mr. president, childcare is not only important to the developmental health of our children but also to the well-being of their parents. when parents know they have a place to go that where they will be safe, where they will learn, then parents have the peace of mind to earn a living to support their families. balancing the need to work with the need for childcare can be very difficult. at times, a parent's salary would be almost completely offset by the cost of childcare in a low-income family. this bill will help more parents get the support that they need while reinforcing the requirement for high-quality care and healthy, stimulating,

and safe environments. mr. president, i urge all of my colleagues to support this reauthorization bill. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i want to thank the gentlelady from maine and alaska for their comments as well as the gentlelady from washington state. wasn't that impressive? i mean for the last hour on both sides of the aisle the women of the senate have spoken out. yet this bill was not a woman's bill. this was a family bill where the men and women of the senate came together on a bipartisan basis and have developed a framework for a sensible, affordable rethoargs of the childcare and development block grant. i'm so pleased to be part of this with senator harkin, the chair of our health-education

committee, senator lamar alexander, and senator richard burr, my counterpart on the subcommittee where we work so hard to do this. but then we talked among ourselves, we the women in the senate often joke, but it's no laughing matter when we say we work on the macro issues of our economy, of our national security but we also work on the macaroni and cheese issues affecting america's families, and there's no bigger macaroni and cheese issue other than general education and then, of course, early childhood education, which occurs both in the home -- remember, the first teachers are always the mother -- is always the family, but then childcare. with now more than 40% of american women in the work force, childcare is indeed a compelling issue. childcare is one of the most

important decisions a parent can make in raising a child. and yet when you worry -- who is worried about childcare, whether it is a single mom working double shifts because we might make the minimum wage and she's trying to hold body and soul together, a married couple where the wife is working in the marketplace as a lab technician and the father has a job that might have him commuting more than two hours a day one way. they need to be able to have affordable childcare. what about the police officer who works even the night shift and when we say police officer, that could be both a female and a male. our bill helps lift the burden giving women and children the childcare that they need. that's why i'm so proud that the senate women have joined me to support this bill.

many families, as i say, want childcare that is reliable, undeniable, safe, affordable, and accessible. this bill just does it. so how does it work? the federal government provides states and indian tribes with funding. that funding is used to help lower-income families afford childcare while their parents work or train for work. families are given vouchers based on their income level to cover the cost of care. these vouchers can be used by parents for care in in a childcare home, care in a relative's home or in a childcare center. every month the cdbg program helps more than 1.5 american children. in my own home state of maryland, 20,000 children are served monthly. 20,000 families benefit from this. so why is the program important?

well, childcare is expensive. even when parents are contributing to childcare, it's often one of their highest expenditures. in maryland, on average maryland families spend 20% of their family income in childcare. maryland has 54,000 working moms, many with infants under the age of 1 year. the cost of childcare for that is $13,000 a year. we have 148,000 single moms with children under the age of 18. we have 200,000 working moms with children under the age of 6. childcare for them, for the 4-year-old, is about $9,000 a year. that's more than what it costs to go to a community college, mr. president. that's what it costs to go -- more than some of the campuses at the university of maryland. childcare is expensive.

but you know what? it's expensive because taking care of children who are preschool is expensive, because in order to do the right thing, you have to have trained staff that not only provide a safe environment for the children, but the kind of environment that nurtures their development, develops their mind and prepares them for school. that's why we focused on high-quality childcare, safeguarding their health and safety, ensuring children have a continue continuity of care, g sure their nutritional concerns are also addressed. we've done this, again, on a bipartisan basis to make sure that when we provide childcare, we also want to provide local flexibility. the needs in a rural state like utah or montana are different than maryland or new york.

iowa, look who the bills represent -- tennessee, north carolina, iowa, maryland. those are the lead sponsors of this bill. so we provide the local flexibility that is so important. this bill will make sure we have strong background checks to make sure that children are safe. we're going to make sure they meet certain basic health requirements where the staff knows basic first aid. and we're also going to make sure that there is money for training and curriculum development to make sure each child benefits in a safe learning environment. mr. president, there's many more things that i could say about this bill, but the most important is, let's get our amendments done and let's move it. i'm proud of what we have done, and i really think that if we work together, we could offer our amendments and we could be done sometime tomorrow.

so, again, i reach out to all of my colleagues. we've got a good bill. it's a bill that helps families, and at the same time it does not really increase bureaucracy. so, mr. president, i yield the floor and look forward to continuing debate on the bill. mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa is recognized. mr. harkin: i ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be set aside and call up the following amendments, bennet-isakson:24, and boxer-burr, 2809. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: the, 2824 and for mrs. boxer, 2809. mr. harkin: i ask further reading of the amendments be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator from iowa is

recognized. mr. harkin: i ask that at 5:15 the senate proceed to voted-vote on landrieu 2818, landrieu-grams 2813, landrieu-blunt 2814, and bennet-isakson 2824, further no second-degree amendments be in order to any of these amendments prior to the votes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. harkin: for the information of all senators it's our understanding that only one of those four amendments would be subject to a roll call vote. that's landrieu 2818, the others would be done hopefully by voice vote at 5:15. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of the bennet-isakson amendment, the senate proceed to executive session for consideration of the following nominations en bloc, calendar number 682, 617, 614, 545, that the senate

