repeal all three. women aren't asking for special deals. they just want a fair shot at building lives for themselves and their families. and the women of the senate, the democratic women of the senate, are ready to fight the republicans to make sure that women across this country have their fair shot. i want to thank senator murray for her leadership in fighting for real economic equality for women. i yield, mr. president. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i want to thank the senator from massachusetts again for all of her extremely hard work, important work to expand economic opportunity and security for women and their families. she is an extremely important voice in this debate, and i am delighted that she is here today to join us. mr. president, yesterday i held a hearing on this topic in the senate budget committee. we invited a working mother.

her name was ann marie duchon to come and testify about some of the challenges she had faced. ann marie told us that she loves her job. she works at the university of massachusetts-amherst, but since the day that she started, the day she started she made a lower salary than her male counterpart who is doing the exact same job. they had the same responsibilities and both of them had taken a pay cut to accept that job and they both graduated from the same university in the same year. well, when ann marie found this out that he was making more than she was, even though they had the exact same resumes and qualifications and year of graduation, she went in and asked for a raise and she was told she couldn't have one. well, she stayed on at that job and continued to work hard, and it wasn't until her husband's job was at risk that she started thinking about how much those lost wages meant to her and her

family. she ran the numbers and she found out that over the years, she had missed out on more than $12,000 in wages compared to her male counterpart who was doing the exact same work. ann marie and her husband are first generation college graduates, and they have a 5-year-old daughter who was in full-time daycare because both ann marie and her husband had to work. ann marie told us yesterday that when she realized her lost income amounted to a year's worth of child care or ten months of payments on their mortgage or student loans, she said that was heart breaking. now, ann marie was ultimately able to go back and convince her employers by showing them the math to give her equal pay, but as we know today, unfortunately, most women are not able to do that and many don't even know that they are earning an unfair wage. and, mr. president, that is a

real loss, both for our families and for our economy as a whole. we heard what $12,000 could have meant for ann marie's household budget, but women's contributions in the work force have also made a huge difference to our overall economic strength. as working families have felt more and more strained by the rising costs from everything from college tuition to child care and health care and an economy in which the gap between those at the top and everyone else seems to be getting wider and wider, women's economic contributions have helped ease the burden. economist heather bouchet, who also testified yesterday at our hearing, found in a recent study that between 1979 and 2012, the u.s. economy grew by almost 11% as a result of women joining our labor force. so as we think today about ways to support growth in the 21st

century, it's absolutely clear. our country's economic success and that of our middle-class families goes hand in hand with women's economic success. so we have a lot more work to do, because despite all the progress we've made, all the glass ceilings that have been broken, women still face barriers that are holding them and their families and our economy back. stories like ann marie's, stories of women who receive lower wages for the same exact work as men are still far too common, and because women are more likely to be the primary caregiver in a family, the lack of paid leave at most jobs means women experience today higher turnover and lost earnings and are more likely to be passed over for promotions that would help them advance. in addition to that, our outdated tax code works against married women who choose to go back to work as a second earner, because their earnings are

counted on top of their spouse's, they can actually be taxed at a higher rate, and that deters some others from choosing to re-enter the work force, especially when you consider the high costs and lack of access to high-quality child care. those kinds of challenges are especially pronounced for women, and in particular mothers who are struggling today to make ends meet. madam president, we know that two-thirds of minimum wage earners are women. their jobs are disproportionately unlikely to offer any flexibility when, for example, a child gets sick or needs to be picked up early from school, and their earnings are quickly swallowed by costs associated with work like child care or transportation. and it's also important to note that our outdated policies disproportionately affect women when it comes to their retirement security, because on average women earn less than men, accumulate less in savings

and receive smaller pensions. today nearly three in ten women over 65 depend on social security for their only income later in their years. and i think all of my colleagues and i should be alarmed that the average social security benefit for women over 65 is just $13,100 per year. imagine living on that. that is not enough to feel financially secure. so, madam president, the impact of these barriers is increasingly clear. over the last decade, the share of women in the labor force has actually stalled. even as other countries have continued to see more women choosing to go to work. and experts believe that a major reason for that is that unlike many other countries, we here in the united states have not updated our policies to reflect our 21st century work force and help today's two-earner families succeed.

at a time when we need to be doing everything we can to grow our economy and strengthen our middle class, that is not acceptable. women have to have an equal shot at success, and first and foremost, that means we need to end unfair practices that set women back financially. we took a very good step forward with the affordable care act which prevents insurance companies today from charging women more than men for coverage, which they did before that act, but we need to do more to make sure women are getting equal pay for equal work. and my good friend and colleague, chairwoman mikulski has really led the way on the paycheck fairness act which would help provide women with more tools to fight pay discrimination, giving the millions of women earning the minimum wage a raise, as senator warren just talked about, would also go a long ways towards that effort. and, of course we've got to update our tax code so that mothers who are returning to the work force do not face a

marriage penalty. in addition to expanding the earned income tax credit for childless workers, the 21st century worker tax cut that i introduced would provide a 20% deduction on the second earner's income for working families with young children to help them keep more of what they earn. madam president, as we get rid of these discriminatory practices, we should also recognize the challenges that working parents face and put in place a set of policies that help them at work and at home. a big part of that is investing in expanded access to affordable high-quality child care. you know what? when parents go to work, they deserve to know that their child is safe and thriving while they're working, and there are many steps that this congress could and should take through our tax code and by building on successful programs like head start to help give working parents the peace of mind they deserve. and finally, we need to build on

and strengthen social security with policies that make it easier for women and their families to build a secure retirement. there is, of course, a lot more that we can do in addition to that, but i believe any one of those changes would have a real impact. madam president, as you know, you were in our budget committee yesterday, ann marie who testified yesterday told us that she hopes when her daughter enters the work force, pay inequity will be just as much of a relic as the days before the iphone and i could not agree more. acting to expand economic opportunity for women is the right thing to do. it is part of our ongoing work to uphold our country's most fundamental values, but as our country's recent history shows, it's also an economic necessity, both for our families and for our broader economy. that's why actually it's so disappointing to see that when it comes to issues affecting women, some of our republican

colleagues are laser-focused on turning back the clock. we saw this just yesterday when the senior senator from south carolina came to the floor and tried to pass an extreme bill that would severely limit women's reproductive rights. madam president, i think women today would much rather see congress focusing on expanding opportunity and helping working families than getting in between a woman and her doctor. so over the next few months, madam president, i think you're going to continue to see democrats continuing to fight for goals like achieving pay equity, providing access to affordable child care and raising the minimum wage, all of which would move women and families and our economy forward, not backward, and i really hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be willing to join us in this really important effort. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent that senator alexander and i be -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum. mr. flake: may i ask unanimous consent to eviscerate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent that senator alexander and i be permitted to engage in a colloquy. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. flake: madam president, we come to the floor today to call attention to the tax extender bill currently being debated before the senate. included in this legislation is a provision extending the wind production tax credit known as the p.t.c. for two additional years. this would be the ninth extension of a supposedly temporary tax credit. p.t.c. was first enacted in 1992 to jump-start the nation's wind industry. it was meant to expire in 1999, 15 years ago, but this one-time stimulus has turned into a never-ending tax subsidy that has been extended eight times and the prospect for a ninth extension seems likely. p.t.c. spends precious tax dollars subsidizing a very mature industry and distorting our energy markets. my friend from tennessee, senator alexander and i have been vocal opponents of this

federal subsidy for years, and unfortunately this credit has survived under the canard that wind power is an infant industry in need of federal support, and with the p.t.c.'s expiration on january 1 of this year, wind producers are once again igniting the rallying cry to continue their taxpayer-funded handout. i would ask my friend from tennessee for those taxpayers that may not be familiar with this use of their hard-earned dollars, what is the p.t.c. and why is it so valuable? mr. alexander: well, i thank the senator from arizona for his leadership over the years in pointing out the flaws in this proposal. it wastes money. it undercuts reliable electricity like coal and nuclear electricity, and in my view, it destroys the environment in the name of saving the environment. but let's -- let's say just exactly what we're talking about. this is a tax credit. it was first passed in 1992, as the senator from arizona said, to help an infant industry that

has been renewed eight times. if you're a wind developer, it pays you 8.2 cents for every kilowatt-hour of wind that you produce, which in some cases is about the value of each kilowatt-hour of electricity. in fact, the subsidy is so great that sometimes in some markets, wind producers can actually give away their electricity and still make a profit, and in some other times, in the middle of the night, say, in chicago, they can actually pay utilities to take their wind power and still make a profit. so that's what the wind production tax credit is. and as the senator says, this is a mature industry. i support jump-starting certain types of new energy for a limited period of time, but secretary chu, a nobel prize-winning united states energy secretary of president obama, said in 2011 in response

to my question is it a mature technology? yes, he says, it is a mature technology. so i would ask the senator from arizona, what is the justification for spending over the next two years $13 billion taxpayer dollars? it is the most wasteful, conspicuous taxpayer subsidy that i know in washington, d.c., and it proves ronald reagan's statement that the only thing in life that is eternal is a government program. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman. i don't think there is justification. the justification that often given for it is we have to give surety given ahead and people won't invest if they don't know that subsidy is there. this has been around since 1992. it was meant to expire in 1999, but it's been extended eight times. if anything is unsure, we're creating that unsurety,

insecurity when congress simply goes again and again and renews it. but the gentleman from tennessee had a great column in the "wall street journal" talking about part of the problem you have when we subsidize these kinds of industries and what that does to baseload power -- nuclear, coal -- in the interim. you want to talk about that for a minute? mr. alexander: yes. i thank the senator from arizona. the united states uses almost 25% of all the electricity in the world and we need electricity we can rely on. we don't want to flip the switch and have the light not go on. we don't want to go to work and have the generator not working. we use a lot of electricity and that comes from baseload power. that is typically in our country coal, nuclear, and now natural gas to a lesser extent. wind is intermittent. it was at night. usually -- usually it blows at night. it blows only about a third of the time, and you use it or lose

it. so using -- relying on wind power to run a country with, that uses 25% of all the electricity in the world is the energy equivalent of going to war in sailboats when nuclear ships are available. baseload power is undercut by this intermittent wind power, when the subsidy is so large that the wind developers can in some cases give away -- give away -- and in effect pay the utilities to take their wind, making the baseload power that we need to rely on for the long term less valuable, leading to the closing of nuclear plants and coal plants. mr. flake: the gentleman also in that column talked about the environmental impact. it's often thought these renewables are the same in terms of their impact on the environment. but the gentleman points out where these need to be built

generally. they're not your typical picturesque windmill somewhere in holland. something quite different. you also mentioned what it would take to generate the same amount of power that perhaps eight nuclear -- power plants generate, what it would take in terms of these wind units. you want to talk a bit about that? mr. alexander: the senator from arizona is from the west. i'm of course from the east. in the eastern united states, wind turbines only work well near ridge tops. i live near a ridge top like the great smoky mountain national park. if you ran wind turbines from georgia to maine along the appalachian trail, you would only produce about the same amount of electricity that eight nuclear power plants would produce and you'd still need the nuclear power plant or the coal plants or natural gas plant to produce electricity when the wind was not blowing. we don't want to see those

20-story towers on top of our ridge tops. you can see the blinking lights from 20 miles. i think they destroy the environment in order to save the environment. there are appropriate places for wind power. there is an appropriate place in the market. i would ask the senator from arizona, isn't it time for wind to take its place? our marketplace, stand on its own and compete with other forms of electricity for the utility dollar? mr. flake: yes. i want to point out as well neither of us was saying there is no place for wind energy. it's an increasing part of our energy load. in fact, the most new capacity actually went to wind as a percentage of what the current output. there is an important place for it. it can and is being done in environmentally sensitive ways around the country. but it's time for the federal subsidy to end, and the problem is when we distort the market

like we do, when at times you can actually pay a utility to take your power because that's the only time wind is blowing at night and still make a profit from the federal subsidy, then there's a distortion in the markets that we just shouldn't have. we ought to let capital flow where it's most needed. so neither of us are saying that there's no place for wind, wind energy. but there is no place now, or no reason to continue for the ninth time the extension of this federal subsidy for wind. mr. alexander: i would say to the senator from arizona, just to be specific about this, the negative pricing, as we call it, the opportunity for wind developers to say at 3:00 in the morning in chicago to literally pay the utility to take the wind power, thereby causing the nuclear plant or the coal plant to be less useful, is contributing -- it's not the whole reason. it is contributing to the

closing of nuclear plants. the center for strategic and international studies has said that because of the low price of natural gas and this subsidy for wind, we might lose as many as 25% of our nuclear plants in the next 25 years, in the next 10 years. nuclear power produces 60% of the carbon-free, sulfur-free, nitrogen-free lech treus tickers pollution-free elect tryty and a number of -- electricity and a number of environmental groups have begun to point out their concern of what would happen to our air if we lose this source of clean generation of electricity. one more reason why we should let wind take its natural place in the marketplace. it's now 4% of all the electricity we produce. it was, as the senator said, the fastest growing form of generation. let it compete. let it go where it should go. off shores and other places it could go. but it's time to end the

subsidy; let it stand on its own. mr. flake: i think the gentleman, senator alexander and i are introducing an amendment to the tax extenders bill that is currently on the floor. this amendment would simply strike that extension, do away with it completely. we also have another amendment that wind producers of wind energy claim the subsidy right now. they can claim it now but not have the clock start until they start producing. and so if they don't start producing for another ten years, the end point of that subsidy is a full 20 years from now and taxpayers are on the hook much longer than was anticipated. so this would simply say that the point at which the subsidy begins as to be immediately, so we wouldn't go too far in the future. but those amendments will be introduced tomorrow, and we hope to be able to debate those on the floor with this bill. mr. alexander: i thank the senator for his leadership. when we talk about a one-year or

