sincerity, their advocacy. they are all three very

intelligent men, good senators. but i'm going to move on to another subject. i ask unanimous consent that following senator coburn's remarks which are 15 minutes senior senator i understand it, and all postcloture time on calendar 223 be yielded back and the senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nomination with no intervening action or debate, further that disposition of calendar number 223, the senate proceed to consideration of 224, 104, 102 and 103. further there be two minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to cloture votes on calendar number number 224 and 104, that if cloture is invoked on the nomination all postcloture time be yielded back and the senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination with no intervening action or debate, further that if calendar number number 223, 224 and 104 are confirmed that the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on calendar number 102 and 103 in that order. that if cloture is not invoked on calendar number 224 or 104, calendar number number 102 and

103 be returned to the calendar. if a nomination is confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, no further motions be in order, any statements be printed in the record, president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action. upon confirmation of calendar number 103 the senate resume legislative session and all after the first vote be ten minutes in duration. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, finally one last consent. i ask consent that when the senate resume consideration -- and i do appreciate the patience of my friend from oklahoma -- i ask unanimous consent that when the senate resume consideration consideration of s. 1243 on wednesday, july 31, the pending amendments be set aside and senator paul be recognized to offer amendment 1739, there be 60 minutes of debate equally divided between the two proponents and opponents. that upon the use or yielding back of time the senate proceed to vote in relation to the paul amendment. further that no points of order or second-degree amendments be in order to the paul amendment prior to the vote. the presiding officer: is

there objection? a senator: reserving the right to object. i'm not going to object, but i wanted to ask the majority leader -- ms. landrieu: as you know, we've lost a great american, ambassador lynn did -- lindy bo. senator begich and i want some time on the floor to honor her. mr. reid: if we aren't able to do it today, we'll do it in wrap-up tonight. ms. landrieu: thank you. mr. reid: i thank my friend from oklahoma. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to talk about the subject. and i also appreciate my colleagues. they're absolutely right. everything they said in terms of the effect of obamacare, i was here when that debate took place. but there's two contentions that i disagree with.

i thought i'd voice them on the floor. one is one of the quotes from the senator from texas. thank the men and women of the u.s. congress for obamacare. i would just say you can thank the democrats for obamacare because there wasn't one republican that voted for it. so it's not the u.s. congress that did this. it's the president and his allies that created this mess that we're about to experience. the other thing i disagree with is the fact that you cannot design a piece of a legislation that will defund obamacare, because the vast majority of it is mandatory spending. no matter what we did in terms of a continuing resolution, and according to the c.r.'s, which i will ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record and hand this off after i finish what i'm talking about, is all the things would continue in terms of the implementation of

the affordable care act if we carried out the strategy that's outlined by my colleagues. their motivations are absolutely pure. i've never voted for a continuing resolution since i've been in the u.s. senate. my american conservative union rating is 993. -- is 99%. i'd love to defund. i want someone to show me a mechanism where we can do that because the vast majority of money being spent today is mandatory spending that doesn't come under a spending bill associated with appropriations. it was passed by law. so the only effective way to truly stop obamacare -- and i think we ought to do it, to stop it -- would be to totally reverse it. we don't have the votes to do that. but we do have the votes to delay it. and when you go out and talk

about the fact that they're not going to implement the employer mandate but implement the individual mandate, we can have a vote on that in the u.s. senate. then we can have our colleagues go home and say why they think it's fair to do that. we can actually add that. the fact that they're not going to do a check on the claims for eligibility under the exchanges, 88% of americans think that's wrong. and why do they think that's wrong? because they know right now in the earned-income tax credit, between 25% and 30% of it is fraud. and on the child tax credit it's the same thing. and they know exactly the same thing will happen when it comes to credits and payments in the exchanges. they also know that the independent payment advisory board is going to ration care and the vast majority of americans, we can have a vote on

that again. and a good portion of my colleagues on the other side today would thraoeubg to get rid -- like to get rid of that. so we can have a strategic method of delaying obamacare by putting the votes up, but there's no way, according to the congressional research service, that the vast majority of funding can be stopped unless you totally reverse the whole bill. my colleague said that they didn't think president obama would sign that. so you'd have to have 67 votes to let that happen. i spent hours on this floor trying to defeat the affordable care act. many of my colleagues on this side came around. other proposals, the patients choice act which accomplished many of the same things without the large government, without the tremendous cost, and without the government getting in between a patient and their

