the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i as k consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the substitute amendment numbered 2874 to h.r. 3979, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 and so forth. signed by 17 senators.

the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on amendment number 2874 to h.r. 3979, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to ensure that emergency services volunteers are not taken into account as employees under the shared responsibility requirements contained in the patient protection and affordable caraffordable care ae brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote: vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 61, the nays are 38. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the

motion is agreed to. the presiding officer: cloture having been invoked on amendment number 2874, the motion to commit falls as being inconsistent with cloture. the chair further announces that amendments number 2878, 2877, and 2876 also fall as they were not in order to be offered and their pendency is inconsistent with the senate's precedence with respect to the offering of amendments, their number, degree and kind. mr. core anyone: mr. president? -- mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, before we can have a real debate

on how to fix the u.s. economy, which is experiencing the slowest recovery following a recession of any time since world war ii, we have to agree on what the problem is and what we're actually trying to solve. now, on this side of the aisle, we believe that the problem is a shortage of full-time jobs and we believe that our main economic priority should be to facilitate or to create circumstances under which the private sector can create more full-time jobs. so that's why we've offered a series of amendments to the pending legislation that would help do that. it would help grow the economy and help get people back to work. not just pay people who are unfortunately unemployed but actually help create jobs so they can find work and provide for their family, which is what the vast majority of people want to do.

currently we have pending about 70 different amendments from this side of the aisle that would actually improve the underlying legislation. among other things, our amendments would repeal job-killing taxes, improve congressional safeguards against overregulation, improve congressional -- excuse me, restore the traditional 40-hour work week. this is a particular subject of concern to organized labor, who recently sent a letter to the white house that said that obamacare was incentivizing employers to take full-time work and to make it part-time work. and they called it a nightmare. we also need to modernize our work training programs. i've traveled to a number of o our -- a number of locations in texas, for example, where as a result of the shale gas renaissance, we've had a number of manufacturing companies move

back onshore because of this inexpensive energy supply, creating thousands of new jobs and there are thousands more to come. well, thank goodness our community colleges are working with industry in these areas because what we find is that when people graduate from high school or maybe even college, they don't necessarily have the skills necessary to qualify for these good, high-paying jobs. so if there's one thing we ought to all be able to agree on it's we need to modernize our work training programs so that we can help people gain those skills so they can earn good income as a result. we also need to exspee diet natural gas exports and that's nolts just for economic reasons and job-creating reasonsality hometown. we've seen that in russia, russia is using natural gas and the stranglehold that it has on

ukraine as a weapon. and one of the things we can do to help the people of ukraine and to help our allies in europe is to provide a long-term source of energy through another route other than through russian pipelines. we also should approve the keystone x.l. pipeline, which will complete this pipeline from canada all the way across the united states and the terminus would be in southeast texas, where that oil would be refined into gasoline and jet fuel and create a loss of jobs in the meantime. and then we need to -- we need to consider proposals that would incentivize american businesses small and large to hire veterans. now, i've been discussing these amendments all week, and i've been calling on the majority leader to allow these amendments to come to the floor and provide an opportunity for a vote. as i said, there are now currently more than 70 ditch --0

different amendments and ideas that have been filed that are just waiting for the majority leader, who is the one who has complete discretion as to whether or not the votes will actually occur, imploring him to allow a vote on these amendments. but it appears -- and i don't know if there's really any other conclusion you can draw -- that the majority leader has a different priority. his top priority, it appears, is for show votes on bills that either aren't going to go anywhere because they're not going to be taken up by the house of representatives, or they really treat the symptom rather than solve the underlying problem. so, as we read in "the new york times" and elsewhere, it's the intention of the majority leader and the democratic leadership in the senate to schedule a series of show votes that basically are designed to change the subject from the failed policies of this

administration -- notably, obamacare -- and, of course, one of those is going to be to make it easier for the trial bar to file class action lawsuits when it comes to gendered pay disparity, something that's already against the law, but the majority leader and his allies are going to lift the cap on damages and subject small and large businesses aside -- small and large businesses combined -- subject them to class action lawsuits. so you don't have to take my word for t all you have to do is read "the new york times." here's what they reported last week. they said, "the proposals have little chance of passing. but democrats concede that making new laws is not really the point. rather, they're trying to force republicans to vote against th them." for that market the majority leader himself has acknowledged that these ideas were developed

in collaboration with a democratic senatorial campaign committee, the political arm of our democrat friends in the senate. so it's pretty clear what's happening here. this is not a majority leader or a majority, for that matter, iinsearch of solutions to the problems that plague our count country. this has nothing to do with helping the american people. what it does is makes proposals that would actually make the economy worse. for example, the congressional budget office said that the proposed minimum-wage increase, a 40% increase in the minimum wage, would likely destroy a half a million to a million jobs. because the money has got to come from swrks and small businesses, if they're going to be forced to pay 40% more for their workforce, they're going

to have to cut somewhere else, and what they're going to cut is jobs. so needless to say that not withstand ago the fact that we're engaging in -- rear seein- --we're seeing the majority leader and the majority party engaged in political posturing, what they're proposing is going to make things worse, not better. there's also the so-called paycheck fairness act, which really you ought to call the trial lawyers' bonanza bill. this is nothing more than a gift to the trial bar. as i said earlier, gender-based pay discrimination was outlawed a half a century ago. it is illegal already. president obama more recently signed something called the lilly ledbetter act in 2009. here's what he said at that time. he said, "the ledbetter act

ensures equal pay for equal work." well, if that's true -- and i believe it is -- then why offer this additional legislation, if it's not purely a political exercise designed to posture and perhaps distract people from the things they're upset about, like obamacare, leading into the midterm elections? well, we're now being told that unless we pass the so-called paycheck fairness act -- or the trial lawyer giveaway -- employers will be able to discriminate against women. well, that's nonsense. that's not true. i don't know how you can say it any more strongly other than to call it the lie that it is. even before the lilly ledbetter action, equal pay for equal work has been the law of the land since the 1960's. as "the wall street journal" once observed, the paycheck fairness act should really be called the trial lawyer paycheck

