adjustment for military retirees that was part of the budge deal passed by the house and senate in december. test vote expected on that at 5:30 today. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain retired admiral barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. god of grace and glory, hear our prayer and answer us when we call. you forgive our sins

and heal our sickness, for your mercy is great toward those who esteem your name. thank you for your promises to never forsake us and to render ineffectual the weapons we face. strengthen our senators in their efforts to do good, sustaining them in their labors. give them more than human wisdom to solve the problems of these momentous times. keep them calm in the quiet center of their lives so that they may be serene in the swirling stresses of their work.

we pray in your merciful name, amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the president pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. reid: i now move we proceed to calendar number 298. the presidingthe president pro e clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 298, s. 1963, a bill to repeal section 403 of the bipartisan budget act of 2013.

mr. reid: mr. president, at 5:30, there will be a roll call vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to s. 1963. i'm told there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading. the president pro tempore: the clerk will read the title of the bills for the second time. the clerk: h.r. 3590, an act to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting and for other purposes. h.r. 3964, an act to address certain water-related concerns in the sacramento, san joaquin valley, and for other purposes. mr. reid: i would object to any further proceedings with respect to these two bills. the president pro tempore: objection has been heard. the bills will now be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, today the united states senate will consider legislation that would create new legislation, and it would restore earned retirement

pay to the men and women of this armed forces. the measure restores cost of living adjustments for all military retirees, regardless of their age, disability or employment status. congress should protect veterans who put their lives on the line to protect our country. i appreciate very much senators pryor, shaheen, hagan and begich for their leadership on this issue. although the provision reversed by this measure doesn't take effect until the end of next year, there is no reason to delay it, we should move forward with it. i hope republicans will join democrats to pass this bill without their usual partisan games. unfortunately, the type of obstruction and delay tactics i just referred to was on full display here last week. on thursday, the senate fell one vote short of restoring unemployment insurance for 1.7 million americans who lost their jobs through absolutely no fault of their own. every single democratic senator voted for this bill. a few reasonable republicans,

four to be exact, voted with us to restore benefits that boost our economy and provide a lifeline for out-of-work americans, but we're still one republican vote shy of being able to do this for these people. mr. president, it's so unfair, if someone loses their job today, they can apply for unemployment benefits and get them restored immediately, get them immediately, i should say, but if you have been out of work for a long time and are 57 years old, can't find a job, you need this. but you can't because of the republicans, what they have done. when 1.7 million struggling americans fall short on their rent, skip meals to save cash or turn down the thermostat on freezing days, they will know who to blame, 42 republican senators. we only need one more republican, a total of five out of 45 to step up and do the right thing for these desperate

people. we're not going to stop pushing to restore emergency unemployment insurance, and the weeks to come we'll vote again on this important issue and again if we need to. in the meantime, i hope my colleagues across the aisle will think long and hard about their unsustainable position on this issue, a position that hurts middle-class families. mr. president, in the weeks ahead, the senate will also consider legislation to give 17 million minimum wage workers a much-needed raise and our economy a much-needed boost. no american working full time should live below the poverty line, but many of them do, so we're going to push to make the minimum wage a living wage, raise it to $10.10 an hour. to ensure this country's economic success, it's crucial that every american has an opportunity to succeed. when some people have to work two or three full-time jobs just to pay the rent and put food on the table, something's wrong. minimum wage workers spend their paychecks in local stores, gas

stations and restaurants. that's why an increase in the minimum wage will create 85,000 new jobs. this increase is also key toen suring every full-time worker has a shot at entering the middle class. contrary to the common belief, raising the minimum wage isn't just about helping teenagers earn some extra cash. two-thirds of the people working for minimum wage are women. it's also will helping any woman, a 35-year-old woman earning half her family's income, and more than a quarter of the workers who would benefit from a raise are supporting children. last week, republicans voted against the interests of middle-class americans doing their best to survive unemployment. when it comes time to consider democrats' minimum wage proposal, i hope the republicans will again choose the right thing, not the wrong thing as they have done so often. that is, they should stand up for middle-class families rather than resort to obstruction.

mr. president, i would ask the chair to announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to report to s. 1963. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, if the senator from nevada is finished, i would seek the floor for a few minutes. the presiding officer: the senator may proceed. mr. leahy: mr. president, today the national security agency continues its indiscriminate collection of a massive number of phone records about americans under section 215 of the u.s.a. patriot act. now, as a nation, i have said over and over again, we have long needed to have the national conversation about data collection that is now under

way. the section 215 program should have been declassified long before it was. but i want to make very clear, as i said before, i do not condone, i do not condone the way this or other highly classified programs were disclosed. i'm deeply concerned about the potential damage to our intelligence-gathering capabilities, our foreign relationships and national security, and i'm deeply concerned that one person with a security clearance could wreak this much havoc. according to the "new york times," edward snowden, accomplishes heists of extraordinarily sensitive information by n.s.a. activities with -- quote -- inexpensive and widely available software, close quote. in other words, software that

any one of us could get. he didn't even execute a particularly sophisticated breach. he did not apparently face a particularly complex technological challenge while removing the sensitive documents from the n.s.a. trove, and yet he pulled off what the director of national intelligence james clapper recently called the most massive and most damaging theft of intelligence in our history. now, i have continually asked the leaders of our intelligence committee what are you doing to stop this from happening again? i have learned that the n.s.a. devotes its substantial resources to fixing the fault to allow this to happen. they have taken some steps to address it. they have identified a range of other actions that need to be taken. but one has to ask why especially in the wake of the

private manning leaks, how could the n.s.a. have allowed this to happen in the first place? i say this not to beat up on the n.s.a. i know we have some highly dedicated, patriotic men and women working there, and i applaud them for their service to their country. we ask them to trust us to keep the information safe and we should have faith in the internal policies and procedures you have to ask is this accurate? this is the same n.s.a. that first told us the section 215 program was essential to national security. they talked in speeches around the country, this thwarted dozens of plots. i think the number was somewhere in the 50's.

but then when they are asked questions at congressional hearings specifically about it, that number went from the 50's down to possibly one. and the primary defense of the n.s.a.'s bulk collection program now appears to be the program is more of an insurance policy than anything else, but now even that new defense of theirs has been called into question. "the washington post" has reported under this program the n.s.a. collects less than 30% of domestic phone records. "the wall street journal" says the number is even less than 20%. but these estimates are consistent with the public copy of the president's review group report which cautioned against placing too much value in this program as a tool to rule out domestic connections to a terrorist plot, thus the so-called insurance policy.

a review group report tells us it is precisely because, although the program is unprecedented in scope, it still covers only a portion of the total phone data held by service providers. so it appears to this senator that the intelligence community is defending some precedent of massive indiscriminate bulk collection by having the entire haystack to have an effective counterterrorism tool, but now the american people finds they only have 20% to 30% of that so-called haystack. this is an extraordinarily, extraordinarily expensive program, and yet these revelations call even further into question the effectiveness of this program. now, although the program is

ongoing, some preliminary positive changes are under way. just last week, the director of national intelligence announced that the fisa court has approved procedures under which the government will seek approval by a fisa court judge before querying these phone records, absent a true almost instantaneous kind of emergency. the president has directed the attorney general, the director of national intelligence to develop alternatives to the section 215 phone records program and report back to them the end of next month. now, that's progress, but only some progress. it's not enough. it's not going to be enough to just reform the government's bulk phone records collection program. the program is expensive and extensive as it is has not

proven effective, but beyond that it's not worth this massive, massive intrusion on the privacy of the american people, of good law-abiding men and women in this what is supposed to be the greatest democracy on earth. congress should shut it down. and then congress has to examine carefully to the extent possible publicly the security breech that led to these revelations in the first place. now, the senate judiciary committee has had a number of hearings on this. we're going to continue this work on these issues in a hearing this week with the privacy and civil liberties oversight board. that's another voice concluding the section 215 barack obama --m

should not continue. if the n.s.a. is to regain the trust of the american people, it's got to spend less time collecting data on innocent americans and more time keeping our nation safe. mr. president, i'd ask my full statement be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest an absence of a quorum. and if time is -- is time being divided? the presiding officer: time is not currently being divided. mr. leahy: i'd suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: the quorum call will be success spended. mr. harkin: i ask unanimous consent elizabeth levins and mary pope be granted floor privileges for the duration of today. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. harkin: mr. president, i want to talk today about a subject that has immense implications for america's future. in fact, i often talk about it as being perhaps the darkest cloud hanging over the future

economic well-being of our country that no one ever really talks about and it's been hugely ignored and that's the issue of retirement income. and what people are going to do when they retire in the future. i've been focused on this for several years. my help committee has over the last two or three years had 10 hearings on this issue. we have met with a lot of the investment community and retirement benefits community to take a look at what's happening and to see whether or not we can have a -- a better system for retirement than what we have. right now young people who are working to pay off a student loan debt, maybe buy a new home, put a little money away for their own kids' education later on, or if it's people who are

close to retirement, a nurse who's been working all her life, someone who maybe worked in a small business and they're 60 years old and people are wondering what are they going to do when they retire and they're worried they won't have enough money to live on. and, quite frankly, they're very right to be worried. if you looked at the future and you took the working force of america today and you said, what is it that this group of people in the future will need to live on when they retire and what they have saved for retirement, there's' deficit. they don't have enough saved to retire on. how big is that deficit? calculations at our hearing show about it's $6.6 trillion. that's a big chunk of change. that is a huge hole in the future.

so when you look at what's happening, half of americans, half of americans have less than $10,000 in savings. as i talk and as we -- as we look at this, we have to remember that retirement has always been thought of as a three-legged stool. one leg is a pension. one leg is savings. and the other leg is social security. so what's happening now is that on the retirement pension system, the savings systems, we're falling down. social security is still strong. i'll have more to say about that. but what we have to do is to look at how much people have in savings. half of all americans today working -- that are working today have less than $15,000 in savings -- less than $10,000 in savings. have less than $10,000 in savings. now, when i came to the congress in the 1970's, one out of every

two workers had a pension. that means they had a pension that would pay them a monthly income until the day they died. and if they died, their spouse would get it. one out of every two. today it's one in every five and it's getting worse. only one in five. it's followed -- by the way, this has fallen by 30% in just two decades. and again, 75 million people have no retirement plan at all. 75 million people -- that's about half of the work force in america -- have no workplace retirement plan at all, nothing. no 401(k)'s, no ira's, no defined benefit program -- nothing. half, one out of every two, have nothing whatsoever. unfortunately, instead of trying to improve the pension system and lift everyone up, there are too many people out there trying to score political points by case is goascapegoating public r

state and local budget shortfalls. pensions aren't the cause of states' fiscal problems and retired public servants aren't living high on the hog on the taxpayers' dime. these are simply malicious myths being spread by people who i think have two objectives. one, to discredit public-sector unions and, secondly, to dismantle the pension system. pensions are one of the best ways to h ensure that middle-cls people can have a secure retirement because they provide a guaranteed source of income that a person can count on for as long as he or she lives. now, can the current pension system be improved? i believe so. but there's no reason to abandon a system that has worked for millions of people of th people. the sad truth is these days, the vast majority of employees with any retirement plan at all have a 401(k). now, again, i'm not here to badmouth 401(k)'s. they can be a very good way to