two-year extension, it is important to note we're talking about the next ten years. let's say i qualify for the production tax credit. i'm a wind developer this year. that means that i get that credit for the next ten years. that's why the two-year extension of the wind production tax credit really spends tax dollars over the next 11 years when you count both those years. and it's $13 billion. we throw dollars around so much here, it's hard to get a sense of how much $13 billion is. we just spent $10 billion governmentride on all of energy research. it would be much better to use these dollars to reduce the debt or to use some of it for clean energy research. we need low-cost, clean, cheap energy, in my view, energy research is a much better use of taxpayer dollars when they're available than long-term subsidies. 22 years, 8 renewals, far too

long. ronald reagan was right. i hope to prove him wrong on this one, that this finally comes to an end. mr. flake: just one point. the second amendment, as i mentioned, you mentioned that this two-year extension leads to another ten years with subsidy. and depending on when they actually start production, it could be another 20 years. and so it really distorts our budget process and our appropriations and authorizations and everything else for a longer period of time than it should. i thank the gentleman for his work on this and look forward to hopefully seeing these amendments debated. and i yield back my time. do you have any closing remarks to make? mr. alexander: i do not. i think in summary, after 22 years and 8 extensions, it's time for the wind production tax credit to step on its own into the marketplace. let's save $13 billion. let's stop distorting the

marketplace and undercutting nuclear plants as well as coal plants, and let's stop destroying the environment in the name of saving the environment. i thank the senator from arizona for his leadership. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. alexander: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: may i ask consent to vitiate the quorum? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: i ask consent to include in the record following our colloquy, an op-ed in the "wall street journal" from may 7 in 2014 entitled "wind power tax credits need to be blown away." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: madam president, may i ask consent to vitiate the quorum call? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: madam president, the so-called tax extenders bill is the subject of discussion. 5 provisions in the tax code -- 55 provisions in the tax code to be extended for a year. most of them have expired. the wind production tax credit is one of those. what i would hope is that the majority leader would do what

the senate should do, which is to allow those of us who have amendments, like the senator from arizona and i who have offered two on the wind production tax credit, to have our say on behalf of the people of tennessee and arizona and the american people, and to not impose the gag rule on the american people that's become the practice here in the senate. really the only reason we're here is to have a say and to have a vote on behalf of the people who elected us. if an important bill like the tax extenders bill comes forward and we have a $13 billion expenditure that americans feel strongly about, we ought to have a vote. we ought to have a say. and so i hope very much that as we move forward, that the majority leader will bring us back to the time where the senate was a chance to have a vote, have a say on behalf of the people of the united states. we might not win our vote. we might lose our vote.

but we will have had or say. this is the body in the american constitutional framework that has been described in the most recent history of the united states senate as the one authentic bit of genius in the american system of government. and that is because we have to have a consensus before we move ahead. you only govern a complex country like this by consensus. that's what 60 votes is about. that's what debate is about. we've gotten far away from that. far away from that. so this would be a good time to drop this notion of the gag rule on the american people, this business of cutting off amendments, cutting off debate, and say we welcome amendments, we welcome debate. we'll vote them up. we'll vote them down. we'll pass them in a responsible way and we'll go on to the next thing. so it's my hope that senator flake's amendment that i'm proud to cosponsor, both of them, will be one of several amendments on the tax extenders bill when that

comes up. i thank the president. i yield the floor. mr. nelson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: madam president, a number of people have asked me to comment about the situation since president putin has moved aggressively with regard to crimea and eastern ukraine. and, therefore there has been some retaliation of sanctions by the united states against russia and now we are hearing comments out of russia by the deputy prime minister who has the responsibility for defense and aerospace, a number of troubling statements, such as since the u.s., until we complete our development of

rockets that can again take americans on american rockets to and from the international space station, he's made a sarcastic comment, something like well how do the americans think they are going to get to the space station, on a trampoline? and then most recently a statement having been issued in his name that russia, the russian rocket company, will not sell the very efficient and very energetic russian rocket energy, the rd-180, will not sell that to the united states for military purposes.

this is a very complex issue, it affects not only our military access to space, it affects our civilian access to space. and let me in about four minutes see if i can dissect this as a number of people have asked me about this, and this will be an issue, for example, next week in the markup in the senate armed services committee of the armed services defense authorization bill. now, first of all, let's go back and see the history. how do we have this relationship with russia, and what is it? well, it's interesting that in the midst of the cold war, when there were the two superpowers, it was the soviet union and the

united states that decided to cooperate in space in the civilian program. and in the midst of the cold war, leading up to the launch in 1975, a russian soyuz and an american apollo spacecraft, apollo-soyuz it is known as, revenue day viewed and -- revenue die viewed and docked and the crews lived together in space for nine days, 1975. by the way, those two crews led by general alexi leon ov of soviet union and general tom stafford, united states air force general, nasa astronaut, apollo 10 that went to the moon, those two are close,

close personal friends today. and have seen each other over the course of the years many, many times. i had the privilege as a young congressman of taking a delegation in 1985 to the soviet union on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of apollo-soyuz with our apollo astronauts joining in moscow with the soviet cause mow knots. -- cosmonauts. so there is a long history. but now fast forward up to 1991, i think is the year, and it is the -- the complete destruction of the old soviet union. and all the satellite states go

elsewhere. by the way, this is right -- this is in august and september of 1991. interestingly, after a delegation of american astronauts and soviet cosmonauts in april of 1991 have all joined together out at star city where they train their cosmonauts and then we all go in a soviet military plane out to kazakhstan to the launch site on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the launch of the first human into space, and that was a russian, yuri gather gather an. -- gargaran. shortly after this, a few months later, the soviet union disintegrates. so the united states had a choice to make.

where are all of those very bright, very effective russian scientists in their defense program and in their space program, often their civilian space program was directly linked to their soviet military program, where are all those scientists going to go? we don't want them to go to iran, north korea, china, so the united states -- and i believe it was senator sam nunn, democrat, and senator dick lugar, republican -- that led the effort to put together the nunn-lugar bill which started sending american assistance to try to stop the

scientists from fleeing into other hands, and especially to corral all of the nuclear weapons that the soviet union had. and that was done very effectively. and one tiny aspect of that was because we then found out when russia opened its former soviet closed doors, we found out that the russian scientists and engineers had manufactured this exceptionally efficient and powerful engine, kerosene and lox, lick which oxygen, called the rd-180. and as a result we worked out a deal between american aerospace

companies and the russian company called anergomash, where instead of these engines going all across the world we were going to use them together. and so the united states through its rocket manufacturers, formerly i believe it was pratt-whitney, they got the license to this and the plans to the engine, but they also had the agreement that they would buy these from the russian rocket manufacturer. now, today that engine is a staple, a necessary engine in our stable of horses to get into space. both military and civilian. because it is the main engines

on what today we use as the atlas 5 rocket. this is a proven rocket, it's had an unblemished record, and that unblemished record has been something like close to if not over a hundred straight flights without a flaw, and that rocket is being planned for in the future by boeing to put a boeing spacecraft on top of it for humans to go to and from the space station, and planned for by another company called sierra nevada, which has created a smaller winged spacecraft, not unlike the space shuttle, but much, much smaller, that will go on top of the atlas 5, also

for humans, and they along with a third competitor now going into a competition in nasa, the third competitor being space-x which has built its own rocket called the falcon 9, with its spacecraft, the dragon capsule, those three will compete to see if one or all three are the ones that deliver humans, americans, and russians, to the international space station in the future instead of us having to rely after we shut down the space shuttle, on the only manned human-tested rocket to get us to and from the space station now, which is the soyuz, the russian rocket that launches from kazakhstan.