act because that's who would benefit from the this bill, were it to become the law of the land. of course, as i mentioned a moment ago, the majority leader doesn't really expect this to pass, but it's part of this false narrative that we've heard before and we're going to hear it again, that somehow this is really about fairness and gender discrimination when it is about nothing of the kind. it is solely about politics, and it really is a cynical attempt to distract people from really what are the most important things we could do as a senate, which is again to create circumstances under which the economy would grow and jobs would be created by the private sector so people could find work and they could provide for their families. that's what we ought to be doing. our democratic friends claim that this political agenda that they announced last week in conjunction with the democratic senatorial campaign committee is all about giving americans a

fair shot. yet the majority leader is refusing to give them a fair shot at find ago full-time job, and he's refusing to give my constituents in texas -- 26 million of them -- an opportunity to get some of their ideas heard and voted on the senate floor. as i said once -- i'll say it again -- there are more than 70 different amendments that have been filed to this underlying regulation that would actually provide a solution rather than a political stunt and do nothing to solve the underlying problem. wcialtion the purpose owell, the amendments is to help people who remain unemployed or underemployed you includin, inc8 million americans who have been unemployed for more than six months. this legislation does nothing to help them other than perhaps to

help pay them for a period of time that they are continuing not to be able to find work. but there are also 7.2 million americans who are working part-time who would like to work full-time. if the majority leader wants to argue that our amendments are a bad idea, let him do it. let's -- we'll have that git on the merits -- we'll have that debate on the merits. if he wants to promote alternative options for growing the economy and creating jobs, we'll be happy to consider those and perhaps even agree with him on some of them. but to simply refuse to allow a vote on these 70-some-odd amendments is a profound insult -- not to us, but to our constituents and to the millions of americans who continue to suffer through the longest period of high unemployment since the great depression. we can do better. we need to do better. the american people deserve better than this cheap political stunt.

the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: madam president, we have before us a bipartisan piece of legislation that is designed to provide very limited assistance to millions of americans who have lost their unemployment compensation benefits. i. oon december 28, the long-tem unemployment benefits terminated. today it is 2.7 million americans, and it is growing. and since december 28, we have on a bipartisan basis been endeavoring to bring to this floor and for a final vote a five-month extension, some of which -- in fact with each pass day is retroactive more than prospective. this is designed to help people. in fact, this bill is far from having nothing to help

americans. this will provide them the benefits that they were receiving, based upon their work records, because the only way you can receive unemployment insurance benefits is to lose a job through no fault of your own and continue to search for a job. these are working americans. the benefits we're talking about -- roughly $300 a week. what does it do? well, for some people, it keeps them in a home, it pays the rent. for some others, it provides food for their families. for others, it provides them the ability to have a cell phone that is plugged in, literally, because they need one when they get, they hope, the offer for a job interview or a job. so, contrary to doing nothing to help americans, this does a great deal for people who have earned the benefit through their toil, through their effort, and their continued efforts to look for jobs. we have an obligation, a great obligation, to increase the

growth in this country, to do it in a way that will allow people to find jobs. in my home state of rhode island, there are at least two applicants for every job. in many cases, three applicants. there is a disconnect in many cases between the skills they have had over decades of work and the skills that imhoirs are looking for -- that employers are looking for today. we have to address that. but to prevent this legislation from going through is to deny millions of working americans the support they need to get through a very difficult period, and that's why on a bipartisan basis we've come together. we have five months fully paid for. this is a fiscally sound legislation which benefits men and women across this country based upon their work record. i don't think there's a more important thing we can do at this moment, and i thoi dhai it woul-- and i think to delay it d be a disservice to the people.

i think something else, too. when you talk about economic groanlsgrowth, let's recognize s legislation will help growth in the united states. there have been estimates that if we had a full year extension of the unemployment insurance program, that would generate close to 200,000 jobs, maintain 200,000 jobs. those are significant numbers. that's roughly about one month's job growth over the last several years. if i would don't do this, we won't get that growth. so not only is this a fundamentally sound and fair and thoughtful thing to do for millions of american families, it's good for our economy. it does provide the growth that my cheetion ar colleagues are t, that we have to grow this economy. this is a much more we can do. many of my republican colleagues who have come to provide their insights and support have suggested longer-term ways which we can deal with the unemployment crisis, better

training programs, et cetera. and indeed we have a bipartisan workforce investment act reauthorization that is in the help committee that i hope we can get to the floor quickly because we have to reform our overall job training program in this country because, again, as i go out and talk to business men and women in rhode island, they will tell you they have a disconnect between the skill set that many people have and the skills they need for their workplace. there's another aspect i think, too, of this situation. the long-term unemployed numbers in this country today are twice as high as they are typically when we've ended unemployment benefits previously. we have a significant problem and a growing problem with the long-term unemployed. and i think -- and again the data -- we'll wait for that for conclusive and decisive. but nig my sense is that many of

thee thestheseindividuals are ie ages. they have good work records but the skills that employers look for right now are not immediately those skills that they have. of course there is job training options to go and do that but all of these things require the support, again, if you are going and juggling family responsibilities and trying to get job training, that $300 a week benefit check you've earned through your previous work is very helpful as you prepare yourself for a new job. and so, madam president, this legislation can't be delayed any longer. this is not about some political demonstration. some political messaging point. this is about getting aid and assistance to 2.7 million americans today and that number will grow with each passing day. and it's about helping people who earn this benefit through

their work. i can't think of anything more important we can do and do it in a timely and prompt manner and that's why i would hope we could move forward as quickly as possible on a bipartisan basis with a fully paid for legislation which is fiscally responsible, which will provide assistance to deserving of millions americans and stimulus to our economy. a final point, why does this provide stimulus to our economy? because these types of benefits go right to a former worker, someone looking for work and go right back in the economy. this is not a sophisticated tax break that will allow someone to, you know, put some money aside for the rainy day. this goes right to the families, right to the economy, to the local grocery store, to the local gas station for the repairs on the car, to pay are for daycare that might be necessary for children, to do those things that will go right back and stimulate further growth in our economy.