proceed to vote in the order listed without intervening action or debate on the nomination, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order, that any related statements be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. a senator: mr. president? i just --. the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: would the senator yield me two minutes for a quick supportive statement? i thank the senator from iowa so much for his generosity of spirit. i want to rise in strong support of the bill, s. 1086. since 1990 this important block grant has helped states provide vouchers to our low-income families to help them afford quality childcare programs and we all know how important that

is. with over 70% of moms in today's work force, it certainly a critical issue for our children and their families and our economy. i also know personally, i've been involved in this issue both when i was a young mom and now as an older grandmother, childcare can be very, very expensive. the average low-income family spends over 32% of their income on childcare every month and then you figure they pay about the same thing for their rent, they don't have much left over. so it's very, very difficult. in california, we have almost six million children whose parents are working, and in our state we were able to help over 100,000 children through this very important program. i want to commend the sponsors of this bill, the help committee, for the greator donea couple of amendments, i will finish in just a moment, senator burr and i have proposed amendment number 2809 which

simply ensures that all childcare programs in federal facilities such as military bases conduct the same comprehensive background checks that the bill already requires of childcare providers on state lands. so it's like a little bit of an oversight that this was left out. so we just make sure if there's a childcare center on federal lands -- and, by the way, there are many -- it's taken care of. we've had experiences of all kinds of, unfortunately, assaults on federal lands and i don't need to go into that. i ask unanimous consent that my full statement be placed in the record. if there's no objection. i have one more --. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. boxer: 2810 would help more parents afford quality childcare by increasing the child tax credit from $3,000 to $6,000 per child and making it refundable. i hope we all support the underlying bill and i thank the senator from iowa for his

generosity. the presiding officer: the senior senator from iowa is recognized. mr. grassley: i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: mr. president, in the last few weeks i've come to the floor many times to speak about how the senate has deteriorated from being the deliberative it's supposed to -- deliberative body it's supposed to be. considering the comity on this floor under the direction of senator harkin, my colleague from iowa and other people, it's probably not the most appropriate time to give a speech like this but we still have problems here in the united states senate and i want to address them. we need to restore the senate as a deliberative body. i'm very concerned that the senate is no longer living up to its reputation as the world's greatest deliberative body. i've outlined how the senate

ought to function by yoat quoting at length the writers -- length the primary architect of the constitution, james madison. trying to understand what they fended, you can't do any better than james madison, the father of the constitution. the writings of madison along with hamilton and jay in the federalist papers comprise the most comprehensive explanation of what the framers intended. this provides an important and very nonpartisan frame of reference about the role of the senate is supposed to play in our system of government. but going back to our founding document and first principles, we can rise above petty partisan squabbling and start working on how to restore the senate as the deliberative body it's supposed to be. i would start by recapping some of the lessons from the federalist papers where the

senate has gone off course. then i'll talk about a solution to restore the senate and i'm introducing that solution today with cosponsorship of other senators and i'll get to that point in a minute. but in federalist paper 62, this new creation of a senate is being explained to the people of new york state to convince them to ratify the constitution. it tells of the lessons that americans learned from the first years of independence under the articles of confederation, which most of those former colonies had unicameral legislatures, as did most at that time. based on lessons learned from practical experience then of these state legislatures, james madison lists four problems that a republic like ours are face if

it doesn't have a properly funking united statefunctionings senate. the first is the tendency for a group to form in a legislative body that pushes its own agenda, as opposed to what the people elected them to do. madison explains that having a second chamber, like a senate, makes such -- quote -- "schemes of usurpation and perfidy" -- end of quote -- less likely because they would have to capture both chambers at the same time. the senate, with longer staggered terms, as the constitution spells out, makes that even less likely. the second lesson is that a single-chamber legislature with lots of members tend to -- quote -- "yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions and

to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperance and pernicious resolutions." end of quote. if that sounds like the house of representatives today, that's because it's supposed to work that way. the house is supposed to reflect the immediate passions of the day, even if those passions take on a partisan tinge. when laws are made only by factious leaders you end up with madison calls "intemperate and pernicious resolutions." that's where he says the function of the senate as a deliberative body comes into play. madison's third lesson has to do with a need for a body with longer terms that is serious about doing the hard work of legislating instead of pushing short-term agendas, like might be the case in a house of

representatives. to quote madison -- quote -- "what indeed are all the repealing, explaining, and amending laws which fill and disgrace our voluminous codes, but so many monuments of deficient wisdom, so many impeachments exhibited by each succeeding against each preceding sessions, so many admonitions to people of the value of those aids which may be expected from a well-constituted senate?" end of quote. in other words, what madison was saying, it's better to take the time to get it right the first time than to have to constantly go back and fix ill-conceived laws. that's what the senate is composed to do.