now, if this isn't confusing enough, now the deputy prime minister provoked because the united states has responded to president putin's aggression, says he's going to stop selling the anergomash rocket to the united states for military purposes. the question is. is he going to continue to sell that rocket engine for civilian purposes, which i just outlined in this competition that's coming up, and if this is accurate and it holds, what to do for the united states. well, we have several options. first of all, we have a two-year supply on the shelf of these engines, and if we think

in two years that the russians are not going to continue to sell this -- and, by the way, this is a real jobmaker for russians and a moneymaker for them. they want -- i can tell you the aerospace industry in russia, they want to continue to sell this engine. but if the politics gets in the way and they cut it off, then what is the united states to do? well, we've got to figure that out. right now there is a study going on in the department of defense as to how we would handle it. we've got a two-year supply. one of the options they'll look at is stretching that out over time, putting some of those payloads on other rockets. there are some of those payloads that can go on the very successful falcon 9. but there are heavier payloads

that cannot go on that falcon 9 that could go on the atlas 5, but if the atlas 5 is not flying, have to go on a more expensive and heavier lift, delta 4 heavy. but that's more expensive. and so you see how complicated this gets. and then the question is, well, can we really bank on if they're not going to sell these engines for military purposes, can we really bank on it that they would sell these engines for nasa civilian purposes? and that's a big question mark. and so one of the things in this d.o.d. study is going to be can we manufacture -- since we have the plans -- that -- we don't

know the answer to at this point. it's an extremely complicated metallurgy process that they had perfected in all of those years in the old soviet union that we would have to starting flatfooted own though we have the plans, figure out how to do that, do all the design equipment, all the processing equipment, and then try to get the engines ready. and at some point, what would a follow-on engine look like. now, that's about the best that i can summarize the situation. but we're going to have some major decisions to make sheer, depending on what we see on the d.o.d. study. first of all, we're going to have to know how we have assured access to space for defense purposes for the national security of this country.

secondly, we're going to have to have assured access to space for the civilian program so that this incredible international space station that we have built with 15 nations, including the russians, a major partner, how we are going to keep that operating and to get americans to and from, because the russians cannot operate the space station by themselves. in the first place, a lot of russian commands to their own mod yules actually are commands that go through the johnson space center in texas. and secondly, the russians depend on all the electricity that is generated on the international space station from the american electrical systems. and so we're going to have to continue to operate it together.

the deputy prime minister implied that, that he would continue to do that through the year 2020. but the space station is going to have a life, and should have, well into the end of the decade of the 2030's. so these are the questions we're going to have to answer, and they're going to have to be answered in the near future. and in part, some of them are going to have to be answered next week as we start to mark up the defense authorization bill. i wanted to give the senate and all of those in the press that have been asking me the best of what i could conclude at this point, and then we will see what develops. there was the new development, as i mentioned, yesterday where the deputy prime minister said they won't sell the rd-180 to

america for military purposes. if that holds, then we've got to swing into action pretty quick. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you, madam president. i rise this afternoon to talk about the legislation that we're considering, the so-called expire act. we want to make sure that as we're focusing on the policy -- and i'll get to that in a moment -- that we highlight for emphasis that this was a measure that came out of the senate finance committee in a bipartisan fashion. in fact, it was unanimous coming out of the committee. we had a good discussion and debate about various provisions, tax provisions that we wanted to extend for two more years.

and because of that, there was a great interest in the subject matter, but rarely have we seen the kind of bipartisan support that we've seen in the committee for these tax provisions. and i think that bipartisanship will continue as we move forward with the legislation on the floor. the bill, as i mentioned, came out of our committee recently and it does enjoy that bipartisan support. i wanted to concentrate for a couple of minutes today on the small business provisions. as you know, a lot -- if you went down the list of these extensions of tax provisions, often known as tax extenders generically, that you could cover a huge subject, a huge array of subjects by virtue of the whole bill. but i'm going to focus for a minutes just on the small business provisions. what we often hear from small

business owners -- and i hear it all the time in pennsylvania, but i'm sure others hear it in their home states as well -- about the nature, or i should say the lack of certainty business owners all the time say they don't have certainty about where they, where their business will go next because of sometimes what washington isn't getting done. one of the reasons it was so important to get this done in a bipartisan fashion -- and that alone was a measure of certainty that folks didn't have when they see so much partisanship here. but also giving it a time frame of two years helped uncertainty as well. it's an especially urgent issue when it comes to small business owners. they don't often have the capacity to go out and hire a lot of experts to help them with compliance, to help them understand or deal with on a regular basis tax provisions or changes in health care, changes in public policy substantially.

so having a measure of certainty is a significant issue in the life of a small business owner. all too often we minimize the impact of tax incentives by failing to renew our critical provisions in a timely manner. business owners are in need, as i said before, of that basic certainty, which many of them don't have right now. and that's why the work that many of us have done on small businesses issues is particularly significant today. i'm particularly proud of the work that i've done with senator collins of maine to introduce bipartisan legislation which would allow small businesses to plan for capital investments that are so vital to job creation. this particular bill is a commonsense proposal that would increase certainty for

businesses -- again, especially small businesses -- increase economic activity and increase the pace of job creation itself. a number of the provisions in the bill that i've worked on with senator collins are in the expire act, the matter, the legislation we're dealing with here on the floor. i believe we have to create a favorable environment in order for businesses to make investments that create jobs and grow the economy. small businesses, as we all know, are so vital to our economy. even when we say that, i'm not sure we often fully understand it. here's some of the numbers that give you a sense of how significant the impact is for the country. when you consider that small firms comprise more than 98% of all employers, nearly half of

the pennsylvania workforce is on their payroll. so you get a sense of the dimensions, the kraoefp -- reach or scope of small businesses in a state like pennsylvania. but of course that's true across the nation. small firms nationally employ just over half of the private-sector workforce, according to the small business administration. small businesses also have led the charge to put america back to work. according to the s.b.a., small businesses have created 60%, 64% of the net new jobs over the past 15 years. again, we sometimes don't fully appreciate the impact of small business. the most recent monthly employment report by payroll processer a.d.p. showed that small and medium-sized firms accounted for more than 80% of

the job growth in january of this year. so a short term recent number of job creation, small business is accounting for 80% of that. but even when you look at over a long period of time, 15 years, as i said before, small businesses creating 64% of the net new jobs over the past 15 years. so we need to do everything we can here in the senate and in the other body to do everything we can to invest in strategies that will help small small busis so they can grow and so they can invest. unfortunately, many tax provisions affecting small businesses have recently been enacted on an unpredictable and temporary basis. that's an understatement. when we talk about that issue of certainty or uncertainty, this is part what we're talking about.