for reasons both of fundamental fairness and individual recognition that these people deserve a break in a tough economy and to the very real fact that this benefits dramatically our overall economy i think we have to move and i'm pleased and proud we've had support of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move forward procedurally. i hope we can move this to the house and then work with the house so they recognize the same reality our bipartisan basis we have recognized here. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor. a senator: madam president? mr. reed: i have seven unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the session. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming.

mr. barrasso: yesterday president obama held an event at the white house to talk about his health care law. the president said -- quote -- "the debate over repealing this law is over. he said the affordable care act is here to stay. that's what president obama said yesterday. of course, last october president obama said that his health care law was -- quote -- "the law of the land." then he went ahead and changed or delayed the law more than 20 times after that. on his own, without coming to congress. if it's the law of the land, how does he get to change the law of the land 20 times? back on march 6, president obama said that the democrats' health care law he said -- quote -- "is working the way it should." if the law is working the way it should, why do people in wyoming keep telling me how bad the law is for them personally? just the other day i heard from a woman in rollins, wyoming,

she wrote "my husband has been self-employed as a small truck driving company sevicing the oil and gas fields in wyoming for over 13 years. she said we have always purchased individual health care coverage for our family of five. we currently pay $906 for that coverage. she says the lowest price a.c.a. bronze plan will increase our premium to 1,005 -- $1,359, an increase of $452 per month, an amount we cannot currently absorb. she goes on to say this is not affordable. she asks why is president obama doing this to us? that's a good question. why are democrats here in washington doing this to families like this woman's

family in wyoming? why does president obama think his law is working the way it should? well, the senate democrat majority leader, senator reid, has said here on the floor of the senate back on february 26 that the law is going great. the majority leader said despite all the good news, there's plenty of horror stories being told. he went on to say and i will quote, "all are untrue, but they're being told all over america." all are untrue, he said here on the floor. the majority leader added that all of the stories were -- quote -- "made up from whole cloth. he said lies distorted by the republicans to grab headlines or make political advertisements." why does senator reid think this woman in rollins, wyoming is making up a story out of whole cloth?

remember, the president also said that if you like your insurance, you can keep it. he said if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. he said people's health care costs were going to be $2,500 lower by now. so the president has said a lot of things that turned out not to be accurate. now the president says that his health care law is here to stay. given the president's history, i think it's fair to get a second opinion. as a doctor who has practiced medicine for 25 years, taken care of families in wyoming, i come to the floor to tell you i bring my medical experience along with my colleague's experience, senator tom coburn from oklahoma. he and i have put together a report that looks at some of the promises that the democrats have made about the law and some of the things republicans have said about it. now, the report is called

"prognosis." came out april, 2014, it's available today on senator coburn's web site, at www. coburnd.o.t.senate.gov or my web site, barrasso d.senate d.senate.gov. we have gone through three previous reports that has doctors we put out doctors watching the health care law as it has been developing. each of the reports, one called bad medicine, one called grim diagnosis, and one called warning, side effects, were released between 2010 and 2012. we grade ourselves now on how the predictions that we made over the last four years have turned out. first prediction we made, report number one, bad medicine, we warned millions of americans could lose their health insurance plans.

madam president, headlines all across the country show that over five million americans did, in fact, get letters that they lost their health insurance plan. health insurance they liked, worked for them, something that they chose, and they lost them because the president said it wasn't good enough. he said he knew more about what they needed for themselves and their family than they did. so we predicted that four years ago, millions would lose their health insurance plans, and millions did. now, we warned that the law's new mandates would increase health costs and obviously increase the cost of insurance. well, that original diagnosis is confirmed as well. as the letter i just read from the family in rollins, wyoming, families all across wyoming and all across the country are seeing incredible increases in the cost of their

insurance, they're paying more, in their opinions they are getting worse insurance, the president said better, i say worse, because they're having to pay for lots of things they don't ever need, they don't want, they will never use, but yet the president says he knows better than they do about what kind of insurance they need and what's best for them and their family. they're also being faced with higher co-pays, higher deductibles, higher out-of-pocket costs. we warned additionally that short-term fixes threatened seniors' long-term access to care. that is actually exactly what happened. the health care law took $500 billion off of the medicare program to take care of our seniors, not to strengthen medicare, not to help our seniors, but to start a whole new government program for other people.

and for those 14 million americans on medicare advantage, a program for which there are advantages, preventive care, coordinated care, things that one would want, well, that's been dramatically hurt by the president's decision to take money away from the very popular medicare advantage plan. we warned that patients with preexisting conditions will still face care restrictions. i listened to the president's speech, i read editorials written by colleagues on the other side of the aisle as recently as last week that said people with preexisting conditions are all being protected. that's not true, madam president. we know of patients who have had to, because of their condition, leave the state in which they live to get specialty

care in other states. and when they have lost their insurance and have bought insurance through the plans of their state, children with cystic fibrosis seeking specialty care in boston are excluded from doing that under the plans because they bought the insurance in the state in which they live and the insurance that they got did not cover any out-of-state physicians. so children have been hurt by the president's health care law and we cannot identify those victims, those young victims of the president's health care law. we warned that the individual mandate will fail with the i.r.s. as an enforcer. the i.r.s. even admits they don't have a whole mechanism put together to make sure that the

mandate to fine americans for not buying a government-approved product would be collected by the i.r.s. and we warned that new i.r.s. taxes would harm small businesses. again, that initial diagnosis is now confirmed. small businesses are impacted all across the country by additional expenses and costs making it much harder for them to provide insurance to their workers. many looking at this and saying, you know, it might just be cheaper to pay the fine than to do what we would like to do and have done in the past, which is provide insurance that worked for those employers and their employees, but perhaps doesn't meet the president's recommendations of what many people say is much more insurance than they will ever need, want, use, or can