doctor. and it is -- i do have a little bit of experience on that side of the ledger in terms of caring for people for the last 25 years as a practicing physician. so i would think it would be important that we have a way. i don't disagree with the intent of what my colleagues want to do. i want to defund this bill. but i also want to do it in a way that kills it. and there is not a legislative method that we have that is capable of defunding it short of 67 votes in the u.s. senate, short of two-thirds votes in the u.s. house. can we put riders on to say you want to implement a certain section of it? yes. associate it with discretionary spending. so what i would ask is my

colleagues to look at what the congressional research service has said and what the approach will be based on their analysis of a plan. i believe the vast majority of americans want us to get rid of this bill, this law. they want it reversed. and there's a dissonance between what americans want and what congress is willing to give them. much as my colleague said. it's different. but to claim the fact -- and i'll be with them on not voting for a c.r., but it won't necessarily be for the same right reasons, their good reasons. i think that's a terrible way to fund the government. but the fact is there's a lot of ways that we can delay this bill and accomplish what we need to accomplish. i don't think we can do the other.

i don't believe we can accomplish that. and just so my colleagues will remember, it was actually 1996 when we had the government shutdowns, and everybody was all for it till they weren't. and i voted against opening the government back up. and had we held, much like my colleagues want us to hold today, we wouldn't be $17 trillion in debt. we wouldn't have a budget deficit of $800 billion this year. we wouldn't be borrowing $34,000 a second. a second in this government. but i also know human nature. and the very people that say they'll do things today, when it really gets tough don't do it. so my hope is i praise my colleagues for what they're trying to do.

they're right in wanting to try to kill the affordable care act. the cost, the lack of effectiveness, the long-term dimunition of the doctor-patient relationship, government involved in every aspect of your health care. but to have a litmus test if i don't agree with the process, that i to don't really want to defund the affordable care act is not a claim that settles very well with me, especially spending the last four years trying to fight this bill. i would say that the administration is lawless in its implementation of this bill. the fact that they're going to pick and choose regardless of what the law says, they're going to pick and choose what they'll implement and what they want. i think it's unacceptable.

i think it's unfair to the average american. it's certainly unfair to the middle class. it's certainly unfair to those people who are trying to get a job today and can't get full-time employment. we had 334,000 part-time jobs created last year. at this time in the economy we should be creating 800,000 full-time jobs a year. they're correct in terms of what it's doing to job creation. they're correct in terms of the negative that it's having on our economy. they're correct about every part of it except the fact of whether it will actually solve the problem. in contrast to that is what is it that we have done that we can talk about with the american people that's been positive. we've actually shrunk the size of the federal government for the first time since 1995. the discretionary spending in the federal government is going

to decline for the first time. and we ought to use the continuing resolution, in my mind, to abg is -- accentuate tt one positive thing to reach an impact of the federal government in everybody's lives should be downgraded as well as with the affordable care act. there's no one perfect way to do this. there will be disagreements. but the fact is we have accomplished some great things with the budget control act and with the sequester. what we need to do is improve on that. when i first came to the senate, the average individual's debt was $23,000. it's at $54,000 today. every man, woman and child in this country. if you're born today, by the time you're 20 years of age, if you count unfunded liabilities,

you will be in responsible for in he can assess of $1 million of debt and unfunded liabilities. let me say that again. if you're born today, by the time you become a majority citizen, you will be responsible for debt and unfunded liabilities in excess of a million dollars. the affordable care act adds to that, but it doesn't add much compared to everything else that we've done. we need to rein this president in. i agree. we need to rein the spending in. we need to rein the affordable care act in. if we could end it, i would be for ending it tomorrow. what we need to do is delay it until we get to the point where we can kill it. it does need to be terminated. there are positive things that we need to be doing. there's no question that we ought to make available without discrimination people -- health care for people who have preexisting illnesses. those are positive things. we can do that. there are ways to do it other than the inefficient,

ineffective way that this bill does it. they weren't even ever considered for a vote when we had this. there wasn't any real debate on alternatives because we weren't allowed to offer them in the u.s. senate. my time has expired, mr. president, and i submit this -- i ask unanimous consent that the c.r.s., congressional research study on the effect of my colleagues' plans and what effect it will have on the affordable care act be entered into the record, and i yield the floor and notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, all postcloture -- the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without

objection. under the previous order, all postcloture time is yielded back. the question occurs on the confirmation of kent yoshiho hirozawa to be a member of the national labor relations board. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: