where it is really, really hard to do so? i'm not quite sure what your objection is. tell me. tell me now or sit down with my staff and me and maybe we can work it out and do something of real significance for the veterans of this country. so, madam president, having said that, i would ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 297, s. 1950, that a sanders substitute amendment, the text of s. 1982, the comprehensive veterans health and military retirement pay restoration act be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time pafpbd and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. vitter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: reserving the right to object, i would again point out that i'm not only going to object to this, there are 43 senators who have serious

substantive concerns with this very, very broad and expansive bill. and those concerns and objections have been laid out. they have been laid out by my staff, in meetings with the staff of the senator from vermont. they have been laid out by the republican ranking member on the committee, senator burr. i share his general concerns about the bill. so if the distinguished senator from vermont doesn't understand those concerns, quite frankly, hasn't been listening very hard. we have laid them out, and they are shared by 43 senators versus a bill amended at the desk with no objection to its substance. none. 100-0. big difference. big difference. so on behalf of a total of 43 senators, i do object. the presiding officer:

objection is heard. mr. vitter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: retearing the tphraorbgs i would ask the -- retaining the floor i would ask the distinguished senator from vermont through the chair, he mentioned senator landrieu, has senator landrieu asked him to remove his objection to this bill so we can get a clinic in lafayette and lake charles, number one? number two, all those veterans groups he mentioned, do they oppose moving forward with this bill as it would be amended at the desk? do they publicly oppose moving forward with those 27 veterans' clinics? i would ask those two very important, pertinent questions to the senator from vermont through the chair. mr. sanders: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i believe at this point -- please correct me if i'm wrong -- i control the floor. is that correct? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. sanders: while my friend from louisiana is here, let me answer his questions. yes, senator landrieu has asked

me very forcefully to move forward on this provision on more than one occasion. and my response to senator landrieu, who voted for the comprehensive legislation, unlike thing, senator vitter, is the same. and second of all, what the veterans organizations of this country want is for the united states congress to recognize the very, very serious problems facing the veterans community. what i can tell my colleague from louisiana is that to the best of my knowledge, the veterans organizations have been to your office, and we are trying to get some specific objections as to why you are not supporting this legislation. and we have not gotten that. so i would say to my colleague from louisiana, come forward, tell me what you disagree with, what you have not really done yet. and i look forward to working

with you. i agree we have got to work together. i am offering you that opportunity. tell me what you don't like. let's get a piece of legislation that the veterans of this country need and want and will be proud of. and with that, madam president, i believe i have the floor. is that correct? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont is correct. mr. sanders: madam president, how much time do i have? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont has 53 remaining in his postcloture

time. mr. sanders: i would tell the colleague from louisiana i do not intend to be addressing this issue. mr. vitter: in that case i ask consent to wrap up this discussion in about 45 seconds. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. vitter: thank you. i thank my colleague. again, madam president, i think this is really unfortunate. i agree with what senator sanders said last november, where we have agreement, let's move it. we have agreement about these 27 clinics, 18 states, including lafayette and lake charles. let's move it. and i didn't hear him saying that any of those veterans organizations he continually cites oppose this, because they don't. because they take the commonsense approach that the huge majority of americans take. where there is agreement and we can constructively move forward for veterans, let's do it and let's build on that. finally, if senator landrieu has

forcefully asked you to remove your objection to this, apparently she's not being very effective. i think that's very unfortunate, because veterans in louisiana are suffering today. they have been waiting for this. they have been waiting for years for this, and they still wait even though there's no substantive disagreement with this bill. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. sanders: madam president, let me just respond. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: to say i stop my intention to get involved in louisiana politics but just to say senator landrieu voted for this legislation. she has been a champion of veterans rights, and i look forward to working with her on comprehensive legislation that will benefit all of the veterans of louisiana and the other 49 states. madam president, i want to change subjects if i might. i want to touch upon an issue which i believe is far and away the most significant issue

facing the american people, and that is a struggle not just to make sure that we can preserve and expand the vitally important programs, the life and death of tens of millions of middle-class and working-class families, programs like social security and medicare and medicaid; the issue we're discussing now is not just whether we must create the millions and millions of jobs that we need. real unemployment, madam president, is not 6.8%. it is close to 12%, and youth unemployment is close to 20%. we've got to create millions of jobs for our young people and for working families around this country. we have made some progress with the affordable care act just announced yesterday, about 10 million more americans will have access to health care who

formerly did not but we've got to go further. we've got to join the industrialized world which all of them have stated, every country has stated, that health care must be a right and not a privilege. and when we do that, medicare for all single-payer program, we can do that more effectively to end the absurdity of the united states spending almost twice as much per capita on health care than any other nation. all of those issues -- education, climate change -- enormously important for the future of this nation. but, madam president, i will tell you about the issue that is even more important than all of those, and that is whether or not we can prevent this country from moving to an oligarchic form of society in which virtually all economic and political power rests with a handful of billionaire families. now i know we don't talk about it too much.

most people do not raise that issue. certainly we don't see it in the corporate media. that is the reality. right now in america we have by far the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth. what we're looking at is the top 1% owns 38% of the financial wealth of america. madam president, i have very little doubt that the overwhelming majority of americans have no idea what the bottom 60% -- top 1% owns 38% of the wealth of america. bottom 60% owns all of 2.3%. and that gap between the very, very rich and everybody else is growing wider and wider. you've got one family, one family -- the walton family that owns wal-mart -- owns more wealth than the bottom 40% of the american people.

and in terms of income, the situation is equally bad. in the last number of years since the wall street collapse, 95% of all new income has gone to the top 1%. so you'll have an economic situation where the middle class is disappearing, more people living in poverty than any time in the history of the united states, 22% of our kids living in poverty, the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on earth. and all the while middle class disappears, more and more people living in poverty, people on top are doing phenomenally well. almost all new income goes to the top 1%. but, madam president, it is not just growing disparity in terms of income and wealth. that's enormously important. but it is what is happening to the political foundations of america.

what we are now seeing as a result of citizens united -- and we're going to see it more as a result of the disastrous supreme court decision of today, mcmccutchen, will enable the billionaire class to play a bigger role in terms of our political process. madam president, the koch brothers are worth about $80 billion. $80 billion. they are the second-wealthiest family in america. and working with other billionaires like sheldon adelson, the kochs are prepared to spend an unlimited sum of money to create an america shaped by their right-wing extremist youth. and i mean unlimited. madam president, if your income went up -- and i know you're not quite there in this status -- from $68 billion to $80 billion

in one year, $12 billion increase in your wealth, and you believe passionately as the koch brothers do in this right-wing agenda, why would you hesitate spending $1 billion, $2 billion on the political process? last year barack obama and mitt romney spent a little bit more than $1 billion for their entire campaigns. these guys can write that check tomorrow and it will be 1/12th of what their income is. doesn't mean anything to them. it is $50 to you. it is $1 billion to them. so, madam president, we have got to be very, very careful that we do not allow this great country where people fought and died to protect american democracy become a plutocracy or an oligarchy. and that, frankly, is the direction in which we are moving. i suspect that many of our fellow americans saw a spectacle in las vegas. and this was not the usual las

vegas spectacle, the great shows that they have there. this was the sheldon adelson spectacle. this is what the spectacle was last weekend. sheldon adelson said to prospective republican candidates for president, he said why don't you come on down to las vegas and tell me what you can do for me, because i'm only worth $20 billion. i am only the largest gambling mogul in the world, but $20 billion isn't enough. so i want you to come to las vegas and tell me what favors you can give me if you happen to be elected president. and, by the way, if you sound the right note, if you kind of do what i like, i may put a few hundred million into your campaign. maybe if i'm feeling good, i'll throw $1 billion into your campaign. and the media dubbed this the adelson primary. what primaries generally are about is hundreds of thousands of republicans get together; they vote on who they want their

candidate to be in a state. democrats do the same. candidates make an appeal to ordinary people to get votes. some of us are old-fashioned and see that as democracy. i come from a state which proudly has town meetings. i have held hundreds of town meetings in my state. i know it's old-fashioned. i know it's getting out of step. but i actually listen to what people have to say. and they walk in the door free and occasionally we actually even serve some lunch. and you don't have to be a billionaire to ask me a question. and i answer questions, and i talk to people. i understand that that's old-fashioned, not the way we do it anymore. the way we do it now is the adelson way. walk in the door and they'll give you hundreds of millions of dollars or come to a campaign fund-raiser, and if you make the largest contributions, tens of thousands of dollars, i'll listen to you. but, madam president, we have got to turn this stuff around.

because if we don't, we're going to end up in a situation where not only the economy of this country is going to be controlled by a handful of billionaires and large multinational corporations, we're going to be living in a country where the political process is controlled. somebody mentioned to me -- and i don't know, maybe i'll introduce this legislation. you know what nascar is? when these guys who drive the racing cars and they have on their coats being sponsored by this or that oil company or this or that tire company. maybe we should introduce that concept here in the senate. and you can have a patch on your jacket which says, i am sponsored by the koch brothers. 87% of my funding comes from the koch brothers. maybe we'll give you a special jacket. then you've got the adelson guys, you've got this person and that person. but it might tell the american people why we continue as a body to give more tax breaks to billionaires and yet we're having a heck of a tough time raising the minimum wage to

$10.10 an hour. it might tell the american people why we do nothing to close corporate loopholes but we're having a hard time addressing pay equity in america so that women get the same wages that men do. and i just want to say, you know, madam president, i think when you talk about issues like campaign finance, a lot of americans say, well, yeah, it's a problem but it doesn't really relate to me. and let me suggest to you, it absolutely does relate to every man, woman and child, because it's imperative that people understand what the agenda is of the koch brothers, for example. these are people who have been very clear that they want massive cuts in social security or the privatization of social security. they want massive cuts in medicare or the voucherrization of medicare. massive cuts in medicaid. and as some of the largest polluters in america in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, the koch brothers want to crack down on the ability of the e.p.a. to

regulate pollution. these guys want to cut back on funds for education so that our kids can afford to go to college. so if you think that this issue of campaign finance does not relate to your life, you are very, very mistaken. we are moving toward a situation where people with huge sums of money are going to spend unlimited amounts to elect candidates who reflect an extreme right-wing agenda, which will make even the wealthiest people in this country even richer while continuing at tax against the middle class and working families in this country. now, madam president, i would just conclude by saying this -- and i mean quite honestly -- as somebody who grew up in a family that didn't have a lot of money and as somebody who represents the great state of vermont, where people constantly tell me, you know, just they ask for so little, they ask for so little.

and i've heard veterans say, "well, i don't want to use the v.a. because some other veteran really may need it more." or "i don't really need this program, somebody else may need it more." i don't understand how it is that people worth $80 billion are spending huge sums of money to become even richer. even richer. and they're doing it by trying to attack the programs that are life-and-death for the elderly. why would you want to cut social security when you're worth $80 billion and you have more money than you can dream of for retirement? why would somebody want to do that? when you're worth billions and you have the best health care in the world, why do you want to make massive cuts in medicare or medicaid? what motivates somebody with so much money to go to war against working families and the middle class? i, frankly, don't understand that and i can only think that this has to do with power, the drive for more and more power,

the thrill it must be to tell candidates, "you want my support; this is what you have to do." but i think this is just a -- a huge issue that we as a nation have got to address. too many people have given up their lives to fight for american democracy to see this nation, this great nation, be converted into a pliew to come y orioloroligarchy. and with that, madam president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: madam president, you can tell us the order of business pending on the floor at this moment, please. the presiding officer: the senate is considering h.r. 3979. mr. durbin: madam president, i ask consent to speak for 10 minutes in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you, madam president. let me start by commending my colleague from vermont.

what happened across the street today at the u.s. supreme court will be lost on most americans. they can't understand why they should even care about it. because the supreme court was asked whether or not it was proper under the law to limit the number of federal campaigns and the total dollars that an individual can give to candidates. and to no one's surprise, the supreme court said there should be no limitation. people can give as much money as they want to, as many federal candidates as they want with no limitation. so most americans will say, "so what? you know, these politicians, they run against one another during the campaigns. both sides spend too much money. i'm sick and tired of their ads. i don't care how you pay for it. it's all bad." but i have to say, senator sanders put his finger t on it. what's at issue here is not just how we finance campaigns, it's who we elect. and what we're faced with is a supreme court across the street

that celebrates oligarchs. they happen to believe that the wealthiest people in america deserve the strongest voice in american politics. i couldn't disagree more. and, sadly, many of us are caught up in this -- this system of campaign financing where we literally have to raise millions of dollars to run for election and reelection. in my state, multimillionaires running for the highest offices against what i consider to be mere mortals, those of us who aren't in the multimillionaire class, trying to compete with them, always wondering if tomorrow the koch brothers -- $80 billion net worth -- will say, "oh, spend $10 million there. spend $20 million there." last election cycle, i'd say to my friend from vermont, as best we can count, in the last election cycle, the koch brothers -- k-o-c-h -- not to be confused with the soft drink -- the koch brothers spent over

$250 million in that campaign. i think the figure, frankly, is much higher. and the suggestion is they're going to double that spending this time. they've already spent $10 million in the state of north carolina with negative television advertising for 12 months against the democratic incumbent, senator kay hagan. 12 months of negative tv ads trying to beat her down so that they can defeat her in november. make no mistake, there's a lot of money being spent on both sides, but these oligarchs -- sheldon adelson, this man who runs, as you've said, senator, i guess one of the biggest gambling operations, maybe is the wealthiest man when it comes to that, in the united states, maybe in the world. he's become a player. can you imagine if those who want to run for the republican nomination for president come hat in hand, land at the las vegas airport and walk into a room and see if they can say something that appeals to this

man who's worth billions of dollars? last time he fell in love with newt gingrich and he was going to make newt gingrich president. people in many of the republican primaries saw it differently. well, this time he wants to pick another horse to ride. why are the richest people in america so intent on owning our political process? because they have an agenda. they have an agenda. it isn't just because they love the constitution. they have an agenda, an agenda which makes the tax code work for them, an agenda which makes sure that government spendings in things that aren't priorities for them is reduced. we saw some of that yesterday, didn't we? when congressman paul ryan in the house of representatives introduced his budget, his vision of what america should look like. what is it? well, it's a budget that cuts back on some basic things. let me tell you one thing that the ryan budget cuts back on that everybody listening to this

debate ought to take note of. the ryan budget cuts domestic discretionary spending for medical research. medical research. seriously. today happens to be world autism awareness day. do you know a family with an autistic child? do you have any idea what they're going through? i know a few. sadly, the number of people suffering from autism and the autism spectrum of disorder seems to be growing by the day. and you look at these families struggling, strug ling strugglie their son or daughter a chance, and you think to yourself, if we only knew a little bit more about this disease, if we only knew a little bit more about the human brain, if we only could see this coming and do something to avoid it, if we could find a way to treat it, what a difference it would make for all of these families on world autism awareness day.

the answer from congressman ryan is, cut back on medical research. that's not the answer. that's not the answer for any of us. god forbid you go to the doctor's office tomorrow with a child and the doctor tells you something awful has happened. but you know the first question you'll ask the doctor? is there something you can do, is there a medicine, is there a procedure? how many families have been in that position, where they've asked that question, praying to god the answer is "yes." the answer will not be "yes" when we cut back on medical research. the answer is going to be "no." that's why we have to really reflect on our priorities not only in congress but in elections. if we're going to let people take over the american political scene through the citizens united case across the street or the mccukutchon case which was decided today, we're going to take it to people who are

totally out of touch with american families and american working families that. would be a serious mistake. and while we're on the subject, these are the first people in line who want to eliminate the affordable care act. i was in the rose garden yesterday, invited by the president with a large group to celebrate the announcement of more than 7 million americans, 7.1 million americans have now enrolled by the deadline under the affordable care act. more than 7 million. and more than 3 million young people fresh out of college, looking for jobs are covered by their mom and dad's health insurance while they're looking for work. 7 million, 3 million. then add another 8 million people across america who now have health insurance protection through medicaid, meaning their income is so low that they qualify for this basic health insurance. add those numbers up and they come somewhere in the range of 15 million, 18 million people benefited by the affordable care act. people who until they had this

opportunity, some of them, many of them had no insurance. i met them. i've met them cross my state. i've met those in downstate illinois who worked all their lives, they're 62 years old. this woman who's a friend of mine, never had health insurance one day in her life. never missed a day of work in her light. now she's got the protection o of -- never missed a day of work in her life. now she's got the protection of health insurance at age 62 for the first time and thank god she does. she's just been diagnosed with die beessmentdiabetes. she's got a chance now because of health insurance. and what's the response from the other side? get rid of it, repeal it, it's a waste, too much government. well, let me tell you, we're not going back. we're not repealing. oh, we can make it better and we ought to do it on a bipartisan baiz but wbasis, but we are notg the affordable care act. what does repealing the affordable care act mean to the rest of us who have health insurance?

the affordable care act guarantees that if you have a child or a spouse with a medical condition, a medical history -- asthma, diabetes, survived cancer -- you cannot be discriminated against when you buy health insurance. what we're talking here is about giving families a fair shot at affordable health insurance, giving them a fair shot even if their child is born with a serious medical issue. and, secondly, the affordable care act says when you sell me a health insurance policy, it ought to be worth something when i need it. they used to sell these policies and put limits on them. god forbid tomorrow you're diagnosed with cancer and you're facing radiation, therapy, chemotherapy, surgery, hospitalizations. but there's a limit on your policy and pretty soon you bust through the limit and now it's all coming out of your meager savings. that's the number-one reason people declare personal bankruptcy in america -- health

bills. well, the affordable care act puts an end to that and says your health insurance policy has to be there in an amount when you need it. third thing it says, if you're a senior citizen getting prescription drugs, there used to be something called the doughnut hole. it was a crazy thing, you couldn't even explain it. wait a minute, i pay for prescription -- no, wait a minute, i don't pay for prescription drugs for the first three months of the year and then i pay for them for four months and then the government pays for them the rest of the month? called the doughnut hole. made no sense at all. we closed the doughnut hole, saying to seniors, we're going to make sure that your prescription drugs are covered and you don't have to pay out of pocket. and you can get that annual checkup that you need to stay healthy. those who want to repeal the affordable care act want to do away with that. and that is just plain wrong. and as i mentioned earlier, if you happen to be a family with a child urn the ag under the age p that child on your health insurance plan while they're finishing college and looking for a job, maybe getting that

first job that may not be the best, may not have benefits, they're still covered under your policy. have you as a parent ever called your 24-year-old daughter and asked her, as i have, "jenny, got health insurance?" "no, dad, i'm fine. don't worry about me." huh, right. i'll stay up all night worrying about you. you don't have to anymore under the affordable care act. those who want to repeal it want to go back to those days where young people had no health insurance protection. we are not going back. we can make this bill stronger and better and i'll work to do t for the millions of americans who now have a chance at affordable, accessible health insurance, we are not turning the clock back. one other thing worth mentioning: not only are millions now under health insurance, the good news is for the last five years, since we passed this bill, the rate of increase in cost for health insurance has been going down. yes, going down, not as fast as we want it to, but it used to be trending up in a way we couldn't

even manage or control. now we're moving in the right direction. in terms of health care cost. so for those who come to the floor of the senate or the floor of the house growling and whining about the affordable care act, the good news is, this debate is over in america. the affordable care act is here to stay. we can make it better. we should work to make it better. we should do it on a bipartisan basis. but there are 18 million reasons why we're not going to repeal the affordable care act. 18 million americans who have the peace of mind of health insurance because of this law. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer my amendment, number 2935. the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. durbin: reserving the right to object, mured t in ordt

this bipartisan emergency legislation completed pend on the floor and benefit 2.7 million americans, i would object to my colleague's amendment. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. flake: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be dispensed with and i be permitted to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. flake: thank you, mr. president. i think it is unfortunate that we're not allowing amendments to be offered here. if we're extending unemployment benefits, the least we ought to do is make it easier to find a job. and, unfortunately, there's little in the legislation to do that. i'd like to talk about for a minute one area that we could offer some help and relief in, and just hearing some of the discussion over the past few minutes in this chamber, it seems that this chamber has become an echo chamber for happy-talk about the affordable care act.

unfortunately, for those who talk about figures, enrollment figures and whatever, we seem to forget about the number of people who had their health care canceled. they may have been able to pick up new coverage under the affordable care act, but it is hardly -- hardly affordable. in fact, in most cases, the cost has gone up significantly. so i'm here today to join a number of my colleagues who are seeking to offer amendments, like i said, to this legislation to make it easier for those who don't have jobs to more easily access jobs. as we all know, the a.c.a., or the affordable care act, placinged requirementplacing-- d makeandmakes required to be cov. i think they named ten health care benefits, "essential" being used loosely, like pediatric dentistry and mental health. we've all heard stories about

those who are squeezed by the new mandate's regulations and for many it isn't higher premiums or deductibles, co-pays or even greater out-of-pocket costs. that's the case for most but not all. i think all of us should freely acknowledge that some people have been able to buy more affordable care, but i think those examples are overshadowed completely by those who are facing higher costs. the "wall street journal" noted in march 22 article, they cited an ehealth article that the average premium was $274 a month, up 39% from last year before the a.c.a. provisions took effect. the same article reported that family plans averaged $663 a amongst. that's a 56% increase from last year. the facts -- these facts have

real-world implications that have a bearing on both a family's financial realities as well as their employment. for instance, i have referenced before the case of leann from eager, arizona. her family is facing what she calls sky-high rates now. this is thanks to the affordable care act. if it isn't bad enough, it looks as if she and her husband will have to put off buying their parents' business. in january i introduced the relief act as a response to the administration's announcement that those facing health cancellations due to the a.c.a. will be able to enroll in catastrophic coverage. the relief act would allow health insurance providers to offer catastrophic plans to everyone, and it would deem these plans as meeting the minimum essential coverage requirement. the bottom line is, if we're going to delay benefits -- delay

mandates on the affordable care act or delay implementation of certain parts of the affordable care act for some, we ought to do it for everyone. i get a real kick out of hearing everyone reference the happy-teak tal-talk about the ae care act, but the reality is that much of it has been delayed or postponed or changed. if there are no problems with it why do we keep doing it? and if we're doing it for some, why don't we delay the mandates for everyone? or allow others to buy more affordable coverage by giving some relief on these mandates? this relief act that i've introduced will allow health providers, as i mentioned, to offer catastrophic plans that may cost a lot less that families used to be able to access and simply no longer can because too few insurance companies will offer them because, at a certain point, they'll have to offer compliant

plans that are much, much more expensive. my goal is to provide affordable insurance options and give individuals who don't have -- don't need or don't want more expensive coverage options to purchase these plans. i filed the relief act to this bill as an amendment. i had hoped to bring that up. that was the purpose of the unanimous consent request that was just rejected. it, unfortunately, appears that very few, if any, amendments will be offered -- will be allowed to this legislation. i think that's unfortunate. if we are concerned about the unemployment, as i know we all are, then we ought to at least offer them alternatives, offer them ways to more easily find employment, to give them some more relief. i yield back my time and suggest the absence of a quorum. ms. stabenow: mr. president, i would suggest a suspension of the quorum call, if one has been

ordered. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you very much, mr. president. i came to speak about the economy and lifting folks up in terms of wages, but i do want to respond to the last discussion in terms of health care for a moment, because part of making sure every family has a fair shot is to make sure they have a fair hot to ge shot to get the e they need. folks are going to get what they paid for. they can't get dropped if they get sick or if their child has a condition. they are going to know that they can get insurance without preexisting conditions. but it is also going to be incredibly important going forward for women. as the person who offered the provision to include maternity care, i do want to say to my

friend, who just spoke, that prior to health reform, about 60% of the plans in the private market wouldn't provide maternity care for women, amazingly. being a woman was viewed as a preexisting condition. because you might be child-bearing age -- or maybe you're not. i remember hearing from one young couple where the husband couldn't get insurance because his wife was of child-bearing age, couldn't get maternity care. not true anymore. not true anymore. and thank goodness. the comprehensive care that the friends on the other side call "regulations on insurance companies," that regulation is a requirement that women can get maternity care, a requirement that we treat mental health and physical health the same in terms of insurance, which by the way affects one out of four

people in our country. so i think that it's a good thing, and we can always improve on it -- and we will -- to make it better and listen to concerns and do what needs to be done to make it work better. but i think the fact that families now have a fair shot to get health care coverage and not as parents just go to bed worrying about whether or not the kids are going to get sick is a good thing. and i'm glad that, in fact, we are moving forward in a positive way. mr. president, let me tell you now about a business owner who said that minimum wage wasn't good enough, wasn't good enough, and his employees needed more. so he doubled everybody's wages. he doubled everybody's wages and people thought he was crazy. he was shunned by the business community. people said he'd go bankrupt.

his name was henry ford. henry ford. and because of his decision to pay his workers $5 a day -- which was unheard of 100 years ago -- he became one of the richest men in america. because of that decision. but when he first announced the $5 workday, not everybody was happy. economists had a fit, ford's exeatserford'scompetitors were e wall street elite were calling the $54a day an economic crime. they said ford wouldn't be competitive in the economy anymore. they questioned his judgment and business sense. and, mr. president, they were wrong. his decision to pay his workers $5 a day not only was a brilliant business decision, it created the middle class of this country, and we're very proud in

michigan that it started with us. 100 years ago, $5 a day was a lot of money. a loaf of bread cost 6 cents. a gallon of milk cost about 35 cents. at 3:00 a.m. the day after henry ford made his announcement, a bitterly cold day in detroit, something -- something started to happen down woodward avenue. picture it: it's the middle of the night. we have a lot of cold nights. we also have a lot of warm nights. but we have a lot of cold nights in michigan. and people all around detroit at 3:00 in the morning began walking through the snow-covered streets to woodward and manchester, the site of ford's highland park plant. a line was forming, getting longer every minute.

tens and then hundreds and then thousands of people getting in line. traffic came to a standstill. there were too many people in the road for the cars to get by. the hours passed, the lines get longer, and by 10:00 a.m. there were 12,000 people standing in line, waiting in the freezing cold for the chance to get one of those jobs. one of those $5-a-day jobs that henry ford was offering. to be able to work hard, get that job, and build a better life. they were just looking for a fair shot to get ahead. just like the millions of workers today who work 40 hours a week, like that single mom who scrubs floors working 40 hours a week and still lives in poverty. and the millions of other

americans still looking for work. like most americans and like those ford workers 100 years ago, they just want a shot to work hard and play by the rules and be able to get ahead for their families. henry ford knew that when his workers had money in their pockets, when they had enough known put food omoney to put fo, it meant they could afford to buy one of those cars that they were building at the plant. in fact, that's what he said when folks called him crazy. he said, i want to make sure i got somebody who can afford to buy my car. for families in 1914, a job in a ford factory was a ticket to the middle class. and that is still true today. henry ford knew that paying a higher wage would mean happier

workers, lower turnover. instead of workers who were frustrated about not being able to make ends meet, henry ford had loyal, happy workers who were proud to work for him. and this meant greater productivity and greater profits. because if the workers could make more cars, he could sell more cars. and if he could sell more, then they can make more -- they could make more. this was a win-win situation. henry ford made more money than he had ever dreamed of. his workers made more money than they had ever dreamed of. and the effects this new wage had on ford's employees were deeper thn that are wallets. in the first three weeks after the raise began, more than 50 of his employees applied for marriage licenses because they

said they could now afford to get married and start a family. a lot of folks talk about the importance of family. being able to have money in your pocket to be able to get started in life is a pretty big deal. and when the workers make enough money to live on, they also spread the wealth. their local grocery stores and restaurants and hardware stores and others all benefited from the increase in wages. we saw this all around the neighborhood, all around the plant in 1914. a sandwich cart operator near the plant was interviewed about the new wages by "the detroit news" in february of 1914 and he said -- quote -- "i'm for this raise in wages. i sell nearly twice as much as i did a month ago." those who sold food and goods like hats and scarves and gloves near the plant said the same thing. one vendor even said if things

keep going like this, he would have to hire a new employee. hire a new employee. because wages went up. to help out with his new business. it's really simple, mr. president. when workers have more money in their pockets, they have more money to spend at businesses large and small. when businesses have more customers, they can pay their workers better, they can hire more of them, they have more money in their pocket, they go out and buy more things. that's called the demand part of the economy. colleagues are always talking about supply side. let's just give it to the top and it will trickle done -- down. most people in michigan are holding their breath, waiting for it to trickle down. but we know if you put it in the pocket of workers, of people who are, frankly, fighting to hold on to stay in the middle class, or working to get into

the middle class, you create the demand side of the economy and as henry ford found out, things started churning. this kind of cycle that henry ford helped create in michigan and america a hundred years ago is what we need to do today. to restore our economy. but we can't do that with the minimum wage that has lost most of its value in the past few decades. those ford workers worked hard, they saved their money, they bought homes, they built communities, they gave their children opportunities like being able to go to college. in michigan by the little cotdage up north, maybe the boat, maybe the snowmobile, going hunting on the weekends, be able to enjoy life. the middle class.

because of what was done by doubling people's wages when everybody said henry ford was crazy, we created the middle class of this country. but today, everything workers have worked for in the -- and the middle class they built with their elbow agrees elbow agrees is at risk. the federal minimum wage has been stuck at $7.25 for nearly five years. that single mom with two kids working for minimum wage today earns about $15,000 a year, which is $4,000 below the poverty level. that's not right. work 40 hours a week, make less than the poverty level? that's not how we built the middle class a hundred years ago, and it's certainly not how

we're going to grow it today. too many americans feel like they're trapped in a rigged game where heads the wealthy win and sales, they lose. -- tails, they lose. what we need is an economy that gives everybody a fair shot. that's what we are fighting for, that's what we believe in, that's what we are promoting in everything we do, a fair shot for everybody and an economy that creates opportunity for everybody, not free shot, fair shot. for everybody to work hard and make it. being rewarded for your hard work is what makes this country great. you can take a good idea, you can work hard, you can build a better life, that's the american dream. today there's less opportunity for people to do that, unfortunately. people need to have the chance to build something.

to create a career, a company, a future, or we'll fall behind the rest of the world. they need a fair shot. they deserve a fair shot. the middle class we built over the last hundred years could cease to exist if we don't act together and understand what really drives the economy. so to turn things around we need to make sure that people can get jobs that pay a fair wage, just like we had a hundred years ago. and let me talk about what that means. we can start by raising the minimum wage. what's appalling to me today is that the $5 a day that henry ford paid his workers for eight hours of work is the equivalent of $14.67 an hour. if you look at what henry ford did that drove the economy,

that created the middle class, today we would be talking about $14.67 an hour. think about that for a minute. the millions of americans across this country today who are working for minimum wage are only making the equivalent of half of what henry ford paid his workers a hundred years ago. meanwhile, the average c.e.o. in this country today now makes as much as the wages of 933 minimum wage workers combined. i couldn't fit that quite in here, mr. president. but imagine 933 people -- i don't know if we could -- all together, working 40 hours a week, minimum wage, maybe working two or three jobs a week

, combined, equals the average salary of the average c.e.o. mr. president, we're going to start taking this country and working-class people forward again only if we understand that everybody deserves a fair shot to get ahead and we start doing something intit. about it. that's why we're going to be voting soon on the fair minimum wage act which does just what it sounds like. it makes sure all of our workers are getting paid a fair wage. $10.10 an hour, not even as much as i was talking about with henry ford. $10.10 an hour is the right number because it gets people out of poverty. that's the number that gets people out of poverty. some places across the country are seeking a minimum wage hike that are higher than that while too many states are stuck at

$7.25 an hour which is the national average. the bill before us in the senate strikes the right balance, raising the minimum wage to the point where people are above the poverty line and at least they have a fair shot to get ahead. if it made sense for henry ford in 1914, it makes sense for us today in 2014. and the american people know this, mr. president. that's why raising the minimum wage enjoys broad bipartisan public support. if the public were voting, this thing would be done. democrats, republicans, independents understand a -- that it makes sense. just like henry ford realized a hundred years ago, if families are making more money it's better for everybody in the the economy, and better for taxpayers. all of us for taxpayers, higher

salaries mean we're not paying so much on food assistance if we can hit $10.10 an hour we are saving money on snap. people who will not be needing or qualifying for food assistance anymore. that's the way to cut the food assistance, the right way, give people access to work that pays above poverty. give people a hand hold on the ladder of opportunity. this is about the future of our country. if we want to continue to be a world leader, we have to make sure everybody has a fair shot to a good education, a fair shot to get a good job, to start a business, and a fair shot to make enough money when they do that to be able to support their family. nobody who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty. and yet that is exactly what is

happening today. we can change that. we can change that. we can do what henry ford did. we can understand and businesses can understand that this man became one of the wealthiest men in the world by lifting people up and giving them a fair shot with a fair wage. i hope in a few days, in the next little while that we're going to do that. the american people get it. i hope we will, too. thank you, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. yes, i would withhold. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: thank you, mr. president. i would ask to speak in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: thank you, mr. president. this morning the supreme court announced its decision in mccutchen v. federal election commission. the latest in a series of rulings that have done away with any meaningful limits on money in politics. since the supreme court issued its ruling in citizens united in 2010 we've witnessed the systematic unraveling of our nation's campaign finance laws. i'm sure that this is a cause for celebration for some, the super wealthy and well funded corporate interests because these rulings give them more influence, more access, and more power as if they need it. then there's everybody else. everyday folks in minnesota and around the country who don't have the luxury of pouring millions of dollars into political campaigns. there's a senior on a fixed

income who gives $25 to the candidate she likes, maybe someone fighting to contain the cost of prescription drugs. that $25 donation, that's real money for that senior, but it's nothing compared to the $25 -- $25 million the pharmaceutical industry can spend to elect the other candidate. there's a middle-class mom who is just -- has just enough money to buy her kids school clothes but surely doesn't have enough left over to buy an election, too. and there's a small business owner in the suburbs who is so concerned about making payroll that she can't even begin to think about making a huge campaign contribution. our democracy can't function the way it's supposed to when these voices are drowned out by a flood of corporate money. so for those who believe that the measure of democracy's

strength is in votes cast, not dollars spent, well, for us there's nothing to celebrate today. citizens united was in my view one of the worst decisions in the history of the supreme court. by a 5-4 margin the court ruled that corporations have a constitutional right to spend as much money as they want to influence elections. big oil wants to spend millions of dollars to attack a guy who is advocating for more renewable fuels, the supreme court says sure, go ahead. huge corporations want to run endless radio ads against a candidate who promises to raise the minimum wage, the supreme court says fine, go ahead. the wall street banks want to pour money into a campaign to undo consumer protection laws, the supreme court says that that's their constitutional right.

so there's not much that you can do about it. that's the way the court sees it. but it's not that way as i see it. it's not that way -- it's not the way most minnesotans see it, either. i -- i think we should be able to say enough is enough, that there is too much corporate money in politics, that some reasonable limits on campaign spending are not just appropriate, they're necessary. and really, that's what citizens united was all about, the case that got us into this mess. it sort of came down to the question can we, the people, place any real limit on the amount of money that corporations spend on elections? the answer should have been yes, of course we can, but five supreme court justices said no, no, we can't. the austin -- i'm sorry. their logic was unprecedented,

literally unprecedented. to reach the result it did, the supreme court had to overturn a case austin v. michigan chamber of commerce. a case -- the decision had been on the books for 20 years. overturning austin wasn't some minor technical change to the law. it was a radical shift, an exercise in pro-corporate political -- judicial, rather, activism. just compare what the court said about corporate campaign expenditures in austin to what it said 20 years later in citizens united. in austin, the court refused to strike down a michigan law that limited corporate spending on elections. the court explained that the law served a -- quote -- compelling interest -- namely preventing corporations from gaining an unfair advantage in the political system. the austin court said that -- quote -- corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections.