afford. the second report that we came out with a number of years ago is called "grim dig sis." and in that -- grim diagnosis." we went through a number of reports after the initial report on bad medicine. grim diagnosis provided warnings that the employer mandate would lower incomes and result in hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost. we're still watching that one very carefully because we do know with the employer mandate there have been stories of businesses with 50 employees saying we're going to have to get below 50, not going to hire more people, got to get below that number. the president's working to maybe make that a higher number, but no matter where that number line is drawn, people are finding that from a business standpoint, there are advantages of being below a certain number of employees, and then not having to comply

with the expensive mandates of the law. we warned that the law included a risky insurance scheme that would cost taxpayers dearly. that original diagnosis is confirmed as well. with something called the class act. and folks that looked at it carefully on both sides of the aisle called it a ponzi scheme, a ponzi scheme that would never work, could not be afforded. they said it was something that bernie madoff would even be proud of yet the democrats forced it into the health care law in spite of warnings against. and then our final report was called "warning, side effects." that was released in 2012 and we started talking about the side effects of the health care law. we warned that the law includes hundreds of billions of dollars

of tax hikes. well, that has been confirmed when all one has to do is looking at the list of new taxes brought on by the health care law. it goes on and on and on with one new tax after another, and these are taxes on real people that get passed on to others if they're applied to a business, and totaling a trillion dollars in gross tax increases over the next ten years. a trillion dollars from 2013 to 2022. we warn the new insurance cooperatives would waste taxpayer dollars, and that's exactly what this report confirms, and it goes state by state where we see significant wasting of money as reported in "the washington post" and in "usa today."

we warn the medical device tax would stifle innovation, and that original diagnosis has been confirmed as well. we see the medical device tax, h care law continues to be grim, that the points that we have made throughout continue to be true and the people all across the country are experiencing it day to day. they're experiencing it in their

lives. they're experiencing it when they try to continue health insurance that works for their family. they are paying more out of pocket. their premiums are higher. they may not be able to keep the doctor that they had and liked. they may not be able to go to the hospital that they have gone to. i mean, it's just interesting that in the state of new hampshire where there are 28 hospitals, 10 of them are excluded. ten of the 28 hospitals in the state of new hampshire are excluded from the insurance being offered on that state's exchange to be sold in that state. even the doctor who is the chief of staff of one of those hospitals, well, she is not, or her insurance does not permit her to go to the hospital where

she is the chief of staff. is this what the democrats had in mind when they passed this health care law? people paying more in premiums, people losing their doctors, not having access to the hospitals in their community, higher co-pay, higher deductibles? that's what the american people are facing. so i think it's time for the president of the united states to acknowledge the pain that his health care law has caused people across the country, and i know he watches the polls, and the polls continue to show that for every one person who says they may have been helped by the health care law, there are more than two people who say they have been harmed. people knew that we needed health care reform in this country, and they knew the reason. people knew what they wanted. they

and this health care law has failed to provide to the american people what they wanted what they asked for and what they are trying to deal with day to dhai the snoo senate shoved n the throats of the american people. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 30 minutes as if in morning business and to engage in a colloquy with the senator from maine. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: madam president, i come to the floor again today to talk about good jobs and how we

can work together in responsible and bipartisan way to create the kind of high-quality, lasting middle-class jobs that all of us herhear from our home states tht they wante want us to produce. as someone who worked for a manufacturing company before going into public service, i can tell you we can win in manufacturing. we can learn from our competitors. we can strengthen our workforce. we can strengthen our access to foreign markets. we can strengthen our access to credit. all of these we can do, and we can compete and win in advanced manufacturing in the united states. one of the things about my own experience in the private sector that has really stayed with me is that more of our manufacturing employment was in germany than in any other single country and that often seems unlikely, given that germany actually has higher labor costs, labor protections, environmental protections and in many ways higher costs of doing business

than almost any other advanced country. so how is it possible that they are so successful? in fact, moor thank twice the percentag-- infact, more than te percentage of their g.d.p. is in manufacturing than is in the united states? why would we fight to emulate germany's example? because manufacturing jobs are great jobs. as you know, as our colleague from maine knows we will, manufacturing jobs are high-skill, high-benefit, and have a high positive impact on their surrounding community but they also need ongoingegoing --y need ongoingrd. what we're going to talk about on the floor stayed bill that learns from the lessons of our most successful european competitor germany where they have more than 60 manufacturing hubs located all over germany. and these manufacturing hubs are places where universities doing cutting-edge keek any cal research, companies beginning to

deploy these new technologies in manufacturing and workforce that needs to acquire the skills to be successful in these new areas of manufacturing all work in coordination. that's something that we can by working in a bipartisan way here in this senate advance and advance rapidly here in the united states. so we're going to talk together today, the senator from maine and i, about a bill, the revitalize american manufacturing and innovation act, which has 14 cosponsors, an indication of its broad base of bipartisan support. it has long been led by senators brown of ohio and blunt of missouri, a bipartisan team, and they'vedded tthey've added to tl team, senator levin, senator schumer, dernlings and senator graham, senator kirk, senator collins, senator wicker, snos boozman, all republicans, appeared most recently our wonderful colleague, senator an guangus conditioning, an independent.