-- composed to do under our constitution. to make sure that you don't get sudden changes or bad legislation out of the other body. in the fourth and final point, madison explains that if a legislature is constantly churning out new laws, even if they are good ideas, it causes chaos because no one knows what the law says from day to day. it changes constantly, in other words. to this point, madison says -- quote -- "a continued change, even of good measures, is inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect of success." endle oend of quote. madison also points out a problem caused by overactive legislating that we tend to this is unique in modern times. that is, special interest groups that are hired as lobbyists and lawyers. so to quote madison, another

effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people." end of quote. that's a criticism you still hear today. so just to recap, the senate was specifically written into our constitution to solve certain problems; namely but repettively, to prevent an agenda that does not reflect that of the american people, to prevent legislation based upon short-term partisan passions and to pass fewer but better-thought-out laws. of course, starting in 2007, we had a house and a senate controlled by the same political party, intent on enacting the

president's agenda, top of which was his health care law. the deliberative process was cut short and the legislation was rammed through the senate over the objections of senators representing 40% of the states. the president's health care law is practically the poster child for what madison called "intemperate and pernicious resolution" reflecting a partisan agenda that did not enjoy broad support among the american people when it was passed. and you know what? it enjoys less support today. the fact that congress didn't take the time to think through every aspect of that important health care legislation and work out a consensus that could attract broad support of the senate has resulted in the need of a series of, as madison said -- quote -- "explaining, repealing, and amending amendin"

of course the president has claimed for himself the authority to unilaterally amend or suspend parts of the law that aren't working rather than come back to congress that under the constitution is supposed to be the legislating body. and, of course, that's what the president is doing now is not what the authors of the constitution intended either. we wouldn't be in this predicament if a deeply flawed health care with a deeply -- with a deeply flawed health care law if the senate had been allowed to function as it was intended. now, with neither party today having 60 votes needed to steamroll members of the minority party, the senate should go back to functioning as it was intended, yet that hasn't happened. instead, we have seen an unprecedented abuse of senate rules to block senators from

participating in the deliberative process. these abuses of senate rules threaten to fundamentally transform the senate from the greatest deliberative body in the world into a purely partisan rubber stamp for the agenda of the majority and its leadership. if we athrough to happen -- if we allow that to happen, we will see even more of the problems that madison warned about. the senate was intended to be a deliberative body and own functions properly when deliberation is allowed. that means we must have debate and amendments. i hear frequent complaints from iowans about congress passing huge bills without members of congress having the opportunity to understand all the provisions, much less the people they're supposed to represent having a chance to understand the bills and to weigh in on them. it is now routine for cloture to

be filed immediately upon bringing a matter up for consideration. that is not the deliberative process or how the senate is supposed to operate. cloture was invented to allow the senate to end consideration of a matter after the preponderance of senators had concluded it had received sufficient consideration. even that part was a compromise. before cloture was invented, there was no way to end debate, as long as at least one senator thought a matter needed further consideration. cloture was introduced to balance the desire to get things done with the principle that each senator, at a representative of his or her state, has the right to participate fully in that legislative process. the threshold was later adjusted down from two-thirds of senators

voting to three-fifths of all senators. that's that famous 60 votes you have to have if you want to end debate. each time this is revisited, the balance is tilted more toward speeding up the process at the expense of allowing senators to fully represent the people of their states. at the beginning of the current congress, the senate passed changes to the senate rules to shortening the amount of debate time after cloture is invoked for certain nominees. these changes were agreed to in exchange for a promise, a real promise, that the so-called nuclear option would not be used. notwithstanding that commitment, just a short ten months later, the nuclear option was used, setting a new precedent that debate on nominations can be cut

off by a simple majority of senators, ignoring the plain text of the cloture rule that's still on the books. so at the end of the day, members of this body agreed to extinguish certain rights in exchange for the promise not to use the nuclear option, only to have additional rights stripped away ten months later by a simple majority vote. tantaken together, those two episodes represent a dramatic shift towards domination of the senate by one faction, contrary to madison's stated intent. i say all that by way of background, but that's history, and the other side will have to learn to live with the ramifications of changes to the nomination process that they forced upon this body. so now i'd like to turn the focus now to the legislative

process and what can be done to restore the senate to the role envisioned by the authors of the constitution before it's too late and the idea that i have and some of my colleagues have joined me in a rules change along this line. when it comes to legislating, we've gotten off track from how the senate was designed, but we have an opportunity to restore the senate as a deliberative body. that was anding at the beginning of this congress -- that was an understanding at the beginning of this congress that there would be some return to regular order. in exchange for rule changes that expedite the legislative process, the majority leadership would turn to the long-standing tradition of an open amendment process; in other words, there was an understanding that the senate would take its time to consider legislation and senators from both sides would be free to propose amendments