those are the supreme court's words in 1990, that corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections. the court explained that campaign finance laws prevent -- quote -- the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form, end quote. in other words, there is good reason -- no, a compelling reason to be worried about unlimited corporate money in politics. had today's supreme court followed precedent, citizens united would have been an easy case. i mean, i would have written the opinion in a couple of minutes. it would have gone something like this -- quote -- "laws limiting corporate campaign expenditures are constitutional. see austin v. michigan chamber of commerce. the end." end quote.

of course, that's not the opinion the court wrote in citizens united. the court's opinion was a lot longer and a lot worse. here is the one phrase that sums up the citizens united decision -- quote -- "we now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." end quote. the majority of the court told us that there is no reason at all to be worried about unlimited corporate money in politics anymore, that it does not give rise even to the appearance of corruption, and the logic goes since there is no reason to be concerned about it, there is no constitutional basis to regulate it. that's what the court tells us. but we know better. the court's analysis not only is disconnected from precedent, it's disconnected from reality. the minnesota league of women voters recently issued a report

in which it concluded that -- quote -- "the influence of money in politics represents a dangerous threat to the health of our democracy in minnesota and nationally." end quote. the minnesota league of voters. that sounds right to me. because here is the thing. in our democracy, everyone is supposed to have an equal say, regardless of his or her wealth. the guy on the assembly line gets as many votes as the c.e.o., one. you don't get extra votes just because you have extra money. you don't get a greater say just because you have greater wealth. it doesn't work that way or shouldn't. citizens united turned the whole thing on its head. it basically said that those among us with the most money get the most influence, and not only that, there is no limit to the amount of money the wealthy can spend or the amount of influence they can buy. i think that's inherently corrupting. unfortunately, citizens united was just the beginning of this

story. in the years since, we have seen courts across the country strike down campaign finance laws, ushering in what are known as super pac's, wealthy groups that can raise and spend unlimited money to influence elections. today in mccuchen, the court took citizens united a step further, striking down a law that limited the amount of money that people could give directly to candidates and political parties. in doing so, the court overturned a key holding from buckley v. vallejo, a case from 1976. until today, the law said that direct contributions to candidates, parties and certain pac's could not exceed above about $125,000 in aggregate per election cycle. the law was intended to stem the tide of money in politics and maintain the integrity of our public institutions, but as of

this morning, that law has been taken off the books at the supreme court's direction. as justice breyer explained in his dissenting opinion in mccrutchen today -- quote -- "taken together with citizens united, today's decision eviscerates our campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of legitimate legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve." end quote. he's right. changing the law has real consequences. what happens when you get rid of the speed limit? people with fast cars drive faster. as fast as they want to drive. what happens when you get rid of campaign finance limits? special interests with a lot of money spend more of it on politics, as much as they want to spend. that's not a theory. it's an empirical fact.

according to data collected by the center for responsive politics, spending by outside groups more than tripled from 2008-2012, with overall outside spending topping a billion dollars, billion with a b, for the first time in history. where's the new money coming from? well, in most cases, we don't know. more on that a little later. but what we do know is pretty much what you would expect. according to one study, 60% of super pac's' funding in the 2012 election cycle came from just 132 donors, each donating at least a million dollars, so we have a relatively small group of super wealthy people accounting for most of the money. remember when the citizens united court assured us that all of this new money in politics was okay, that we shouldn't be worried about it, that it --

quote -- will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy? wow, were they wrong. people are losing faith in our democracy, and can you blame them? the system is broken, and we need to fix it. there are a number of good proposals out there. i'd like to use this opportunity to mention three of them -- disclosure, public financing and a constitutional amendment. first, we need greater disclosure. the problem in the post-citizens united world isn't just that there is now unlimited money in politics. it's also that we have no idea where that money is coming from. billionaires and big corporations want to influence elections by giving unlimited money to super pac's, but they don't want anyone to know that they are the ones pulling the strings, so they do something that looks a lot like money laundering, except that is perfectly legal. let's say there is a bunch of corporations and billionaires out there who want to preserve

indefensible tax loopholes that really only help their bottom lines. their allies form a super pac whose mission is to do just that, preserve their big tax breaks. now, the super pac needs a name. americans for indefensible tax loopholes probably doesn't achieve their aim. so the super pac probably decides to go with something like americans for a better tax code. after all, who could be against that? now, remember, the corporations or the billionaires who are behind this whole thing, they don't want their fingerprints on this, so they pass their money through shell corporations before it ends up in the super pac. that way the actual donors don't show up on the federal disclosure forms. now, the tv is then flooded with attack ads that end something like paid for by americans for a

better tax code. but nobody has any idea who is actually behind the advertisement. there is just no good way to find out. but hang on, it gets worse. in addition to all the secret money being spent by these super pac's, there is a bunch of nonprofit organizations that are using a glitch in the tax code to keep all of their campaign activities secret. these groups, liberal or conservative, don't have to disclose a single penny. combine them with the super pac's and you have a lot of money and very little information. voters aren't just being flooded, they are being blindfolded, too. we have a bill called the disclose act that would go a long way toward fixing this problem. it would put in place a clear set of rules requiring disclosure whenever anyone spends more than $10,000 to influence an election, even when that money is being funneled through back channels.

the idea is pretty simple. if you're going to spend that kind of money to influence elections, people should know about it so they can make informed decisions and effectively evaluate what you have to say. this is all about transparency and accountability. all of us should be able to get behind that. and indeed, most of us already have. the last version of the disclose act had support from a majority of senators, and i'm proud to have been one of the bill's cosponsors. several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spoken enthusiastically about greater disclosure. they have said things like sunshine is the greatest disinfectant. even the supreme court has endorsed disclosure laws in both citizens united and today's decision. and poll after poll shows that the vast majority of americans support greater transparency in campaign finance. this is a basic step that we

should be able to take pretty easily, or you would think so. it turns out you would be wrong. in july, 2012, we brought the disclose act to the senate floor and republicans blocked it. the bill died before it could get an up-or-down vote, but we're not going to give up on it. i will continue to work with my colleagues to make the campaign finance system more transparent. here's another thing we could do -- fundamentally change the way candidates finance their campaign. senator dick durbin of illinois recently reintroduced the fair elections now act, which basically says that candidates who refuse to accept contributions of more than $150 will be eligible for public financing of their campaigns. this would level the playing field instead of campaigns that are funded by a handful of wealthy donors, we'll have

citizens-funded grassroots campaign where candidates focus their attention on people who donate $5, $10, up to $50, we will restore power to that senior who makes a 25-dollar donation. i sponsored the fair elections now act in the past and i'm proud to cosponsor it again. this will not solve all the problems created by citizens united and mccutcheon, but it's a step in the right direction. finally, there is something else we can do, and it is the one thing we most need to do if we are going to repair all the damage the supreme court has done, and that is mend the constitution to reverse the citizens united and mccutcheon decisions. now, let me be clear. amending the constitution is not something i take lightly. i think it should be done only in extraordinary circumstances. but the supreme court's decision

present us with one of those situations because they erode the very foundation of our democracy. now, i know what you are thinking. constitutional amendments are really hard to come by. they require agreement by two-thirds of both chambers of congress, and they have to be ratified by at least 3/4 of the states. it's no wonder that constitutional amendments have been so rare in our history. well, look, just because a constitutional amendment takes a long time, is difficult to accomplish, doesn't mean that it's not worth trying. it take a long time, much longer than it should have to enshrine women's surge into the constitution, but it got done because it would have been an affront to our democracy had it been otherwise. these things take time and patience and persistence and perseverance, but they happen. in fact, there is already momentum building.

i'm proud to cosponsor a constitutional amendment that has been proposed here in the senate and would restore legal authority to the people to regulate campaign finance. the states are moving in the right direction, too, according to public citizen, 16 states have already called for a constitutional amendment. i believe that it's time for us to answer the call. mr. president, thank you. and i would yield the floor. the senator from connecticut. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you very much, mr. president. yesterday the administration announced that 7.1 million people had signed up for private

health care all across the country in exchanges that range from the national exchange down to the state-based exchanges. and many of those that signed up were women who are enjoying new benefits and new protections under the health care law. so, mr. president, i wanted to come down to the floor, and senator kaine did earlier today and senator boxer will in a few moments to talk about why women all across this country have a completely different health care experience today under the affordable care act and why they have no interest in going back to the days before the affordable care act, and to talk also about what it means to have seven million people across this country that now have access to private health care insurance that didn't have it before. the story for women all across this country, as senator boxer will talk about in far more articulate terms than i can, is pretty stunning. 8.7 million women will gain

maternity coverage in 2014. 8.7 million women didn't have maternity coverage either because they didn't have coverage to begin with or because they had a plan that didn't provide maternity coverage. and because the health care law says that if you buy insurance, we're going to expect that insurance has just a basic commonsense level of benefits -- and i think every american would agree with the fact that insurance for a woman should probably cover what for many women will be the most expensive intersection with the health care system they have in their life, and that's when they get pregnant. for families across the country, getting pregnant can bankrupt them if they don't have maternity coverage. and that changes with the affordable care act. 27 million women can receive lifesaving preventive care without co-pays all across this country. co-pay for many people is just $5 or $10.