this uncertainly substantially hinders economic growth and job creation. when businesses don't know how their investments will be taxed, they cannot make long-term planning decisions with confidence. that's true of anyone. you don't have to be a small business owner to understand that. but it's especially difficult for a small business owner to plan. and again, one of the reasons is when you combine uncertainty -- government uncertainty sometimes or policy uncertainty -- with the inability for small businesses to hire a legion of lawyers or accountants or other professionals to help them. sometimes a small business owner does everything. the chief, cook and bottle washer; they do everything. and they don't have the luxury of going out and hiring a compliance team for every issue, and it is especially difficult in this uncertain environment.

so this uncertainty about tax policy disproportionately harms these small businesses. we often say that these are the firms that are the backbone of the american economy, and yet they don't have the luxury the larger firms do to have a team of experts around them, or a teen that they can retain. the national federation of independent business says compliance costs are 67% higher for small firms than larger ones. the small business administration claims that tax paperwork is the most extensive paperwork burden on small businesses. that's 74 bucks an hour. they're paying $74 an hour in terms of tax compliance paperwork, and their overall compliance costs are 67% higher than large firms. that alone, again, tells the story.

so this legislation includes several provisions intended to immediately reduce the uncertainty about the tax code and encourage businesses to grow, invest, and hire. these measures as i said before, have bipartisan support and draw from proposals from both parties. one measure is the extension of the 15-year straight line depreciation schedule for restaurants, lease holds and retail improvements. in april of last year senator cornyn from texas and i introduced a bill that contained this provision. and this bill has bipartisan support. just to explain what we're talking about here, if a restaurant wanted to add a new room -- say, they wanted to add five or ten tables to add to the space they have to certain people. that's a pretty big investment. you've got to build, you've got to grow. you've got to spend a lot of money to do that. there's a depreciation benefit

to that which historically has been giving or provided that business for over 39 years. we've shrunk down to 15 years. so instead of getting tiny slices of depreciation the benefit, in essence, those little, tiny slices of benefit over nine years, that benefit has been much more substantial when you can reduce it to 15 years. the bottom line is we want to stay there. we want to stay at 15 years and not go back to the 39 years. i'm not sure what the benefit is. if you add a couple of tables to your restaurant of 2014, i don't think you want to wait 39 years for the benefit. so the legislation that senator cornyn and i have would maintain that 15-year cost recovery provision and make it permanent. the bill addresses this, albeit for a two-year time frame

instead of permanently. we know that this faster so-called cost recovery is directly reflected in a company's bottom line and frees up cash that can be used to expand operations and hire more workers. it just stands to reason, you have a greater tax benefit, you've got more dollars in your hand, so to speak, as a restaurant owner, you can hire more workers in the near term. so maximizing certainty within the code is especially important for these businesses. another study, this is the national restaurant association, found that uncertainty, uncertainty about depreciation and other tax provisions force restaurants to forego improvements projects that would have produced around 200,000 jobs nationwide. i would argue that that number were cut in half, it would be a significant number. but their estimate is that the 200,000 jobs in essence were foregoing, not creating 200,000

jobs because of that uncertainty that a lot of restaurant owners would have because of tax uncertainty. another provision of the bill that we're debating and discussing today would make permanent the maximum allowable deduction under section 179 expensing rules. that's the section of the tax code, 179, that allows taxpayers to fully deduct certain capital asset purchases in the year that they make the purchase. this type of expensing provides an important incentive for businesses to make capital investments. without it, taxpayers would have to de-- depreciate those asset purchases over multiple years. again, getting a much more short-term benefit because of that tax provision. this maximum allowable deduction under 179 has changed three

times in the past six years. that's one of the best definitions of uncertainty, when things keep changing and the numbers keep changing. so one year you could take advantage of a $500,000 of benefit if you bought new equipment, for example. what we want to do, i think what's the best policy is to set it at a fairly high level, i would argue a quarter of a million dollars, and keep it there -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. casey: madam president, i ask consent to speak for just two more minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. casey: thank you very much. so that's 179 and that's another issue that is addressed in the bill. the third provision is the so-called bonus provision. that helps businesses in much the same way as the expensing rules do as well. this bonus depreciation allows

companies to expense half of the qualifying assets they buy and put into service the same year. i won't go through all the numbers on that, but we've heard from companies across the board about those -- that provision as well. so whether it's for provisions that help restaurants, whether it's help businesses that want to make capital purchases or whether it's companies that benefit from another year of tax benefit, this bill allows us to give a measure of certainty for at least two years to these businesses and especially those that are small businesses. this is one of those times, i believe, where we can fulfill what a lot of people have asked us to do. they ask us on a daily basis to work together to create jobs. this legislation which is bipartisan is one way to come together in a bipartisan fashion to create jobs, to give certainty, to help our small

businesses and to work together, democrats and republicans. madam president, i would yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to give voice to the thousands of nebraskans who have contacted my office and continue to contact my office with their concerns about health care. in 2009, the president made all americans a promise. he said no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise. if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. five years later, it is becoming clear that the president's assurance won't hold true. millions of americans, many of them were forced to sign up for obamacare-approved health plans, and they are now having trouble finding a doctor or a hospital

that they like that will accept this new insurance. on may 12, "the new york times" reported in the midst of all the turmoil and health care these days, one thing is becoming clear. no matter what kind of health plans consumer choose, they will find fewer doctors and hospitals in their network or pay much more for the privilege of going to any provider they want. despite higher rates, new obamacare plans include fewer in-network doctors and hospitals than the older health care plans. this diminished access to health care, it is a serious problem for americans, especially those who live in rural areas, with fewer primary care physicians, and it's forcing some people to drive hours just to see a doctor who will accept that insurance. madam president, i have received letters, emails and phone calls

from over 18,000 nebraskans, and they keep saying the same thing. the promises of obamacare are not being kept. for example, karen and her husband from carney essentially lost the doctors they had and liked when they received a notice in the mail indicating the health care providers they have relied on for years will no longer accept this new insurance. let me read another example my office received. this is from another constituent in carney, douglas, and he wrote -- "obamacare has done one thing and one thing only. it has threatened my life and the life of my son." he goes on to say because of age and the a.c.a., my son's doctors retired or they quit practicing, and also because of my son becoming an adult, we had to find new doctors.