and have them voted on. that understanding lasted until republicans submitted amendments that some on the other side were nervous to have to take a position on. it's no secret that the majority leader has gone out of his way to keep members of his caucus from having to take votes that may hurt them or the people back home. the senate rules provide that any senator may offer an amendment to a bill being considered. therefore, in order to shield members from having to take tough votes, the majority leader now rue toonl routinely moves tn all consideration of a bill before all amendments are considered. and, as i said at the beginning, maybe today isn't the time to give this speech because we have great comity on the bill that's before the senate, but we still have a major problem. cloture is supposed to be used after the senate has considered a measure for a period of time and a preponderance of the senate think it has deliberated

enough. cloture should not be used to prevent any meaningful deliberation from taking place. the average number of cloture motions filed each session of the congress under this majority leadership is more than double what it was in prior sessions of congress under majority leaders of both parties going back to 1987. this alone is an indication that cloture is being overused, even abused, by the majority. the majority leader will tell you that he is forced to file cloture because of republican filibusters. he might have a point if -- and that's a big "if" -- it was true that after extensive debate and plenty of opportunity to consider amendments republicans were dragging out debate pule for the sake of -- purely for the sake of delay. however, we can hardly claim that the senate's deliberation has dragged on too long when it

hasn't even begun consideration of the matter in the first place. we're now at the point where the overwhelming number of motions to cut off debate are made before debate has even started, much less than in response to a filibuster. because obviously you have to have debate before you have a filibuster. let's look at a chart that i have prepared here. well, it's put together by the congressional research service on cloture motioned in relationship to -- cloture motions in relationship to legislative business filed the same day a matter is brought before the senate. in other words, before debate starts. because you've got to have debate before you have a filibuster. i've color coded each congress based on which party controlled the senate. you'll notice that the use of same-day cloture averages out to 29 times per congress up until

the 110th congress, when this majority leadership takes over. then there is a huge jump to 90 day, 98-same-day cloture motions, more than three times the average. you'll notice a trend toward slightly more use of the same-day closer -- clotures leading up to the year 2007. of course that makes both parties guilty. but you can see an unprecedented use of same-day cloture starting when this majority leadership took over. the trend has continued at more than double the previous average in each congress since this majority leadership took over. there were 65 same-day cloture motions in the 111th congress. 67 in the 112th congress compared to 29 the last time

republicans controlled the senate, which coincidentally is also the previous average that i've talked about. the last line on the chart shows that the total as of january, when we were only halfway through the current congress, at that time we were already up to 30 same-day cloture motions. that is more than we saw for the entire congress the last time republicans were in the majority. so we're back to an unprecedented use of cloture to end deliberations, before deliberation has even begun. and that is clearly abusive and cannot be justified. some people might argue that same-day cloture motions on the motion to proceed shouldn't be counted because the motion to proceed can't be amended. that is debatable, but i'll just point out that the last column shows same-day cloture filings,

including -- excluding the motion to proceed and the trend is exactly the same. so what do we do about this abuse of cloture to end consideration of a bill before it has been considered? so today i'm introducing the stop cloture abuse resolution. that is appropriately spells out acronym "scar" because cloture abuse threatens to scar the body of the senate. to stop cloture abuse resolution will amend senate rules to prohibit the filing of cloture until at least 24 hours after the senate has proceeded to the matter. that means you have debate before you file cloture. debate could be a filibuster, but you've got to have debate to have a filibuster.

this reform will end once and for all the practice of attempting to shut down debate and amendments before the debate has started. it's important to keep in mind that when senators are blocked from participating in the legislative process, the people they represent are disenfranchised. by that, i don't mean the citizens of the 45 states that elected republicans. the citizens of states that elected democrat senators also expect their senator to offer amendments and engage with their colleagues in different parties. forcing a cloture vote before any deliberation prevents even members of the majority party from offering amendments that may be important to the people they represent. voters have a right to expect the people they elect to actually do the hard work of legislating, not just be a rubber stamp for their leadership's agenda. senators who go along with the tactics of disenfranchise their

own constituents should have to explain to those who voted them into office why they aren't willing to be full-fledged senators as people that elect people to the world's most deliberative body can rightfully expect. they should explain why their loyalty is to party leadership and not to the people of their state. a senator's job includes offering amendments. being a senator also means that sometimes you have to take tough votes on other senators' amendments that reveal to your constituents where you stand on various issues. it's the job of senators then, kwaoeupt -- quite plainly to deliberate and legislate. the resolution would establish a deliberative process and at

least some deliberation must occur before any attempt to silence the voice of senators and by extension the voices of the people of their respective states. this is just one reform idea that i'm proposing for the senate to kw-r -- consider as we work to restore the senate as a deliberative body, and that will be introduced today. it will only address though, i have to admit, part of the problem. the senate will also have to address the abuse of filling the tree to block amendments. the ability to block senators from offering amendments is actually not found in senate rules. filling the tree is an abuse of senate precedents. in some ways that makes it the easier problem to address, whereas a cloture abuse is an abuse of the senate cloture rule. the practice of filling the tree to block amendments can be eliminated simply by establishing a new precedent. as everyone remembers from the