but for some cancer screenings it can be a significant amount of money, running more than $100. and for low-income women that are the primary breadwinner for their family, perhaps only making about $20,000 per year, that's a barrier for them in seeking this basic preventive care, seeking care that could catch a cancer when it can be treated before it becomes a killer. and because of the affordable care act, 27 million women now can receive lifesaving preventive care. but maybe the most important statistic for women is this one: zero. zero women can be charged more just for being a woman. the reality was, as senator boxer will talk about, if you are a woman in this country, you are sometimes paying 50% more simply because insurance companies believed in many cases that being a woman constituted a preexisting condition. so we have seven million people, 7.1 million people who are now

on these private exchanges. many of them are women who are already enjoying the benefits of the affordable care act but now are going to be able to get lifesaving treatment because of the a.c.a. mr. president, there are a lot of people who said that this day wasn't going to happen. there were a lot of naysayers out there who said there was no way we were ever going to be able to hit the seven million mark. and it's kind of interesting to look back now on all of the folks who predicted catastrophe for the affordable care act, who have been proven wrong. and before i yield the floor to senator boxer, i just want to go through a couple of these statements. a lot of people in the house of representatives have spent the majority of the last several years trying to destroy the affordable care act. i was a member of that body and i probably was down on the floor of the house of representatives for about 40 different votes to repeal all or part of the affordable care act. i think we're now at about 50 or 51 votes. when the web site ran into some troubles at the beginning of the

year, they all went down to the floor and went on the cable news networks and said this was an example of how bad this law is and there's no way to fix the law. there is no way to fix the web site. representative bill johnson of ohio said this. he said "this may be the most stunning example of overpromising and underdelivering in recent u.s. history. based on my review, the problems with healthcare.gov are catastrophic." that's a bit of hyperbole to suggest that the problems with the web site were the most stunning example ever in recent u.s. history of overpromising and underdelivering. but of course the web site problems were fixed. they were fixed within a few months, such that we have actually gone straight through the c.b.o.'s estimate after the web site troubles of six million people enrolling and we now have seven million people enrolling. but as early as this month republicans and mass media sources were telling us that there was no way we were going to hit seven million or six million. an associated press article said

the white house needs something close to a miracle to meet its goal of enrolling six million people by the end of this month. with open enrollment ending march 31, that means to meet their goal another 1.8 million people would have to sign up during the month. the numbers that are necessary to achieve that are way above the daily averages for january and february. the math seems to be going against the administration. what the associated press didn't get is there is desperation on the streets. people that haven't had insurance for years, if not decades, they might have taken their time to price out the right plan for them. some of them might have simply waited until the last minute. but the reality is the demand there is, frankly, almost insatiable such that the web site came down for a portion of time on the 31st because so many people were going to it. the number eventually eclipsed even the c.b.o.'s rosiest estimate of enrollment. bill crystal said this. he said "if the exchanges are permitted to go into effect there will be error, fraud,

inefficiency and private violations of plenty the coming obamacare train wreck is endemic to big government liberalism." the exchanges are working pretty well such that we broke through the seven million barrier. in my state of connecticut, we are coming close to doubling our expected enrollment. senator boxer will talk about her numbers in california. but when you actually work to implement the health care law rather than work to undermine it, as several states are, the exchanges work very well. and so then they turned and said lots of people are signing up. the exchanges seem to be working but it's the wrong people signing up. one conservative scholar said they have thrown the entire health care system in unprecedented chaos for the uninsured are staying as far away from it as possible. little has been fixed. kentucky, just in the first few months of implementation reduced its unshourd population --

uninsured population by 40%. the reality is that people without insurance are signing up for the new health care law. why? because they can afford it and they desperately need it. the fact is republicans are going to continue to attack this law. they are going to continue to change their arguments. they're going to continue to be shifting in the messages they send to the american people because every time they tell us something is wrong, they are wrong. and now they have said that, you know what? that seven million figure, that can't be right. they're cooking the books. or that can't be right. there's got to be something wrong with the methodology. it is not just the obama administration that says it's seven million. it is independent analysts who say it is seven million. by the end of the year it could be eight million. nobody is cooking the books. the exchanges aren't catastrophic. the web site is not unfixable. all of these things have been proven untrue. and yet, we still have people come down to the floor and tell

us why this thing can't work. i listened to one of my colleagues come down to the floor earlier today and tell a story about a family in wyoming. and i don't know the specifics of the family there but let's jut talk about in a state like wyoming, which is on the federal exchange, the real story of the options that are out there for families out there, i think my friend from wyoming was talking about a family of five. again, i can't know all the specifics of that family, but let's just say that family of five in carbon county, wyoming, was making $100,000 a year, which would be about twice the average salary in that state and across the country. well, that family of five making $100,000 a year would qualify for a $677-per-month tax credit, a bronze plan would be about $550 to $750 per month. that's about 40% cheaper than a lot of private plans that may be available today. let's say that family is actually making the median income in wyoming, which is

around $56,000. if you're making $56,000 and you're a family of five in wyoming, all your kids will qualify for medicaid, which is virtually free. and the parents would qualify for a tax credit of $528 per month. and a bronze plan that could be as chief as $171 -- as cheap as $171 per month. that's the reality, is that that's affordable for a family of five making the median income. that's affordable. and i understand that people are having stories that don't match up with the seven million people that have signed up for this plan, for these plans over the past several months. i get that there's bad news out there but there's a lot of good news out there as well. there are a lot of people who couldn't afford to buy a health insurance plan who now can finally afford health care. so that's why senator boxer and

myself and senator stabenow and senator whitehouse and so many others have been coming down to the floor to talk about the fact that the affordable care act is working and for all the naysayers, for all the people who predict that had this law couldn't work, the example is, has been set. seven million people and counting signed up for health care exchanges all across this country. never mind all the people who have gotten access to medicaid. never mind all the people who have been able to stay on their parents' plan. we don't nope what the overall -- don't know what the overall number right now will be of people who have qualified for health care under the exchanges, medicaid and the provisions allow people to stay on their plans. but this number could be 25 million by the time the year is out. and so, mr. president, i was thrilled to see the success of the affordable care act and the number from yesterday. i'm thrilled to see lifechanging benefits for women all across the country. i'm pleased to be joined here on the floor by my colleague,

senator boxer. and with that, i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, what is the time situation? the presiding officer: the senate is postcloture on h.r. 3979. and a perfecting amendment thereto. mrs. boxer: do i need to ask permission to speak on health care? the presiding officer: the senator does need consent. mrs. boxer: i would so ask. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mrs. boxer: well, thank you so much, mr. president. i want to say a big thank you to senator murphy because he has been just a great leader on this. he and i are coming from states where people are signing up and signing up and surpassing the goals, and the stories are incredibly heart warming and wonderful and are being told on the radio and being told on tv. and the truth is coming out about the affordable care act. all of the scares aside, we see

now it's working. and why is it working? because there was a very simple premise when we passed this bill four years ago, and that was people deserve a fair shot at affordable health care. that's all it was. they deserve a fair shot at getting affordable health care. they deserve affordable health care. they deserve to be free from discrimination by the insurance companies. and so i'm so pleased that senator murphy has taken it upon himself to organize a few of us so that we don't allow misinformation and lies to be spread about the affordable care act. you know what i loved about president obama's speech yesterday at the rose garden was that he is so open about it. he said, yeah, we had a flawed rollout. we lost time. that was bad. and, yeah, no bill is perfect.

you know, i think it was our colleague, angus king, who said it the best. he said the most perfect document in the world is the constitution, and it's been amended 27 times. so is any bill perfect? is any document perfect? of course not. but i am here to say given the facts, not the made-up stuff, given the facts, i am so proud that i was able to vote for the affordable care act. i am so proud of that. and i am sad that not one republican joined us in that vote. not one of them. not one of them. now when you go back to four years ago, we saw that millions of our citizens were uninsured because they couldn't afford insurance. or -- or -- they were uninsured because their insurance company walked out on them when they

were sick. or there were annual limits on their plans and they simply went over that annual limit, and they went broke, and they couldn't afford insurance. some had lifetime caps, and it sounded like a lot. oh, you have a cap of a quarter of a million dollars. but then when you get cancer, that cap is reached a heck of a lot faster than you thought. so, we had kids kicked off their parents' health care, health insurance at 18, 19 years old, while they were still students. we had people with asthma, diabetes, cancer, couldn't get insurance until the affordable care act passed. being a woman was considered a preexisting condition. and if you were a victim of domestic violence, forget it.