we haven't been denied insurance, but we have been denied doctors. we ended up begging and pleading with doctors to care for my son. we were turned down by nine or ten." i offered a commonsense proposal called the fair act. it would delay the tax on the uninsured any time the employer mandate is delayed. obamacare is picking winners and losers. the big and the powerful get help while the vast majority of nebraskans and millions of americans are left behind. my bill will level the playing field, giving all americans that fair shot. i hope we have the opportunity to debate and vote on my commonsense bill here in the united states senate. thank you, madam president, i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. the senator is recognized. mr. coats: i thank the president. madam president, according to the recent national federation of business study, obamacare and its tax increases will result in the reduction of up to 285,000 private sector jobs. let's say they're wrong. let's say they are exaggerating. after all, cnfib, they have not

been in support of obamacare, so let's say it's 250,000 or 225,000. let's say it's 200,000. anything -- any piece of legislation that causes one job to be lost i think is something that we ought to take a sector look at, but let alone 285,000 private sector jobs. and even though the administration has moved the goal post more than 20 times in terms of how this legislation is enacted, it clearly has hurt far more than it's helped. now, the majority leader famously said that all the stories that had been stated on this floor have been horror stories that aren't true, but these are real stories. these are people who have contacted my office and talked to me americanly, written letters, sent e.m.s. basically

saying here's my experience, and all i'm doing is once in a while coming down to the floor to express their experiences to show the dysfunction that exists out there among the people that i represent. kelly from fort wayne, indiana, received a letter from her insurance company that said her provider would change her policy due to the affordable care act. it increased her monthly cost by over 400% compared to what she paid with the previous plan. what am i supposed to do, she said. this medication i have is lifesaving. it's no longer covered by my insurance plan. and the insurance company has indicated that this is the result of the implementation of the -- obamacare. bruce from jasper, indiana, had to drop his current policy and enroll in a new plan that increased his monthly premium by

70%. bruce said, "i can't afford this. i'm paying a lot of money already. 70%! i thought the president said this won't cost me a penny more, period." i'm sure he regrets saying "period," because period means no discussion, no debate, trust. you won't have to pay one penny more. talked to bruce in jasper, he's paying 70% more. and traveling across indiana, i hear these stories from hoosiers over and over. businessmen and women, owners who are reducing hours, laying off hardworking employees, closing their doors because of that's costly retirements. they're very seriously considering dropping any employer-covered insurance whatsoever. they are reducing their workforce, if it's possible, to below 29 hours a workweek so that they don't have to do

insurance. one national chain has publicly basically stated that they've put all of their employees -- this is a national chain; we're talking about tens of thousands of employeesder the combles -- l of their imphees on 29-hour-a-week work schedules so they don't have to subject them to the restrictions imposed upon them under the obamacare act. well, i don't know how many of these stories we have to share here before we get some ability given to us to try to make some reforms, replacements or positive solutions to the problems that we face. republicans have met in caucus. we have some alternatives. we would like to have them considered. but in this leads to me to my -- but this leads t lead me to my d pointed. it is clear to me now that we're not going to be allowed to offer any solutions, any reforms, any changes to any legislation as

long as we're here in this session of congress. we've been allowed eight amendments in the last nine months. the minority in the house of representatives have been offered over 125 amendments in the last nine months. people are saying, well, wait a minute. i thought in the house the majority ruled, they had a rules committee, they decided that maybe you'll get one amendment, two amendments; don't expect to be able to offer amendments if you're in the house of representatives and in the minority. we won the elections. we're the majority. that's how the house works. i served in the house. i served in the minority for eight years. boy, trying to remember if i ever was allowed an amendment. sometimes our caucus was allowed an amendment. i came to the senate. people say, what's the difference? the difference is night and day. any senator can offer any

amendment to any bill at any time. the leader -- then democrat majority leader george mitchell, was following a precedent that had lasted for more than 200 years. the greatest deliberative body in the world deliberated, and we were here, yes, late hours in the evenings sometime when members said, wait a minute ... i've got one more amendment. that person was allowed to offer that amendment of many nights we spent into the dark hours working through a bill, but the process worked. that was harned by republican leaders and -- that was honored by republican leaders and democrat leaders. only now in this second iteration of mine -- seems like a bad dream actually -- do we have a leader that has thrill said, i'm not allowing you any amendments. i don't want to force any vote . that's not what the senate was

designed to be. and yet here we are facing yet another piece of legislation that looks like -- just as every other piece of legislation we have been faced with this year. the majority leader will come down and use procedures called filling the tree -- you can't explain that to anybody; filling the tree -- what are you talking about? -- i.t. procedure it's pd to shut down the minority. it is a gag act of the majority leader saying basically you don't have the privilege under my leadership of representing the people in your state who voted for you to come here and offer their wishes and desires and amendments to reform a piece of legislation. i'm not giving you that opportunity. that's what the majority leader is saying over and over and over. now, if you are a he in the majority, i suppose you can get your changes, modified and moved into the bill that the majority leader brings to the floor. but then he turns to the other side and say, you don't count,

none of you, all 45 of you. all 45 republican senators here don't count. this is a senate run by 55 people under the dictator leadership of the current majority leader, who simply has thrown a gag order on any republican because they're afraid to debate and vote on measures that they think might negatively impact them. even though there are many times bipartisan -- even though they are many times bipartisan-led amendments, amendments led by single members or multiple members on the other side of the aisle. because we said, okay, he's turning down anything we offer. but what if we offered it with support from a member from the other side? he turns that down, too, so he shuts down his own members. it is beyond my comprehension, having served here before and seen the senate under the leadership of democrat leaders,

cause this body to function in a way that everybody had a voice. we didn't always win our amendments. if we were in the minority, we mostly lost our amendment. but we had a chance to offer them, we had a chance to debate them, to try to persuade members to join us. sometimes we were fortunate to persuade those members. other times they were bills and amendments fashioned together with democrats and republicans, brought to the floor this tan -- brought to the floor in tandem, voted on and passed, and they were constructive changes. today it is shut up, sit down, don't offer an amendment, i'm nolnot giving you anything. it defies the history of this plashings thplace, the infrastrn oinfrastructureddition-- the tr. there is no deliberation here. it appears that the only way to change this is for the voters to go to the poll and say, let's

get the senate back to what it's supposed to be. let's get to place where we're not afraid to stand up and take a stand. let's not be afraid to offer something and if it passes, it passes; if it lose, it loses. but at least you had the opportunity to state your position. and the the opportunity to represent the wishes of the people who sent you here. we've been sitting around here being able to do nothing -- nothing -- because the majority leader said, you're in the minority; i'm running this thing; ilts it's a one-man sho. i'm throwing a gag rule over awful you, and we're shut -- over all of you, and we're shutting it down. now we're coming to the tax extenders. there are good provisions in this, there are mediocre provisions, there are some that probably shouldn't be debated. but shouldn't this be debated? this impacts our economy, our future. there are many things in the tax extender bill that's coming

before us -- research credits and other things that stimulate the economy that i think are good; there are some things that i think are bad -- shouldn't we have the opportunity to support the good or at least make an effort at that? but once again it hasn't happened yet, but the pattern has been laid. the majority leader will say, no, we're not going to have any amendments. we're going to shut this down and do it our way. well, apparently that's the way the majority leader decide -- has decided he's going to run the senate. he makes all kinds of false and -- excuses as to why he has to do what he does. but none of them hold water. i just regret that. i just think it has turned this place into a dysfunctional body, and i think the burden of responsibility for that falls directly on the shoulders of the majority leader. with that, i yield the floor.

mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the sph sphrr wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. thm president. i come to the floor as my colleague from indiana has because the same thing that he's hearing about at home in indiana -- stories from real people and how their lives have been impacted by the health care law -- are things i'm hearing at home every weekend in wyoming. i think it's aston irin astonist the majority leader would come to the floor and sthait storie e stories we're coming to the floor with are made up. these are people that have been impacted by the health care law in ways that have been very detrimental to their life, their livelihood. people have had hours cut, their take-home pay is less, they're finding that they're having it pay a lot more for insurance. a lot of times it is insurance they won't use or need, but the president says they have to buy. they've lost policies that have worked well for them.

and i got a recent e-mail from a gentleman, a family in powell, wyoming, a community in park county, and he writes, he said, "now that obamacare has been deemed to be the most successful government program of all-time, let me tell what it has done for retired middle-class wyoming citizens like myself." and of course he said -- he was very unserious when he said "the most successful government program of all time." he probably heard the president tell democrats to forcefully defend and be proud. i haven't heard members who voted for this actually come to the floor to any degree to forcefully defend and be proud of the law because they know the side effects of the law have been devastating, deaf statuting to families -- devastating to families, devastating to people and their pay chick paychecks ao

health care. my constituent says, the situation regarding him, he said, "health care premiums of nearly $2,000 a month." the president said, premiums would drop by $2,500 a year. this gentleman says health care premiums of nearly $2,000 a month scheduled to go to at least $2,000 a month in july. par reiparentheses "unbelievabl" "not qualifying for obamacare subsidies, having to consider becoming lawbreakers by foregoing health insurance for ourselves or at least one of us (probably myself as i am the healthier of the two) and paying the fine." then said said, "i would do thi, number two, above, disobeying the law, paying the fine. we will have to seek cheaper care outside the united states, probably mexico for serious

problems." is that what the president of the united states intended to have people seek health care in mexico because they can't afford the mandates and all of the insurance they don't want, can't use, can't afford? of course that was deemed the lie of the year. so i guess that's how the american people view the president of the united states now and can't really consider his comments to be credible. so when he says forcefully dwren and be proud of the-- ---- forcefully defend and be proud of the health care, i think the american people realize that the president has sold the law to them under false promises and the democrats are clearly not standing up and defending what they know is hurting their constituents. the president is in his bubble, and he hears only what he wants to hear. but i think members on the democratic side do go home and listen to people know that these

stories are true, unlike what the majority leader says that they're just made up. so the gentleman goes on to say, "i can look into residents in another state to see if health care inurns is available cheaper. don't know if it is or not. but i understand that wyoming has the highest or near-highest health insurance premiums." then he ends by saying, "is this what obama and the federal government consider fair?" the president goes on tv, says everybody ought to have a fair shovment is this what the president of the united states considers fair? is this what he means by a fair shot in people all across the country are going to be asking themselves that question as they take a look at the impact of this health care law on their own lives, their own family, their ability to keep their doctor. we know many, many people have lost the doctor that they like ed in the sens -- in the sense t they can't go to that doctor. we know they can't go to their same hospital. we know that many were not able to keep the insurance they had. many have had hours cut and in

an effort to try to help people that didn't have insurance, i just think the president of the united states and democrats should not have hurt so many individuals across the country. so many people who already had insurance. there may be people that are newly insured, but there are also people that are uninsured and it is because of the president's health care law and are there side effects? you better believe it. they're harmful and costly and for many families, they've been devastated by the health care law. i showed you another letter from a family in lingell, wyoming. this is somebody who knows i'm a doctor, knows my record of treating patients around wyoming and working with families all across the state, and she said, "i know you're interested in the number of people who are uninsured after the roll-out of the a.c.a." she said, "my husband and i started investigating the a.c.a. in october."

now, you'll remember, madam president, that's when actually the health care law, they opened the exchanges in october when the president right before that said it was going to be easier to use than amazon and cheaper than your cell phone bill. and she said, so "we started investigating in october and were finally able to establish an account in march." that's what the american people think about the capability of this government and this administration. you start working on something in october and you finally establish an account in march because of the incompetence of a bureaucracy and an administration who says one thing, does another; promises something and delivers something very different. she said, "we found that our premiums would be one-third of our annual income." "one-third of our annual income with a $6,000 co-pay and a $12,000 deductible."

madam president, those are numbers -- one-third of their annual income, $6,000 co-pay, $12,000 deductible. and the majority leader comes to the floor and says we're making this stuff up. these are letters from our constituents, people who live in our states, people who we see on weekends when we go home. she goes on to say, "we've been uninsured for seven years due to the costs which we were told is due to our age even though we're in good health. as of today, we're still uninsured." so they started in october, finally established an account in march and as of the date this was written in april, they were still uninsured. we don't have any idea what will happen if one of us gets sick or has an accident. how will we pay the bills? and then she finishes by saying, "keep fighting for the people of wyoming. as a doctor, you know what a precarious position we are in." madam president, i wish the president of the united states and the majority leader would realize what a precarious position they have placed the american public in, an american

public who knew what they wanted with health care reform. they wanted the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. that's not what they cost. they got more mandates, more expensive care, higher deductibles, higher co-pays. many people had their policies canceled. we know with the 30-hour work rule, we know that communities are cutting the hours of workers so their take-home pay goes do down. we're not talking about businesses here. it's also happening in school districts, saying we're going to have to cut the hours of substitute teachers, we're going to have to cut the hours of the school bus drivers, of the coaches, of a number of part-time workers. why? because of the health care law. these are side effects of the law. they are harmful, they are expensive, they have an impact on people's lives to the point that i think the president wants

to ignore because the president is hoping that people on his side of the aisle will forcefully defend and be proud of a law that there is little to be proud of, that really is not able to be defended because the implications and the side effects have been devastating to many and especially to americans who have gotten their insurance canceled and find out that their only choice is more expensive insurance, higher co-pays, higher deductibles. but to families all across a country, when a mother finds she can't take her child to that pediatrician, the one that knows that child since the baby was born but now because of the health care law, can't go to that pree pediatrician, can't go the hospital in their communities, has to drive distances instead because of the health care law, which was intended to help people but has ended up hurting, in my opinion,

more people than it has helped. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i rise to speak in regard to obamacare. the good senator from wyoming made compelling points, as the senator from indiana before him. what i'd like to do is just start here for a minute by reading from some of the letters that i've received from constituents in my state in regard to obamacare or the affordable care act. and these are from hardworking people that are trying to figure out what to do about their health insurance with obamacare in place. and i think that really those are the voices that speak louder