nuclear option, establishing a new precedent is a simple process that only requires a majority vote. however, like the nuclear option, which was established -- which established a precedent that the senate would ignore, the plain text of a rule is still on the books, ending the ability of a majority leader to block amendments would simply involve replacing the old precedent with a new precedent. for now, the stop cloture abuse resolution go by the acronym "scar" would be a good start. it would eliminate the scar on the senate. adopting the stop cloture abuse resolution would send a strong message that the senate will once again deliberate over issues rather than ramming through all of them without

careful consideration. this reform will reduce the urge to force legislation through the senate based on a short-term partisan agenda and result in fewer but better laws just as james madison and the other framers of the constitution intended. amending the senate rules should not be a last resort, and this move should not be necessary. we've been told by the bipartisan child-care development block grant bill will be considered and is being considered under an open amendment process. if that happens and if that marks the beginning of a return to regular order, where all senators are allowed to represent their states to the best of their ability once again, then perhaps this move will not be necessary. given the record of the past three congresses, i don't think anybody should hold their breath on that happening. but it is a good day in the

united states senate that this legislation is being considered under the process that the senate was set up to perform. deliberation, open amendments, debate. if a -- if in this rare instance bipartisanship proves to be the rule it will prove the senate is fundamentally broken and only significant reforms like the stop cloture abuse resolution can restore the senate as the world's greatest deliberative body. 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 south carolina is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. president. i ask consent to vitiate the quorum.

the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. scott: i ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment so that i may call up my amendment 2837 which is at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from south carolina, mr. scott, proposes amendment numbered 2837. mr. scott: i ask for unanimous consent for dispensing of the reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. scott: mr. president, i offer amendment 2837 to s. 1086, the child care and development block grant act of 2014. my amendment seeks to clarify that the statute does not favor or promote the use of grants or contracts over the use of child-care certificates. nor does it adversely impact the use of certificates in faith-based or other settings. mr. president, what we're talking about today boils down to parental choice and state flexibility. two things the federal government should be thinking a

lot harder about on a constant basis. i ask my colleagues to support my bipartisan amendment to ensure low-income working parents have a choice and that states have the flexibility they need to find the child care that best suits their child. thank you. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senior senator from oregon is recognized. mr. wyden: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to vacate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without

objection, so ordered. mr. wyden: mr. president, i would also ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. wyden: mr. president, i'm rising this afternoon to talk about the medicare program. which, of course, is a lifeline, a guarantee for 50 million older americans. and in particular, what the senate wants to do is make sure that those older people have access to primary care doctors, nurse practitioners, specialists and other providers in their local communities because they provide critically needed care to our seniors day in and day out. now, mr. president and colleagues, many of those seniors have no idea that by march 31, just a few weeks from now, the congress has to act on

their behalf to preserve access to the care the seniors depend on, and suffice it to say those providers would much rather be delivering the care than waiting for this congress to act. now, fortunately, mr. president, there is a road map for getting this done, and getting good care to seniors not just for a short period of time, but colleagues once and for all, and i want this afternoon to urge my colleagues to seize this opportunity. and in beginning my remarks, mr. president, i want to be clear that i can take little credit for the opportunity that is before us. the path that got us here, that got us started in the effort to make the needed reforms to protect our seniors is a correct

result of the leadership of my friend and colleague, senator orrin hatch. just as senator hatch has done so many times over the course of an illustrious career, senator hatch was key to forging a bipartisan solution to a challenging, long-standing problem. so what i'd like to do, mr. president, in beginning is recognize that effort by senators hatch, my predecessor as chairman of the finance committee, senator baucus, house ways and means chair dave camp, house ways and means ranking member senator levin, house energy and commerce chair fred upton and house energy and commerce ranking member henry waxman. the work that they have been doing over the last few months in my view is exceptional and in effect they have given us the opportunity to take this flawed

system of setting a kind of medicare budget known as s.g.r., sustainable growth rate. they have given us the opportunity to repeal and replace this flawed system with one that i think is going to make a huge difference in the days ahead by pushing the goal of good-quality, affordable care up and doing it in a bipartisan way, and i hope that these colleagues will take it as a compliment that the s.g.r. bill now before the senate incorporates all of that good bipartisan work that they have been doing, along with the work that was done on the senate finance committee. i see our colleague from north carolina here who has contributed mightily to that effort. of course, the president of the

senate, senator brown who has been such an eloquent spokesperson, particularly for those without political power and political clout, and i thank both of them for their efforts. to be specific, the legislation i introduced last night incorporates what those six members agreed to, the six members that i just named, three democrats and the three republicans came together with s. 2000 and in effect that legislation, along with the health extenders passed by the senate finance committee in s. 1871 is essentially what we have the opportunity to move in the days ahead. every single thing in this bill has had strong bipartisan support, and i hope that we can all come together and with resounding bipartisan support get this bill passed before march 31. now, there are a variety of reasons why democrats and