help people put some money aside to supplement their pension. but 401(k)'s were never intended to replace pensions. it was to be that other leg of the stool, the savings part. now, again, we know that savings rates are too low. i said, less than $10,000 most people have. there's no simple way t also for people to convert their savings into a stream of retirement income that they can't outlive. the promise people made about 401(k)'s was that more businesses would start them, more people would participate. well, i was here when 401(k)'s started. sounded like a good idea, easy way for people to -- to -- to save. but decades, decades after the start of 401(k)'s, the number of workers participating in these plans has stayed flat. according to monique morrissey

of the economic policy institute, in 1989, participation in 401(k)'s was at 46% of the work force. 2010, it was 45%. so it's just stayed flat. now, we have seen some modest increases in savings the last few years. that's what people told me at our hearings, "well, we've seen some modest increases." i said, really, okay, let's take a look at it. because this kind of surprised me that we had an uptick in savings. but then we looked at the data. and what does it show? it shows who's saving what. the top 10% income earners -- the top 10% of income earners in america have 100 times more saved for retirement than the median household. so we charted it out.

if you see back here in 1989, they weren't too far apart. so here's the top 10%. the top 10% now have an average of $239,000 set aside for retirement. the median household, $ 2,500. so when you say savings have gone up? yeah, look who's saving, the top 10%ment thos%. those of us who work here. $239,000 as opposed to $2,500. for the average family. and i might just also add that buried in this, buried in this -- this chart is an unacceptable amount of racial and gender inequality in this system. the national institute on retirement security recently found that black, asian and latino workers have significantly less access to a retirement plan on the job than white americans, especially in

the private sector. as a result, the vast majority of working-age households headed by people of color have little or no retirement savings. for those with a retirement pl plan, the average account balances for black and latino households are less than one-fifth that of whitehouse hold-- of whitehouseholds. if i'm not mistaken, one-fifth of $2,500 would be about 500 bucks of the so buried in this, keep in mind, unequal gender and racial inequality. addressing the issue of retirement security, again, would be particularly beneficial to women. we all know about the income gap between men and women. but what a lot of people don't realize is the gap worsens after retirement. when you think about it, you can understand that. the -- in 2011, the median annual income of older women --

that is, over retirement age -- keep this in mind, the median annual income was $14,225. the median annual income of that same core of older men was $24,794. now, why is that? well, you think about it. unequal pay during their working years allows -- means women have less opportunity to save. they may take some time off during their working years to start a family. they have less time to save. additionally, women tend to be concentrated in jobs that don't traditionally offer retirement plans. it's been said many times that women save more than men, save more money than men. well, yeah, they have higher rates. they're starting from a very low point. so women still lag behind men when it comes to total

retirement savings. so that sort of sets the stage for our committee and for me to introduce the u.s.a. retirement funds act, s. 1979 -- if anybody wants to write down the number of the bill -- it's a new retirement program. and i'm going to explain basically how it operates here.. retirement. it means it's universal, it's secure and adaptable. that's what u.s.a. stands for. it would tackle the retirement crisis head on by ensuring that 75 million people -- remember my earlier chart -- 75 million people without a core place retirement plan would have the opportunity to earn a safe and secure pension. universal secure adaptable. the concept is very simple. employers who don't offer a pension or a well-designed

401(k) would automatically enroll their employees in this retirement fund. if an employee wanted to opt out, he or she could. no one would be forced to participate. but by making the system opt out instead of opt in, we get millions more people participating. employer and employee contributions would go into a fund that would be managed by a board of trustees. when each participant retires, the fund would provide the retiree with a monthly benefit as long as he or she lives or if that person dies it would go to their spouse. over time as people contribute, they would earn a reretirement benefit that would be a better bang for their buck than what they could have gotten on their own that is because these funds spreads over large groups of participants. a recent report found the u.s.a. retirement fund with the risk