the insurance company wanted no part of your risk. so democrats took action, took action, and all the republicans can do is come down here and say, oh here's one constituent's story. well, for every one constituent's story that they tell, number, one, double check the fact because sometimes you check the facts and they are not exactly what they say. but i can give you 100 stories to their one of people finally getting health care. and, by the way, we can fix this law any day of the week with the help of the republicans if they have an issue they think needs to be addressed. but their answer is repeal, repeal, repeal. why would they want to repeal a law that is helping? i would tell you over 100 million americans. not seven million. seven million who are on the

exchange. but i'll show you more than 100 million of our people are getting preventive care, free cancer screenings, immunizations, contraception, and it's made a big difference in their lives and is making a big difference. and the kids can stay on their parents' policies. why do they want to repeal a law that does that? t that gives us a patients' bill of rights so insurance companies can't look at you in your sickest, darkest moment, so they can't say friends, or mrs. jones, mrs. smith, i'm so sorry to tell you that you're not getting anymore coverage because we just learned that you had diabetes, you didn't tell us, you didn't mention it, you're out. i don't know why republicans want to take that away from

people. but then again history is repeating itself. i tell my friends, i've got so many friends on the other side of the aisle. we just see the world differently. when you go back to medicare, you should see what the republicans said in this senate about medicare. "socialism." "let it wither on the vine." bob dole was so proud, of here, he voted against it, he led the charge. it's terrible. now you have tea party members that come to signs at rallies that say, "don't touch my medicare." they love medicare. well, they don't understand, it is a government program, medicare. it's a government insurer. of course, paul ryan wants to end it in his budget so i guess nothing changes, it all stays the same. they hated medicare. they still hate it. they want it to wither on the vine and they totally destroy it

in ryan's budget. and social security? you should hear what they said about social security. it was an abomination, that's what they said. so nothing changes. you have different people in different clothes. i look a little different than the democrats in the old days. there were no women here, for starters. and my colleague is really handsome and he had some predecessors that looked good, but they all say the same thing. government shouldn't be involved in any of this, it will all be great. and you know what? i wish they were right. i wish they were right. you know, my husband developed a small business and he managed to pay health care for his people. he was proud to do it. but, you know, not every business is fair and just and right. so, yeah, once in awhile we have to say, let's all work together to make sure that people are

covered. you know, when i was a little kid, my mother used to tell me all the time, "without your health care, you have nothing. you get sick, if you're sick, you've got nothing." and i used to say, "oh, god, i'm so tired of hearing it." i remember she used to say, "you see that beautiful actress over there? she's got everything. but she got sick so she has nothing." your health is everything, she told me. you've got to protect your health. and she was right. now, how do you protect your health and the health of your family? it's by getting preventive care so that you catch something early. if you don't have insurance, you don't get that preventive care, you're in trouble. or if something happens and you're in an automobile accident and you thought you were the invincible young person and nothing would happen to you and suddenly you find yourself with broken bones and everything else, including a broken heart,

and you have no health insuran insurance. you can go bankrupt and people did because it was so hard to get affordable insurance before the affordable health care. so what you're hearing here -- and you will continue to hear -- is scare tactics, stories. and i'm here to tell you -- and i want to say it very clearly -- about the millions and millions of americans that understand that the affordable care act is working for them. yesterday when was a historic day. they said never would you get 7 million people to sign up for private insurance on the exchanges. never. it happened. why? because this is a product people need, health insurance that's affordable. but that number is the tip of the iceberg. and i'll prove it. medicaid -- that's insurance for the poorest working people.

we expanded it and we let more people qualify. 4.5 million americans previously uninsured now have coverage through medicaid. so let's do the math. you've got 7 million -- are you doing the math for me, emily? write it down -- 7 million on the exchanges, 7.1. okay? 4.5 million medicaid, who didn't have it before. 3 million young adults able to stay on their parents' plan who weren't able to do that before. how about this? 8 million senior citizens who have saved billions of dollars because of the fix in the affordable care act that says they get more help paying for their prescriptions. that adds up to -- drumroll --

22.6 million americans with those very important benefits. but then here's the other thing, 100 million americans are now getting help with preventive services that they used to have to pay for. immunizations, mammograms, vaccinations, annual exams and other lifesaving preventive care. we are talking about millions and millions. and everyone with private health care now can have no annual limit, no lifetime limit. they can't be turned away for a preexisting condition. their insurance company can't walk out on them just when they are needing them. so that's almost everyone in the country benefiting from this law. now, let me tell you about california.

we're the biggest state in the union, 38 million strong. covered california is the way that we set up our exchange. it's coveredca.com. peter lee is the head of that. and i want to thank peter lee today -- he doesn't know i'm doing this -- for his extraordinary leadership, because here's what happened. we exceeded our state's goals for enrollment through coveredca by not 100,000 people, not 200,000 people, not 300,000 people or 400,000 people but 500,000 people. wee exceeded our goals. that's bigger than some states. can you believe it? half a million people -- more than we expected. i'm sure senator thune is shocked by this. this is a fact. we expected to have 700,000 sign up. instead we had 1.2 million.

and that doesn't even include all those who signed up on monday or who are still in the process of completing enrollment. and you're going to hear a lot of stories about families who are paying what they think is too much or -- and i want to work with everybody to make this law better, believe me. but listen to a couple of my constituents. julie mimms from sacramento said -- quote -- "we no longer have to worry about being ruined physically and financially by a serious health issue. we enrolled in a bronze 60 plan that will cost us $2 a month." this is a working woman who is getting the help she needs to have a decent, decent health care policy. then there's rebecca tasker. she runs a small construction business in san diego with her husband. they are saving a thousand dollars a month. they're saving $12,000 a year they can spend on their family,

they can spend in their community boosting this economy. she said -- quote -- "these savings will help our company grow and might allow us to be able to hire our first employee this year." so here is a small businesswoman who had to spend so much on health care and now because of the affordable care act, she's able to save a thousand dollars a month and possibly hire her first employee. you've heard of something called job lock. before the affordable care act, people said, i don't want to leave my job becausive health carbecause i havehealth care, ai go out on my own, i won't be able to afford it. that's why we set up the exchanges. it's freeing people to move out of a job maybe they think is a dead end, start their own business. here's a woman who's going to be able to hire her first employee with the money she's saving.

there are hundreds more stories i'll be telling in the coming days and weeks. well, stunningly, house republicans keep bragging about their never-ending efforts to take health care away from millions of americans. do you know the house has voted not once, not twice but more than 50 times to repeal the affordable care act. and they're doing it again. if they spent as much energy working with us to make the law better -- which the president says he's open to, we're open to -- just like we worked with them on part-d medicare when they carried that. we worked with them to make it better. can you imagine, we'd be standing here talking about even more millions of people. now, i have to say -- and this i know might be viewed as controversial -- but because this law helps women so much with mammography, with vaccines,

with birth control, with the end of discrimination based on your gender, with an end of discrimination if you're been the victim of violence, with the end of discrimination because you could carry a child and have a pregnancy and want coverage. this affordable care act helps women, so i'm going to say thi this -- when you vote 50 times to repeal a law that benefits women, you're voting against women. so you can say all you want -- you want to become -- and i know speaker boehner said i want to become more sensitive to women. i have an idea. stop trying to take away health care from women and their families. and then you'll see women will feel much better about you. women are smart. they know who's on their side. they know who wants to give them a fair shot. but it's not people that want to take away their health care, and

that's what you see day in and day out. remember, under the affordable care act, many women were denied health insurance because of preexisting illness such as breast cancer, depression, or even, again, being a victim of domestic violence. and they were charged more than men. let's be clear. and now we're guaranteed access to free preventive care and maternity care. women are now paying zero dollars for a chu checkup. zero. this is it. zero dollars to get a test to check for cervical cancer. zero dollars for a mammogram. zero dollars for f.d.a. approved contraception. why do the republicans want to repeal this law? and take away mammograms, and take away tests for cervical cancer, and take away checkups and f.d.a. approved contraception? why? and at the same time saying they don't understand why women don't

gravitate toward their candidacies. i've got to say, we should be celebrating this law. yeah, fixing it where it needs to be fixed. but i think if republicans would join with us and say, let's work together to make this a better plan -- if you have someone who can't find their doctor in their plan, let's try to work together and fix it. if you have someone who you think deserves a subsidy, let's work together and try to fix it. but let's remember, folks, i just pointed out the millions of people that are benefiting. do we have a chart showing that? house speaker boehner called the affordable care act a rolling calamity. house majority whip mccarthy said the enrollment numbers would be staggeringly low. several g.o.p. members defeated excitedly about how enroments in their states wouldn't even fill a football state stadiu stadium.