republicans, in my view, can band together and repeal and replace what again i have characterized as a flawed, really dysfunctional system that we have today known as the s.g.r. but before i go through the list of reasons, i want to make clear to my colleagues, and colleagues have known me, i'm interested in sound, sensible policy, that we move in a bipartisan way. not politics, not message but sound policy, and that's why i'm here on the floor today. i have always tried to make it possible for both sides to secure their principles, principles that are important to them and still allow us to go forward in a bipartisan and innovative fashion to get things done. and i will say to my colleagues it is not possible any longer to just put one patch or another up

and say we're going to fix the medicare challenge. it's just not going to work. now, for the last ten years, congress has always blocked these cuts. well, i would say i think it's time to stop pretending that these upcutting cuts fittingly scheduled for april fools' day are any more real than the 16 other times that the congress has intervened. what we ought to do, colleagues, is stop playing medicare make believe. it's time to set aside a flawed formula that prevents the congress from really moving ahead constructively on medicare and to start with a clean slate. i thought "the wall street journal" editors really summed it up very well on february 19. what they said in talking about

the bipartisan bill that i laud tonight, the editors of "the wall street journal" said, and i quote, simply pass the bill as is and forgo the pretense of fake paying for it. colleagues, think about those words. the editors of the "wall street journal" basically said that this is all a bunch of fakery because the cuts aren't going to be made, the savings aren't going to be realized because we have tried that route, and "the wall street journal" said pass this good bipartisan bill. now, if the congress fails to fully repeal the flood medicare payment formula now, i believe there will be cuts to other providers, hospitals, home health care providers, drug companies, skilled nursing facilities. make no mistake about it, those providers are going to be the ones who pay for yet another patch. so a lot of this budget fakery

isn't real, but the people who are going to pay for the patch, they are going to face very real cuts. now, in total, the 16 band-aid patches have already cost $115 billion. colleagues, this is the same cost as fully repealing and replacing the flawed s.g.r. plus taking care of the health extenders, and those cuts, as i have indicated, have largely been paid for in the past by cuts to other providers. in the last two years alone, the hospitals have been forced to produce nearly $30 billion to pay for the taxpayer patches. under the status quo, s.g.r. will always call for cuts that are too steep for providers to bear and congress will step in with yet another watch paid for by still more cuts to other providers.

how can you make a case for more of the same, especially when you have an opportunity to not only repeal the flood formula but also to enact reforms that finally move medicare away from the flood fee-for-service approach that rewards quantity instead of quality and value. second, i offer the medicare s.g.r. and beneficiary act assess improvement act of 2015 in order to eliminate the ongoing threat to our seniors and the providers who serve them. under this legislation which reflects the bipartisan, bicameral legislation that senator catch and senator baucus offered last month, physicians would receive annual payment increases of .5% for five years. the following five years, physicians would not receive automatic increases but rather would be eligible for payment increases based on performance. medicare would transition to a new focus on greater quality,

value and accountability. this legislation would strengthen medicare physician payments in a number of ways. it would reward the quality of care. it would improve payment accuracy, expand the coordination of care for patients with chronic care needs and encourage participation in alternative models of payment. and the bill addresses other critical medicare and medicaid issues. they are known as health care extenders. and with these extenders, it would be possible for the congress on a bipartisan basis to ensure that low-income seniors can have affordable medicare premiums and guarantees, that beneficiaries will have access to the therapies they need. under the bill, rural beneficiaries will have the security of knowing the hospitals and physicians will be there when they need them, and i know that rural health care for

my friend from north carolina, for my friend from iowa, for the senator from ohio, it's a priority for them. you pass this bill which was put together by a bipartisan group in the house and the senate and you give a big, big boost, colleagues, for rural health care and the services that seniors depend on on their medicare. and finally, something i'm especially proud of because senator grassley was good enough to work with me for a number of years on it is this would significantly expand medicare transparency. this legislation would open up medicare's treasure-trove of payment data and patients would have the information they needed to make informed choices about their care, and researchers and professionals will have the data needed to develop evidence-based methods. so this afternoon, in addition to thanking colleagues that i

have already mentioned, i want to thank senator grassley for all those years in working with me and senator harkin knows senator grassley has been a strong, strong advocate for transparency in health care and other vital services, and you see his good work in this bill. now, this bill is bipartisan, mr. president. it doesn't cut providers, increase cost sharing for the seniors, and i defer to my colleagues to decide if it's better to offset cost s.g.r. repeal by reducing future spending or unpaid for, but the bottom line is the same. we ought to act now, act now and put the flawed formula known as the s.g.r. which had produced medicare migraines for frustrated providers and seniors alike, let's put this behind us. every single thing in the bill

that i offered today has had strong bipartisan support, and it represents a compromise. now, i know that this isn't an easy vote for colleagues on either side of the aisle, but i submit it sure means that we'll be able to accomplish what we were sent here to do, to find a way to do what's best for seniors and the doctors who care for them, and with that clean slate -- and i have enjoyed talking to the president of the senate about this because i think what this bill is all about is doing what's right for seniors, doing what's right for the doctors, setting in place a plan for the future that ensures seniors are going to get better care, that in many instances will cost less, and that's what i hope senators will take home after we break tomorrow for the

work period, that this is a chance to do what's best for seniors, what's best for doctors and what's going to pay off for taxpayers in the long run. nobody wins with medicare make believe, and after these 16 patches when you have "wall street journal" editors joining with seniors and providers and you have a bill that has strong bipartisan support, i think this is the kind of measure that senators ought to flock to. and i will just close by saying we all know that the public is frustrated with a fair amount of what happens here in the congress, and there is a fair level of disappointment. the senator from north carolina and i were talking about a variety of issues on this point this morning.