-- angus king, an independent. it has diverse support from across the country across many sectors. this is bill that i have reason to hope cannot just get a lot of endorsements from the private sector, not just endorsements from cosponsors in the senate but can actually move through regular order to be taken up and considered by the committee of jurisdiction to be then taken up and considered here on the floor and actually signed in to law. into law by the president of the united states. i am hopeful that this could happen. there are already a umin of hubs that can be established by federal agencies spending money that's already been authorized and appropriated for specific research areas for the department of energy and defense need do mo work to develop cutting-edge manufacturing capacity in the united states. but i think if this law gets taken up on a bipartisan base saywe've shot at advance ago

process that will be wide open, that will allow elements of the federal government in partnership with the private sector, leveraging cutting-edge research to deploy whole new technologies across this country. i am excit excited by it and i y colleague is as well. let msenator king has previously worked in the private sector on clean energy and has worked closely with the university of maine and has a answe sense of w publicly funded research at a cutting-edge university, investment in workforce skills and the deployment of new and innovative technologies and clean energy can work together to grow manufacturing, grow job opportunities and to grow an economy. so i'd like to invite my colleague to address his experience in maine and why he's joined this broad group of cospurnes thicog-- cosponsors o.

mr. king: i would like it thank my colleague from delaware fofor his leadership. he's really been indid he fatiguable. before i begin my remarks, madam president, i'd ask unanimous consent that bralen kathy, a fellow in might office be granted floor privileges for the remainer did of the congress. the presiding officer: without objection. conditioning cig a not an economist. i am a country lawyer from maine. but one of the things i know about any economy is, you can't build an economy by taking in each other's laundry. somebody somewhere has to make somebody. that's the basis of wealth creation. and somehow in the 1980's and 1990's earnldly port of this century, we sort of lost sight of that and manufacturing took an enormous hit, an enormous

hit. we lost 32% of our manufacturing jobs in the decade from 2000 to 2010, we lost 42,000 factories -- not people, 42,000 factories. so manufacturing was literally withering away in this country. and i think a lot of people sort of wrung their hands and said, oh, well, i guess that's just the way of the world. it's all going to asia, china, mexico, to low-wage countries. that's just the way it works. the problem is, as my colleague from delaware pointed out, germany has gone in the opposite direction, and they are a country that has the same standard of living, the same labor standards, the same employment cost levels, and yet 20% of their economy is based upon manufacturing whereas it's only 10% or 11% here in this country. so that tells me it's not

impossible. it tells me that there is an opportunity here and that we can't just lie back and say, well, i guess that's going to go. woe is us. that's never the way to seize the future. why do it? the senator from delaware has pointed out: better pay. in maine looking at the data, employees in manufacturing make twice as much, on average, as employees in other areas. twice as much. tremendous difference in pay. of course, better differences in benefits. also there is a big multiplier for manufacturing. manufacturing creates more jobs down the line and around a manufacturing facility. it's also better -- and i think this is important for national security. we are in danger of losing our industrial base, which is part of our national security infrastructure. if we can no longer make things,

whether it's destroyers at bath aaron works, or uniforms or boots or other things that are necessary to support our national security apparat is, we're in trouble. that's a danger to our country. that's a national security danger because if we're dependent upon other countries who may or may not be our friends for essential components of our national security infrastructure, that's a very dangerous and risky place to be. so that's not often talked about, but the maintenance of manufacturing jobs in the united states is a critical part of our industrial base and part of our national security strategy. manufacturing does more exporting, it brings money into our country. in maine, 83% of the exports from maine come out of the manufacturing sector. and that's bringing money into our country rather than sending

it out to other countries. also i think it's very important, madam president, to remember that this is a way of dealing with what i think is one of the most serious issues of our time, which is income inequality. it's the widening gap between those at the top and those at the bottom and what's really a concern is the stagnation and in fact the decline of the american middle class. manufacturing was the path into the middle class for our parents and grandparents. manufacturing -- the manufacturing resurgence after world war i and, by the way, part of that resurgence was based upon the g.i. bill, probably the greatest economic development program ever fostered by any government anywhere in the world. but that middle class is in danger. and one of the ways to preserve the middle class and to

strengthen it and to deal with this problem of income inequality is more manufacturing and more of those good jobs. just this year, madam president, -- this is the 100th anniversary of one of the most amazing and transformative actions in american corporate history. 1914 was the year henry ford doubled the pay of all his workers. everybody was astonished. his competitors were aghast. the advocates of unbridled capitalism said how can he do this? henry ford was a genius. in many ways. but one of his insights was he wanted his workers to be able to buy his products. and one of the problems in our economy today is a lack of demand. the people of the middle class don't have enough income to buy the products, and it becomes a downward spiral. it's a lack of demand that's

really at the heart of the weakness of the current economy and it's because people don't have a good enough jobs and they're not being paid enough. henry ford realized if he paid his workers more -- and, by the way, that munificent sum in 1914 was $5 a day but that was a doubling of what the rate of pay everywhere else in the american society at that time. that was a huge breakthrough intellectually, economically, and socially for this country. okay. we've talked about the losses. there is some good news. in the last two and a half years we've gained 500,000 jobs. we lost six million in that decade but now we've gained 500,000 back so something's happening. it's a lot of different things that are happening. the low price of natural gas i think is helping to rejuvenate manufacturing, i know it is in maine, i think there's more

innovation happening around the country, i've talked to manufacturers who have been offshore and have come back because they said, well, the offshore factory was a little cheaper, the labor costs were less but the hassle factor was higher and what i've learned is i can control costs, i can control transportation, i can control timeliness better if the manufacturing is here in the united states. so what do we do? what do we do if we want to increase manufacturing? we can't wave a wand here in washington, we can't say, well, go out and create jobs. we have to create an atmosphere that we can create jobs. when my little girl molly who is not so little anymore was in about the third grade i used to teach her things with pneumonics where you, you know, you say the three x's or the three y's or whatever, and in this case if she were here and she was still in the third grade i'd say it's the four p's, molly.