hand mike huckabee said you have more who want to go moose hunting. i think think it is time for the republicans to look at the facts. it is time for the g.o.p. to accept the relate that i this law is helping millions of people -- seniors, women, men, students, children ... all, all americans. it is time to recognize that one of the biggest problems facing our country before the affordable care act was a lack of affordable insurance. and millions of people are gaining the benefits. so we're not going to go back to the days when our people were denied health care, where an insurance company could walk out on you, where you brought in a child with asthma and they were wheezing and the insurance

company said, get out; we can't insure that child. i have seen the tears before the a.c.a., when people were forced into bankruptcy because they had no insurance. and i have seen the tears of joy since the a.c.a. so we will listen to our colleagues tell their tale of horrors -- and it's fine. they have every right. i respect them. but remember, as you hear these stories, go back and make sure that's exactly what you thought you heard, and then ask them, what is their plan? how do they want to help women and their families and their children? and so far we haven't heard much. all we've heard about is repeal, repeal, repeal. that is not a policy. repealing the affordable care act will hurt americans, and not just a few but many millions.

thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the sno senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with a umn of my colleagues for -- with a number of my colleagues for up to 45 minutes. officer sphe without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you. i noted that the senator from connecticut came to the floor in an attempt to debun de debunk ao me from one of my constituents. it is seems that the senator is make the same argument that the majority leader, senator reid, has made time and time again, that these letters are made up. that's what seems to be the case here. is that what the senator from connecticut is saying? you know, these are letters -- these are e-mails, news articles that are coming from our constituents, coming from our home states. this was all supposed to be about affordable care.

care and affordability were the key stonekeystones of this entie of lels. i hear the senator talking about people being denied care. it is happening now because of the health care law. because of the health care law, mr. president, people are being denied care. let me reference where my colleague from connecticut comes from, the state of connecticut, "the hartford current," has a report came out march 17 this year, just a couple of weeks ago, "connecticut is is less competitive," mr. president, "connecticut is less competitive after federal health care reform." i hear the senator from california saying there are people who have been helped -- and i believe that, mr. president -- but for every one person that's been helped, i believe many have been harmed as a result of the law. so let me just tell you what our friends from "the hartford current" wrote. "the individual health care market is less competitive in

connecticut since the implementation of the affordable care act," sometimes called obamacare. they said, of the seven states to release enrollment data by insurer, connecticut and washington had fewer options -- fewer options, mr. president, not more options as what the president of the united states has claimed -- fewer options, connecticut and washington, fewer options for people buying health plans on the individual market according to the kaiser health foundation. they say that california and new york, the largest states in the study, each has a more competitive insurance market today compared to 2012. but connecticut, the state where my colleague who had questioned the woman from wyoming comes from is less competitive. in 2012, they say that connecticut's individual health insurance market was more evenly distributed among a number of insurers, blue cross blue shed,

united health. connecticut has fewer options available now on access health connecticut, its public health exchange, which was created by the affordable care act. they say, as of february 18, two insurers dominated 97% of health plans sold through that -- through the exchange and there is a less competitive exchange market, and, mr. president, let me point out, higher than average premiums. so if that's what my colleague from connecticut wants to say is a success, let him have it. but he has no right, in my opinion, to come and say that a woman who wrote to me is either not smart enough to figure out how much her premiums are -- she's being asked to pay and what her premiums were prior to her losing insurance because of the health care law. and then the senator from california comes to say, well,

people aren't able -- aren't losing the care that they had. well, nbc connecticut, again where our conis from, some doctors say they are not ception certain health insurance plans offered on the state health insurance exchange. it goes to a story of a woman who say, it broke my heart losing the doctor that she has been to before, who she trusts, has fift faith n but because ofe health care law, losing that care. so comso i come to the floor tot out that republicans have ideas about ways to help work to lower the cost of care, so patients can get the care they need from a doctor they want at lower cost, not the situation that we see across the country where many individuals believe and truly feel harmed as a result of the president's health care law. so with that, mr. president, in respoons to what my colleague from connecticut and california had just said, we are here today

to talk about jobs, the economy, getting people back to work. as a doctor, i will tell you long-term unemployment, how it impacts on someone's life, it affects -- yeah, i believe their identity, their self-worth, their dignity, the way that they think about themselves, so it's much more important that we get americans back to work. so i am here with a number of my colleagues. i know the senator from south dakota is here on the floomplete floor. he knows as well as anyone the impact that unemployment has on people in rural america, in western united states, how when jobs go away, it makes it much harder for other jobs to come. i'd ask that he share some of those thoughts with us right now. thank you, mr. president. mr. thune: mr. president, i want to thank the senator from wyoming for his observations about health care and more particularly today about jobs. we're talking about an

extension, a 13th extension now of unemployment insurance benefits which, in my view, does creat--does treat a simple tonat doesn't treat the underlying cause u it makes it less difficult to higher people. the senator from touched on one of the issues affecting hiring in this country, that's obamacare. and you know, you can say what you want. the other side may have some stories which we won't dispute, unlike when we come up here and share the real-life stories of our constituents and then we have the majority leader of the united states senate come down here and say, those stories aren't true. it is all mapped. and then he comes down here last week and in response to some more bad news about obamacare and said the reason people aren't signing up for it because they just aren't educated enough about the internet. so what he is essentially saying, mr. president, is that the people of this country, one,

aren't telling the truth and, two, aren't very smart. well, i don't think that's -- that's not what i believe and i don't think that's what any of my cheetion here believe. we do believe that there are things that we ought to be doing to get americans back to work. and repealing obamacare would be a good place to start because it is making the size -- or the cost of growing your business, expanding your business in this country dramatically higher. and it is also raising the premiums and the deductibles for people all across this country for middle-class families and giving them fewer options when this comes to doctors and to hospitals. i want to talk just briefly, if i might, mr. president, about the cost of overregulation and what it's doing to our economy today. we've had an opportunity here during this discussion on unemployment insurance to talk about some of the things that we would do if we would be given chance to offer amendments. typically the case around here, what happens, the practice and pattern of late is that the leader -- majority leader fills the tree and blocks us from offering amendments. we have a the although of members on our side who i think

have great ideas about things that would actually create jobs, actually grow the economy, and one of the things we know is costing jobs and hurting the economy is the cost of overregulations, destroying jobs, making it more difficult for our job creators. in fact, the estimate is that it's almost half a trillion dollars in the cost of regulations sings the president has come -- since the president has come to office, almost half a trillion dollar added -- added -- dmoft thicost in this countr. that's larger thank the entire economy of per riewrks the large thearng the entire economy of sweden. think about that. the cost of regulation in this country since this president has come to office is larger than the entire economies of either sweden or peru. one of the largeert contributors to the costs is the e.p.a. they came out with what they call the boil ermc regulations, the utility mack regulations and the tear fuel standards. ology of these things that the

e.p.a. has finalized are some of the most costly regulations that we've seen from any agency in recent history. these rules will impose billions of costs on manufacturers and consumers, which ising about to be passed on to consumers in the form of higher price. for consumers already hurting in the obama economy, more bad news is on the waism the e.p.a. is currently working on regulations for ozone standard, greenhouse e gas emissions for power plants and a dramatic expansion of the clean water. mr. president, i'd like to just briefly touch on the impacts that the e.p.a. mandate, including grog standard, regional haze requirements, boil ermc, utility mack are having on energy prices back in my home state. in 2008 then-senator obama promised to make energy prices skyrocket and today in my home state he's fulfilling that

promise. just monday blackhills power, a utility company in western south dakota, announced a prepared rate increase to cover the cost of new e.p.a. mandates. average customer rates will increase by approximately $^130 a year. for a family living in western south dakota, $130 can go a long way. south dakota is a rural state with an energy-inten sift sector. families have to travel long distance where a cold-weather climate. we see dramatic swings in seasonal temperatures that create uncertainty when opening monthly utility bills. unfortunately, the e.p.a.'s backdoor energy tax tax, which is already starting to hit fathers is about to get even more expensive. the tier-3 gasoline standard, greenhouse gas regulations and new ozone rules are a train wreck of new regulations that are going to further drive up energy costs and destroy jobs. and that's why i've offered two

commonsense amendments to rein in these costly e.p.a. regulations. the first amendment would require congress to approve any e.p.a. regulation with a projected cost of the more than $50 a year. if congress rejects that ruling, the e.p.a. would be forced to go back to the drawing board and pursue less costly alternatives. mr. president, from regulating greenhouse gases under the clean air act, this e.p.a. stretches authority well beyond what congress intended when we created a federal, state, environmental regulatory structure decades ago. this e.p.a. needs to be reined n the best way to do that is by creating major congressional oversight of regulations. my second amendment would create another check on the e.p.a.'s regulatory reach. this would require the department of energy and the government accountability office to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of e.p.a.'s proposed greenhouse gas regulations on power plants. if based on this study the

d.o.e., the department of energy, or g.a.o. determine that the new regulations would raise energy prices or destroy jobs, the new regulations could not fake effect. the e.p.a. could still proposal new regulations but those regulations couldn't be finalized until it's certified that those new rules would not negatively impact jobs or energy costs. mr. president, we've got over ten million people who remain unemployed. economic growth and job creation remain stagnant. and middle-class incomes have dropped by $3,000 per family over the past five years. the last thing that middle-class families need is for their pocketbooks to be further stretched by misguided government policies that drive up energy costs. it is time to put a check on the e.p.a., it's time to have an open debate and amendment process on commonsense proposals to increase congressional oversight. and it's