but i look around this chamber and i see senators who have spent a significant amount of time in public life, and a number of colleagues are on the floor. i am old enough to remember joining them in the other body before we came here. and we're here for a purpose. we're here to get things done. and on this medicare issue which suffice it to say, mr. president, has been one of the most polarizing in the american public debate -- in fact, i'd venture to say on the domestic side of the budget there are few issues that have been as divisive and as polarizing as medicare. this is an opportunity, colleagues, to check the partisanship at the door, come together and set in place a new system of paying providers under

medicare that is going to produce better quality at lower cost. we ought to support it in a bipartisan manner. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to call up the lee amendment number 2821. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from north carolina, mr. burr, for mr. lee proposes amendment numbered 2821. mr. burr: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burr: i ask the amendment be modified with the technical correction which the is at the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection to the modification? without objection. mr. burr: i believe this amendment is agreeable on both sides and i know of no further debate on the amendment.

i would ask for the question. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to as modified. mr. burr: i thank the president. mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i rise today to discuss one of the most concerning issues our country faces today, an issue that chairman harkin particularly has been outspoken on, that's the growing retirement crisis. a couple of weeks ago i chaired the finance committee the first congressional hearing on the meyer ira that president obama proposed in his 2014 state of the union address. we'll explore some of those

issues, especially the harkin legislation earlier. we know for many americans the traditional three legged retirement system, social security, defined pension benefit, and personal retirement savings, that three legged stool is simply no longer working. for many, two of those legs are gone and the third leg, the social security monthly payment for low-income workers is, frankly, way too short. we know that social security remains the safeguard of retirement security for working-class families but as i said it was never meant to be the only method of saving for retirement. as we emerge from the greatest recession since the great depression, the private retirement system isn't working. over the last 30 years, the defined pension benefit has for far too many people disappeared. the new system of tax incentives for 401(k)'s and i.r.a.'s only

works if you're middle income typically or wealthier. the top fifth, the top quintile, if you will, of households, hold three-quarters of all 401(k) and i.r.a. assets. the average worker nearing retirement, believe this, has $12,000 in savings. the question our subcommittee asked is what do we do? one point of bipartisan agreement is that social security works. witnesses from and have gawr -- vanguard to senior advocates agree on that point. we heard testimony from the left and from the right, from the private sector, from the treasury department. everyone agreed that for low-income workers social security is the most and the most reliable and most important and most reliable way to guarantee a secure retirement but it's not enough. an upper income social security -- an upper-income worker once receiving social security may get as much as

$2,000 or more a month in social security earned benefits, while a low-income worker who is used to receiving $9 or $10 or $11 an hour or less even though working as many as 25 or 0 years may get less than $1,000 a month in social security and that's the only wealth -- that's the only income, so often, those in the bottom half have. the only question obviously is where the benefit -- whether the benefit is adequate. too often it's not. two-thirds of low-income families are at risk of not having enough income to maintain anything close to their standard of living in retirement. expanding social security could be the difference between a modest retirement, an earned modest retirement, and living in poverty. the hearing discussed the administration's new mire ira stands for my retirement accounts, a play on the i.r.a., the individual

retirement accounts, represents a small but important first step. access to retirement accounts must not be something workers receive when they crosh the threshold in middle class but a tool that helps them start their journey into the middle class class. savings to new jersey private retirement accounts through the tax code, we need to make sure the incentives go to people that need them. would what we're doing as senator cardin from maryland, a longtime advocate of a stronger, better retirement security for seniors and attended our subcommittee hearing as a member of the finance committee, those are the issues we need to work on. president roosevelt signed the social security act, he said this law represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but by no means is complete. the same could be said, maybe even more so for our retirement system today. the structure is still being built. it's up to this body to ensure

that it is built, that it doesn't collapse in the meantime, and that we can bring more retirement security to far more americans who have worked their entire work lives. mr. president, i note 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: i ask that further proargs under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: what's the business before the senate? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the hasn' landrieu amendmt 2818. mr. harkin: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? this appears to be a sufficient second. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or

wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 98, the nays are zero. the amendment is agreed to. under the previous order, the question is on landrieu-grassley 2813. the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, we have no objections to that amendment, we agree with it and urge its adoption. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate on the amendment, all those in favor please say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. harkin: move to reconsider the vote and to lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the question is on the

landrieu-blunt 2814. if there is no further debate, all those in favor please say aye. all those against say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. harkin: i move to reconsider the vote and lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the question is on bennet-isakson 2824. if there is no further debate, all those in favor please say aye. all those against say nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. harkin: move to reconsider that vote and to lay that motion on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc

which the clerk will report. the clerk: nominations, occupational safety and health review commission, heather l. mcdougal of florida to be a member. national science foundation, france a. cordovo of new mexico to be director. department of education, james h. shelton, iii, of the district of columbia to be deputy secretary of education. department of state, bruce himan of illinois to be ambassador to canada. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the mcdougal nomination. if there is no further debate, all those in favor please say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it.