it's the four p's that are going to make this happen. the first is a plan. nothing happens without a strategy or a vision or a plan, and this bill has a vision of how to link innovation and the american economy and manufacturing in such a way as to create and rejuvenate this sector. a plan. you have to start with a plan or a vision. the second p is smairns. and this bill -- partnerships and this bill is based on partnerships. nothing good happens without partnerships. it's based on linking the academic world with the manufacturing world with government. putting those partnerships together, mostly universities and manufacturing, to create innovation, to create new jobs, to create new ways of building wealth. we don't have to look much further than silicon valley in california. that is a perfect example of a

natural born innovation hub. built around several knowledge factories. stanford university, the university of california, the university of san francisco. knowledge factories together with manufacturers created one of the greatest hotbed -- probably the greatest hotbed of innovation, creativity and new wealth creation this the history of this country, and perhaps in the history of the world. we want to create these kinds of hubs all over the country. putting together the academic community, the business community, to develop the capacity for innovation and creativity. i should mention it's not part of this bill, but the other thing i think we have to do a lot of thinking about here is the skills gap. i got a call right after my election from a chamber of commerce director in southern maine and he said senator, we wanted you to come down and talk

about jobs and i said okay, i will and i was prepared to talk about how to create and add jobs. he said no, it's not that. he said the problem is we've got 500 jobs and we can't fill them. these are good-paying jobs in manufacturing and we can't fill them. because the people that we need aren't available with the skills that we need. there's a mismatch. and i believe one of the things we have to do around here is think hard about how the programs, i think there's something like 59 different federal job training programs, how to integrate them, coordinate them, and focus them on business-ready jobs. not ten years ago jobs but the jobs of today and therefore i think the coordination and cooperation between business and the job training infrastructure has to be much closer than it is today. but that gets me to s. 1468.

i just think it's a wonderful idea. and one of the best parts of it is, that it's bipartisan. this is not an idea that is supported, you know, sherrod brown and roy blunt were the spearheads of it and we have people like roger wicker, the senator from mississippi, the senator from delaware, we've got a good bipartisan group from around country, geographically and across party lines, and this is what we have to do. why is it so important? because what drives new manufacturing jobs is innovation. when i was governor of maine, somebody gave me a cap that said "innovate or die." bill gailts once famously said every product we make today is going to be obsolete in five years. the only question is whether we make it obsolete or someone else does. innovation is the heart of this committee and that's why we have to put together the knowledge factories with the real

factories. the knowledge factories, the university, like the university of maine that has the advance composites lab that has created amazing new ways to deal with composites. one of their creations is the bridge in a backpack. it's a composite system which i've seen in action, they're long tubes made of fiberglas. you spread the tubes out, fill them with concrete, mold them into the shape you want and in three or four days have you a bridge. you can put the deck over. it's a wonderful system, it came out of the university of maine, now it's being used across the country. the other piece i like about this, this isn't a government program. government is the catalyst, the convener, the pulling together of these hubs, and that's i think our function. we shouldn't be doing it. we shouldn't be steering it. but we should be launching it

and that's what this bill is all about. does it solve all the problems of manufacturing? of course not. there are dozens of things that we have to do in order to support this industry, whether it's tax reform, job training, or innovation hubs and more support for r&d. all of those things we have to do. but this i think is one of the most important and don't want have to guess about it, it works in germany. they have twice the role for manufacturing in their economy as we do. it works. so let's say -- let's see what we can do here with the same idea. so i compliment the senator from delaware and the others who have led this bill. i'm just delighted to be able to tag along. i think this is a great idea, it really can make a

difference, and i think we'll see that difference in the coming years. madam president, thank you. i yield the floor. mr. coons: i'd like to thank my colleague from maine for sharing his personal experience both as governor and partnership with the university of maine and his understanding of the importance of the modern skilled work force and the work we're hoping to catalyze through this bill. if i were to summarize, this bill if enacted would take advantage of linkages, leverage and labor in a way that would grow lasting middle-class jobs. all of us want to work together to find a way to give american workers and families a fair shot, to give them a fair shot at the kind of middle-class quality of life that dominated over the last 50 years. and as my colleague said, it was because of the g.i. bill and its investment in education, it was because of innovation and competitiveness, because of a skilled work force that we were

able to come nature the world in manufacturing for much of the last 50 years and the last century. if we are to seize this moment and regain our global leadership not just in the productivity of our manufacturing but also in the base, in the employment of our manufacturing, we have to do the sorts of things that this bill imagines. we have research being done in national labs, in federally funded national labs, fundamental research that's wonderful. we have applied research on things like composites being done at the university of delaware and the university of maine and every other state university that does higher research. and we've got manufacturers trying to fake advantage of new technologies and new opportunities. the main thing this bill would do is to link them all together. to create regional hubs that allow the researchers, the private sector, and the and the new employees to all come together. it also as my colleague mentioned leverages private-sector funds. every one of the four hubs announced today is a more of one, in one case of eight to

one match of private-sector dollars to public sector dollars and lastly invests in training to make sure the work force is ready. i'd like to describe the reach of these linkages and partnerships in a moment but i'll yield back to my colleague from maine if i might. let me just take a second and take a watching tour if i could of the four hubs finalized so far. for example, the one in youngstown, ohio which deals with 3 d manufacturing. this is a relatively new cutting-edge technology that alters the scale of early stage manufacturing. what is possible in terms of prototyping and then i think fairly soon what is possible in terms of customized unit-by-unit manufacturing. it has enormous promise. but if we're going to stay competitive, when there is something new invented in the united states we have to make sure it's made in the united states. and so this is the sort of hub

that makes that possible. there's four hubs and i'll mention them, 2 one in ohio, one in raleigh, north carolina, one the detroit, one in chicago. burr they don't just engage the universities and the work force and the companies right in that immediate community. they benefit from national networks. so, for example, general dynamics and honeywell are two of the very large national footprint firms partnering with the youngstown hub. universities from arizona state to florida state are collaborating in the wide band gap semiconductor work in raleigh, north carolina. researchers from the university of kentucky, university of tennessee, notre dame and ohio state are partners with the hub that's in detroit. and there are researchers from boulder, indiana, notre dame, u.t. austin and wisconsin who are partnering with the hub in chicago. what are these hubs? just some diffuse academic team that shares names and a little bit of data with each other?