pooling and professional management would make retirement much more affordable for working families. in fact, it would cut in half the cost that people would need -- it would cut in half the amount people would need to save over the present system defined contribution 401(k)s right now. so basically universal access, everybody is in. you could work for an employer, three employees, two employees, you could be self-employed. universal access. you get monthly benefits for life. you wouldn't be borrowing against it. you wouldn't be taking out a lump sum. it would be there. you get a monthly benefit for life and with a spousal survival. professionally managed. it means it would be managed by a board of trustees who would have a fiduciary responsibility to this pool to invest it wisely. fiduciary responsibility. that relieves the individual from trying to figure out what's

the best place to put my little, meager amount of savings. you know, you don't have to -- you wouldn't have to consider whether or not you should follow uncle fred's advice about the stock that he's got, you know, that's going to make you a lot of money in the future. or mr. ponzi -- what was that ponzi guy's name again? all you have to do is give him a lot of money -- maybe bernie madoff in later years. you wouldn't have to worry about that. this would be a professional board that would have a fiduciary responsibility. as i said, lower costs, about 50%. in other words, mr. president, what this means is if you were 35 years old now and working and you figured under your 401(k) that you would need $2 million by the time you retired in order to live out your life and have a decent retirement income, if you were involved in this program,

you would only need $1 million because the costs would be that much less. a big portion of that $2 million goes into fees during the life of that 401(k). that's the big savings here. u.s.a. retirement, that's for the person. now let's take a look at what it means for the business, the business community itself. right here. this is the benefits to the business. it's easy to offer. you don't have to set up a plan. small mom and pop business, if you're filling out fica taxes anyway, you just have to separate line for this. set it off; you have nothing else to do. you don't have to manage it. you have no risks, you have no fiduciary responsibility as employer. none whatsoever. and you get quality benefits. what this means is that a lot of employers want to make sure that

their employees have a good retirement benefit because, as they get older, they earn more. you know, let's face it, you'd like to have people retirement so you can bring younger people into the workforce. well, if you've got people now that can't retire because they don't have enough money, they stay working. well, if you have a good-quality benefit, people get to the age of retirement, they can say i can retire now. i've got my retirement set up. it means for an employer for business, they get that kind of turnover that they need to bring in new, younger workers. as i said earlier, it is professionally run. the company has no fiduciary responsibility whatsoever like they do under a defined benefit program. they don't have to manage it, don't have to do anything. and as i said, no risk to the business whatsoever.

i would add also that under the bill, employers could voluntarily contribute to the program. they don't have to but they could voluntarily contribute. so if you're signing up one of your workers at 6%, the employer could say, you know, i want to have a good workforce. i want to hire really good people, and i've got good people, i want to keep them. i tell you what, i'll kick in 2% or 3% or 2.5%. they can kick in whatever they want. as a management tool. maybe even as a recruitment tool to recruit really good workers. again, it is a good recruitment and management tool for the business. and for the economy in general, the economy in general, i think this would be good for the economy. i think this is what a lot of people don't consider, by bringing more people into this

retirement system, you're going to have more savings. and you're going to have savings that are long-term type savings. it's what we call patient capital. in other words, the capital that comes in to these big retirement pools don't need to earn, think about the quarterly bottom line. but they do think about long term. haven't we spent a lot of time here in this body talking about the need for infrastructure? long-term projects for this country, energy systems, electrical systems, roads, bridges, sewers, all that kind of stuff. plus we need long-term capital for the new entrepreneurs starting these new businesses that may take a long time for them to return some capital, but they need that access to that long-term patient capital that something like this could provide for them. as i said, it creates a lot of

jobs. again, because of this ability to invest over the long term, you're going to start creating more jobs in our country. i want to emphasize two more key points before i yield the floor. first, the u.s.a. retirement funds would not replace pensions or 401(k)s. employers could and should continue to offer these plans at the workplace. but what this would do is give people without access to a quality employer-provided plan the opportunity to earn a retirement benefit. the second point i want to make is u.s.a. retirement funds aren't a new government. there's already been some stories written about this in the paper, and someone said harkin's come up with a new government program. no, i haven't. this is not a government program. this is a 21st century retirement plan run entirely by the private sector, just like pensions and 401(k)s.