the nomination is confirmed. mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, i understand that the scott -- okay. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the cordova nomination. all those in favor please say aye. all those against say nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is agreed to. under the previous order, the question is on the shelton nomination. if there is no further debate, all those in favor please say aye. all those against please say nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is agreed to. under the previous order, the

question is on the heyman nomination. all those in favor please say aye. all those against say nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider -- the motions to reconsider are made and laid on the table. the president will be immediately notified of this action. and the senate will resume legislative business. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: i understand the scott amendment and the boxer-burr amendment 2809 is cleared on

both sides of the aisle and i know of no further debate on either amendment. i would urge adoption of these two amendments. the presiding officer: the scott amendment 2837 is pending. if there is no further debate, all those in favor please say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. the amendment 2809 is the pending amendment. if there is no further debate, all those in favor please say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. the senator from north carolina.

mr. burr: mr. president, we have had a very productive day on the childcare development block grant bill, and we have processed a number of amendments, some by voice, some with recorded votes. all members have had the opportunity to come down during the day and offer their amendments, and we continue to have amendments that are either filed or talked about. it is still the intent of senator harkin, senator alexander, senator mikulski and myself that we finish this bill tomorrow afternoon, and we see no reason that we can't do it with the level of cooperation that all members have shown. so let me try to sketch out for our colleagues what our intent will be. we intend to hopefully go to a period of morning business, length to be determined by the leaders, when we conclude after we speak. at some point in the morning, probably 10:30, we would resume

consideration of amendments. and we would process those amendments until shortly before lunch. it is our hope that members would take the opportunity to file those amendments tonight so that our staffs can work with them to try to make sure as many amendments can be adopted with the support of both sides of the aisle. we certainly can't force everybody to do it, but i implore members on both sides of the aisle file those amendments tonight, work with our staff. they will be here as late as they need to be. by 10:30 tomorrow morning, we should be able to move to amendments, have debate on those where there is additional debate needed, hopefully start any votes by 12:15 and finish the amendment process before both sides break for lunch. it would be my hope that we could come back right after lunch with the leader agreements and have passage on the childcare development block

grant bill. let me just say, mr. chairman, that i want to thank chairman harkin and ranking member alexander and senator mikulski. i think that we have gone into this and we have tried to urge our colleagues that if they can make this bill better, come to the floor and do it, and i think we have seen by the action that people have done this in a responsible way and we have worked in a bipartisan way to make sure that we could present to the members of the senate bills that didn't cause a great deal of concern. in fact, that they did improve the bill. so i encourage my colleagues file those amendments tonight, be prepared to finish this up before the middle of the afternoon tomorrow, and we can expect to have success on the passage of this bill. i thank the chair and yield the floor. mr. harkin: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i just want to concur in everything the senator from north carolina said. this is a very good bill, it's a great bill. again, the senator from north carolina has put a lot into this bill over the last couple of years, and we're close to seeing the finish line here. i hope senators and the staffs who may be not present but are watching, that they will do just as the senator suggested. if they have got amendments, get them over to the floor tonight during morning business, take those up. our staffs can work those out and hopefully we'll be on track to finish the bill tomorrow. i just want to thank the senator for all the hard work he has put in this over a long period of time. mr. president, i ask consent that the motion to reconsider the landrieu amendment number 2818 be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: i ask unanimous consent the senate now proceed to a period of morning business until 7:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten

minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i rise today in support of the bipartisan childcare development block grant act of 2014. i want to thank senator mikulski for her great leadership, senator burr for his leadership and senator harkin and alexander. we have had a great afternoon. i would start off by saying we have a number of people confirmed, which i am very pleased about including the ambassador to canada. i think it's pretty important that we have an ambassador to canada when canada is our biggest trading partner. we haven't had one now for months, and this is a very good thing. but back to the bill. mr. president, it's been almost 20 years since the senate last reauthorized ccdbg, and since that time, we have learned that if we want strong communities, a robust work force and students who are ahead of the curve, we need to ensure that every child

has access to high-quality childcare. as the country's primary federal childcare program, ccdbg provides millions of families with the assistance they need to ensure working parents can keep their jobs or finish school knowing their children are safe and receiving quality care. we know that the child's early years are critical to building a strong foundation for their lives. up to 90% of brain development happens before age 5. just think about that. 90% up to age 5. that's why it's so important to invest in quality care and education. when we do, it pays off for the rest of us by giving us better-informed citizens and a more productive work force. investments in the childcare and development block grant also give parents the option of affordable childcare. research indicates that higher childcare costs have a negative impact on a mother's employment because women are more likely to leave their jobs whenld