no, if there were, for example, to be a hub in maine on composites you'd find researchers at the university of delaware who have done great work on composites and companies doing work in composites partnering with the fundamental research being done say hypotheticalally at the university of maine and learning about how to deploy that new technology in ways that would benefit the local work force and local manufacturers. that's why there's so much leverage coming out of these linkages, why the hubs are so powerful in germany's experience. it is a way to harness our federal investment in research by the national labs and state universities with the energy of the private sector and the capacity of our manufacturers to relentlessly innovate. we have a very broad menu of bipartisan manufacturing bills that have been taken up and discussed in this chamber. this one, this manufacturing hubs bill, has some of the broadest support and i think some of the best reasons for it to be considered in committee and taken up on this floor later this spring and it is my real

hope our colleagues will join us in doing so. let me yield back to my colleague from maine. mr. king: i like the suggestion of a hub in maine, i wouldn't object to that. mr. coons: there's a footnote that says in delaware. mr. king: thank you. this is such an important idea. in my comments i outlined how we get here. we start with a vision or a plan which the bill entails, start with partnerships which is the essence of the bill but there are two more pieces, two more p's. one is per veerns. any member of this body knows about perseverance. that's what this place is all about. we have to stick to it. we have to not take no for an answer, listen to our colleagues, find out how they feel about the bill, try to form a consensus and then move this bill through. last friday was the 100th birth of ed muskie of maine. he was the father of the clean air act and the clean water

act, and talk about perseverance. he spent two years, hundreds of hearings, hundreds of hours of markup and ended up with that bill passing the united states senate unanimously. unanimously. that's a monument to perseverance. now, normally i would say those are the three p's -- plan, partnership, perseverance, but i think there is one more and i'm sure my colleague from delaware agrees with me. nothing is going to happen without passion. we have got to care about this. the people of america have to care about this. we have to say this is something we are going to do. we're going to rebuild the manufacturing center that made this country what it was, the sector that made this country what it was, and we're going to have to do it with passion and commitment, and i believe this bill is an opportunity to restart that process, and it will -- as i mentioned earlier, it can change us and provide

benefits everywhere from higher wages to better national security to a stronger middle class. a plan, a partnership, perseverance and passion. that's what changes the world. thank you, senator. mr. coons: i'd like to thank my colleague for joining me in this colloquy. on manufacturing more broadly and more specifically on this bill. i'm grateful for the leadership of senator stabenow and senator graham as the cochairs of the senate manufacturing caucus have shown and on this particular bill the passion and the perseverance that senators brown and blunt have shown in bringing this great idea into legislative form and in advancing it. there are so many other bills that we can and should take up that will bring strength and vitality to the american manufacturing sector, but it is my real hope that s. 1468, the revitalize american manufacturing and innovation act will be the next in a series of important bipartisan manufacturing bills that we will take up to make sure that we're doing our job to help grow high-quality american jobs.

with that, madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the chair was in error in striking down amendments 2877 and 2878. those amendments are reinstated. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: madam president, i rise to talk a little bit today about the affordable care act and its benefits to america's women. i want to thank senators murphy, boxer and whitehouse who have organized a few of us to come to the floor today. they will be on the floor later this afternoon. but with so much discussion in the news about the recent completion of the march enrollment period, over seven million people enrolled in the affordable care through the exchanges, i feel like it's a good time to look at some of the benefits of the act but also where there is more work to do. madam president, i know you have been very focused on the -- where there is more work to do, and i applaud you for that. i'll talk about some of those issues as well. but first, let me just start with a couple of virginia

stories because we hear stories from our constituents about the affordable care act. we have a 27-year-old woman in charlottesville who was diagnosed with uterine cancer. before the a.c.a., her previous insurance plan refused to cover her surgery because cancer was a preexisting condition, but she is now enrolled in a health plan under the a.c.a. and her doctor and hospital where she has planned the surgery were confirmed to be in the providers network. in alexandria, virginia, there is a woman by the name of aklia mori. she is 43 years old. she suffered a heart attack years ago and had been on an insurance plan that was extremely expensive. with her coverage about to end, she enrolled through the health plan marketplace. she found a plan with a reputable company with a premium of approximately $245 a month with co-pays and deductibles that were easy to understand.

angela harold from norfolk was able to purchase a plan on the exchange. she had a problem with the a.c.a. because she couldn't work the web site, but she didn't give up. she called the phone number and she was able to find a plan that is $85 a month with a tax credit. she works at a care facility for adults with autism, and she said she couldn't afford a plan that would have been $280 a month without the tax credit because she is under 200% of the poverty level, she gets a credit, she gets a plan for $85 a month and that makes her a more reliable employee. she said -- quote -- "it felt great. i finally got insured when she was able to enroll. madam president, i will tell the story about another great virginia woman, my wife, my wife's experience with the affordable care act. we had to buy insurance on the open market for the first time as a family in the summer of 2012. like any good husband who wants to get something done right, i asked my wife to do it. my wife comparison shopped with a couple of insurance companies.

two insurance companies told my wife we can give you insurance but we can only give you insurance for four of your five family members because of a preexisting condition. one because of me and one because of one of my kids. we have got to be just about the healthiest family in the united states. the only hospitalizations our family of five have ever had have been three times for childbirth for my wife. and yet insurance companies told her when she called in that we -- boy, i tell you, don't tell my wife we can insure four of your five family members, important safety tip. they told her that and she said that is now against the law. and the company said no, it's not. no, this is what we do. well, talk to your supervisor and call me back. it's against the law. and the company had to call back in both instances within a few hours and say you're right, it's against the law. here is a quote for your entire family. the a.c.a. is helping women and families in all circumstances. you know, people who were working in low-income jobs and can't afford insurance or people