finally, i would just be remiss if i didn't talk about that third leg of the stool, and that is social security. we have to improve, i think, the most efficient, most effective retirement program we have, and that is social security. last year i along with others introduced the bill, s. 567 -- nice easy number to remember. what it does is it expands benefits by $65 a month. that means if you're at the lower income scale when you retire, your replacement rate will be a little bit better if you get 65 a month. for someone at the higher end, 65 bucks a month not that big a deal, but it sure helps those to provide. it would increase by $65. it would index the living adjustment so that you would have an improved cost-of-living adjustment in the future because it would look at the c.p.i. --

the cost of living for elderly, look at that and adjust it for that. and secondly, it would strengthen the trust fund by lifting the cap on the payroll tax. you do all that, you strengthen social security, you actually increase the benefit a little bit and it extends the life to 2050. so it makes social security stronger for future beneficiaries. so, mr. president, by improving the retirement -- private retirement system, bolstering social security, we can do a number of things that take away that dark cloud. we can tell people, we can assure people that they'll be able to save and have a retirement benefit, an annuity every month for as long as they live. secondly, we make it easier for businesses to set it up. third, it creates jobs in our

economy by long-term types of investment. so i just say that during this time of economic insecurity, it's more important than ever that working people have the opportunity to prepare for retirement. so i urge my colleagues to help rebuild the pension system in this country by supporting the u.s.a. retirement funds act. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to speak about rapid advancements in health care information technology, or health i.t.. health i.t. holds amazing potential to transform americans' everyday lives for the better. i believe, mr. president, that protecting this kind of exciting innovation from overregulation and excessive taxation needs to be a high priority. and that's why i'm introducing

the preventing regulatory overreach to enhanced care technology, or the protect act of 2014. together with senator angus king of maine and senator marco rubio of florida, we are putting together this projobs,ing risk-based framework governing health i.t.. but before i speak about our bill, i would first like to thank our colleague from maine, senator angus king, for joining me in this effort. i'm informally telling people that our efforts might be the start of the surf and turf caucus here in the united states senate, the place where nebraska and maine come together politically to find common ground and work to address real problems in this country. we're able to do so together because senator king is known as an independent thinker, a problem solver who isn't afraid

to work across the aisle in order to get things done. it's refreshing, and i sincerely appreciate his willingness to work with me. i also want to give special thanks to senator rubio for his interest in this issue as well. he is also an original cosponsor, and he has worked with us on this important topic. so here's what we're trying to do, mr. president. we want to clarify the food and drug administration's oversight authority over health information technologies. under current law dating back to 1976, the f.d.a. can apply its definition of a medical device to assert broad regulatory authority over a wide array of health i.t., including applications that do not pose a threat to human safety. that means low-risk health i.t.

can be treated like traditional medical devices, subjecting job creators and innovators to these challenges that really don't make sense. so the protect act fixes this discrepancy. the protect act keeps the f.d.a.'s resources focused on products that pose the highest risk to human health. in doing so, it also gives regulatory certainty to innovators and job creators who are developing these new products that use data safely to improve health care and also to reduce its cost. furthermore, the protect act relieves categories of low-risk clinical and health care software from the 2.3% medical device tax. most importantly, though, it protects and promotes american jobs in a key growth sector of

our economy. the mobile health and mobile application market is expected to exceed $26 billion by 2017. while the u.s. mobile apps economy is responsible for nearly 500,000 new american jobs. a report from health data management anticipates 23% annual growth in this sector over the next five years. the f.d.a. highlights on their web site that $500 million smart phone users worldwide will be using health apps by 2015. the mobile annual itics platform which monitors more than 20,000 apps has seen a 19% increase in new health and fitness apps in 2013 from the year prior. that's really amazing. but what'sve