who are well off like me but need protection from the former practice of denying people for preexisting condition. here's some ways the a.c.a. works for women in particular. the law eliminates the ability of insurers to charge higher rates due to gender. do you know that the unfair practice of charging women more, a gender rating system, was resulting in women in this country paying a billion dollars more in annual premiums than men prior to the a.c.a. passing? that's now illegal. nearly 30 million people are receiving free coverage for comprehensive women's preventative services, including diabetes, cancer screening, contraception and family planning, and that's an important benefit for women. and thanks to the affordable care act, both women and men are free from lifetime annual limits on insurance coverage in ten essential health benefits like hospital visits, prescription drugs. it's not only about health, the

a.c.a. is also helping the financial health of women and families. insurance companies under the a.c.a. are now subject to a national rate review provision if they want to increase premiums higher than 10%. in 2012 alone, those rate reviews saved 6.8 million americans an estimated $1.2 billion in premiums just in one year. insurance companies are also required to spend their premium dollars in a smart way. they have to spend at least 80% of premium dollars on patient care and quality improvement, and that's at least 85% for large insurers. in 2013, just in the calendar year 2013, 8.5 million americans received rebates averaging $100 per family because of this particular provision. an estimated 3.1 million young americans are able to stay on family policies. that's also affecting my family

in a positive way, up until age 26. and families with incomes between 100% and 400% of the poverty line are eligible for tax credits, so as an example, a family of four in virginia making $50,000 can access a health plan for premiums as low as $48 a month. health care for your family for less than your cell phone bill, for less than your cable bill. this is remarkable. and plans are required to limit families' out-of-pocket health care costs to less than $12,700 a year. now, madam president, like you, i'm a fixer. i'm not a repealer. i think there is a lot of fixes that are still needed in the affordable care act, and frankly in our health care system generally, not just in the affordable care act. there is more that we can do to make the a.c.a. work better for women and families. medicaid expansion is an example. a critical step that my state, virginia, has yet to take. without medicaid expansion,

uninsured women will face a coverage gap. with medicaid expansion, over 400,000 virginians will receive health care coverage. the a.c.a. was designed to provide subsidies and tax credits to individuals and families who are making between 138% and 400% of the confederate families. without medicaid expansion, it's these families, working people, working people who remain uninsured. we have also got to work on some proposals to continue to improve affordability and choice for all consumers. madam president, you have led an effort with others to put a number of positive reforms on the table, and let me just mention a couple that i am very excited about. the expanded consumer choice act, senate 1729, would create a new tier of coverage copper plans to give people shopping for health insurance more options to meet their family's needs. everybody's financial and health situation is different, and so more options is great because it gives people more abilities to meet their particular needs. that is, i think, a very, very important piece of legislation,

and you have played a leadership role in it. i support expanding the small business tax credit to incentivize more businesses to participate in the tax credit program, make it easier to access, easier for the small businesses to use. one i am particularly focused on, we need to close the family glitch loophole. that's not a technical term, family glitch flowing. the affordable care act says employees are eligible for subsidized health coverage through the new exchanges if the employer doesn't offer, quote, affordable coverage. but the way the law is written, the affordability definition only applies to the -- applies to the employee, not for the family coverage the employer may offer, so if an employer doesn't offer affordable family coverage, there is no eligibility for a subsidy for that particular very important coverage since most people's families are covered through their employer plan, i think that's an important thing we should fix. so look, there is plenty of

things to fix. there is plenty of things about our health care system outside of the affordable care act that we ought to be focusing on and fixing, but repealing the affordable care act, as some colleagues in this body and in the house continue to advocate, would mean turning back on all these advances, letting women be discriminated against because of gender, letting families be turned away because of preexisting condition, saying to folks don't worry, you're not going to get a rebate, they can charge you whatever premium they want. the last thing we need to do is repeal the a.c.a., go into the homes of now nearly ten million americans who have received coverage, yank that coverage back from them and put them back out in the wilderness of the individual market where they weren't protected before. what we need to be doing is embracing the good and embracing the fixes to make it better, and that is what i certainly intend to do working with my colleagues. with that, madam president, thank you, and i yield the

floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: i appreciate the comments of the senator from virginia. i think they were timely and important, and i wanted to add one note. the senator and i were in a hearing yesterday in the budget committee with three eminent economists, one a nobel prize winner, talking about the income inequality and the status of our economy and where we're going, but there was one aspect of the affordable care act that came up in the discussion that really has gotten essentially no play whatsoever, no discussion in the press or in the media, and i think in the long run it may turn out to be one of the most important aspects of the affordable care act. it came home to me two weeks ago. every wednesday morning, i have a coffee at my office here in the senate office building for anybody from maine that happens to be in town, whatever reason they are here, whether they are

touring or have business in washington, they can come in and have some blueberry muffins and some maine coffee. i met a couple there and the woman, they were down touring. she said by the way, thanks for supporting the affordable care act. i said well, that's great, i appreciate that. why -- why do you say that? and she said because i have been in a job for a number of years that i don't like, but i couldn't leave it because it was how i got my health insurance, and my husband doesn't have health insurance, so i had to stay in the job in order to keep the health insurance. she said now under the affordable care act, i have an option to get health insurance at a reasonable price, so i can leave this job and start my own business. there is actually, as i -- after i had this discussion, did i a little research, and it turns out there is an economic term for this. it's called job lock. and all over the country, there are thousands, perhaps even

millions of people, who are locked into a job where they are not feeling very appreciated, where they are not really enjoying it, where they are not expressing their productivity and their talents fully because they couldn't leave their insurance. now they can, and i believe -- there was a lot of talk around here about job creators. the job creators are the people that start businesses, the entrepreneurs, those are the job creators, and this, i believe, is going to lead to an explosion of new businesses, of people who don't have to stay in the job that they are in simply because of the health insurance but have the option to go out and start a business of their own because they can get their health insurance at a reasonable price through the affordable care act. so there is lots to discuss about the affordable care act, but this is one of the aspects of it that i think has been underappreciated, and i think as the years go on, we're going to see an increase -- we're going

to see a decrease in people uninsured, which we have already started to see, and we're going to see an increase in small businesses because people no longer have to stay in their jobs simply to maintain their insurance. madam president, thank you. i yield the floor.