than any others. the voices of people from across this great country, that live in all of our states and they're writing to members of this body and saying, hey, here's what i'm experiencing. so, you know, this isn't just coming down and expressing an opinion on the affordable care act. this is -- this is what people are saying. this is what they're telling us. and i think it's very important that we take time to listen and to understand the very real difficulties that they're having with something that's so vitally important to all of us and that's health insurance. and so i'd like to just start by reading some of those -- some of these letters. the first one is from somebody that lives in the fargo area and starts out, "i live in west fargo and my employer is based out of south dakota. in 2011, i obtained my own family health care insurance due to a job change and my new

employer's health care coverage costs seemed excessive. in doing so, i found coverage as follows." so they signed up for a policy that's 80/20 co-pay, $1,000 deductible, $4,000 out-of-pocket maximum. monthly premiums of just over $800 -- $809. and that was provided through blue cross and blue shield. at the time, the individual goes on to write, "at the time, this was more than $300 less costly than my new employer's monthly premium for similar coverage. but i recently received a notice from blue cross/blue shield that my coverage will be discontinued on may 1, 2014, due to the affordable care act." so received a notice their insurance is being discontinued due to the affordable care act. now, listed below are the options which are most similar to my current coverage. now, instead of an 80/20 co-pay,

it's a 70/30 co-pay, so the co-pay is higher.$2,000 deductible. so instead of a $1,000 deductible, that's doubled, now a $2,000 deductible. $9,000 out-of-pocket maximum compared to what this individual had before, which was a $4,000 out-of-pocket maximum, so more than doubled the out-of-pocket maximum. a monthly premium, $1,625. that compared to an $809 premium. so the premium doubled. so for a higher co-pay, for a higher deductible, for a higher out-of-pocket maximum, they're paying double the premium. if they want to go to an -- another policy, it was an even higher deductible. so the individual goes on to s say, "we're not eligible for tax credits because my employer offers the affordable health

coverage." so because the employer offers a policy, this individual's not eligible for any tax credits. "at this point, my best option is to obtain my employer's health coverage. however, open enrollment is now not until august of 2014." so the individual has to wait until august. my h.r. department, along with my current insurance specialist, has contacted blue cross/blue shield and ask that it be considered a "life-changing event" so i can enjoy the employer plan by may -- by the may 1st deadline. they will not classify it as such so i asked if i could pay some type of early sign-on fee. they indicated that's not an option. so if i cannot enjo join my empr plan, my best option for coverage are those listed above -- the ones i just read --

which are at best a 37% increase -- at best -- a 37% increase in monthly premiums with 110% or more increase in deductible and out-of-pocket maximum. so let me say that one more time. this individual's best options now with the affordable care act are a 37% increase in the monthly premium with a 110% or more increase in the deductible and the out-of-pocket maximum. then the individual finishes, "do you see my frustration?" this is the letter, just one of the letters that we've received, but it is representative of so many others. how can that be an affordable care act? how is that affordable care? here's another one.

"my insurance premium tripled for less coverage. i thought our insurance was suppose the to stay the same -- supposed to say the same if we had it. please put a stop to it. it isn't right to make people pay for something that they may not be able to afford. i already had health insurance. i also send money to my sister to help with her baby and now i won't be able to do that." another letter, a real person, real situation. here's one. "to our elected representatives: we petition you not as democrats, republicans, independents or members of any special interest group but as concerned taxpayers. we urge all of our elected representatives to vote against this administration's health care plan. the nonpartisan congressional budget office has estimated that the costs will be more than $1 trillion over 10 years and we

know from experience that it will cost far more than any government estimate." well, these stories go on and i know that i have colleagues who are waiting to speak as well during this time slot, and so rather than continue to go through these letters -- and i have many more; i brought more than i anticipated reading today and i'll come back again and read some more of these -- but i just want to conclude with what i believe is the right approach and i think it's something that republicans are talking about and have been talking about and will continue to talk about. so when we come down and say the affordable care act is not working, don't just take our word for it. listen to the people from across this country that are writing to us and telling us their very real stories. sometimes we hear, "well, but you don't have a solution."

that's wrong, we do. we absolutely have a solution and we've talked about it over and over again here on this floor and in every other venue where someone's willing to listen. we need to implement a comprehensive approach and we need to do it on a step-by-step basis so that people understand it and know exactly what we're putting in place. and it needs to be an approach that empowers people to make their own choices, their own choices about their health care insurance and their health care providers. again, i want to repeat that. they choose their own policy and their health care providers. and it includes market-based reforms that promote competiti competition, that will help increase choice, not reduce choice, and competition that will help bring prices down, not see them continue to spike higher. it includes things like tort reform to reduce the costs of health care. it includes things like allowing

insurance companies to sell policies across state lines. it includes expanding health savings accounts so individuals can combine high-deductible health care policies with a savings account, with a tax-deductible savings account. and it includes things like reform of medicare and medicaid to give states more control and to encourage the kind of reforms that will improve service, improve outcomes and reduce costs. that's the kind of approach that truly serves the american publ public. that's the kind of approach that we will continue to work on behalf of the citizens of our respective states and this great nation to put in place. with that, madam president, i see that my esteemed colleague from the great state of mississippi is here and i would yield to the good senator from mississippi. mr. cochran: mr. president --

madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. cochran: madam president, my impressions of the so-called patient protection and affordable care act is that it is too costly, too complex, and too intrusive. small business owner many small business owners would like to provide health insurance for their work force but are finding the premium costs are just too expensive. a small business owner in hattiesburg, for example, who in the past paid 100% of the premiums for his employees was recently informed of a 21%

increase in these costs. he's having to choose between reducing staff or shifting the health insurance costs to his employees. another constituent from south haven reported to me that his son's work hours were cut to fewer than 30 per week so that his employer would not be forced to purchase insurance coverage with his hours reduced he cannot afford the private insurance he had hoped to be able to purchase. the administration has struggled to implement several of the health care law's mandates. billions of dollars have been spent on a flawed enrollment system that has not made significant progress in reducing the number of uninsured

americans. the stories i've heard from my state confirm for me that the affordable care act is an unfixable and expensive mess, and it should be repealed. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. risch: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. risch: madam president, i come to the floor today to talk about a case involving obamacare and an idaho resident. she has asked me to state her

case and it is one of many many such cases that i have. i didn't pick this one because it's the most egregious or anything else. i picked it because this is an effect that obamacare is having on ordinary american people of. people who deserve better, people who deserve a government who will help them, who will leave them alone when leaving alone is the right thing to do. she writes to me and says that she and her -- that her husband's company will no longer be offering health insurance next year. and, of course, that's the result of obamacare, and we've all heard the reasons why many companies are abandoning offering health care to their employees. and be that as it may -- and there's a lot of reasons for that -- none of which are good -- these people are caught in this bind. right now through her husband's business, they're paying are,

$700 a month and they get 80% coverage for that $700 a month and their deductible is $2,500 each. they're told through the exchange, which they have shopped through in idaho, that the new coverage that they're going to get is going to cost them $1,400 a month. so that's exactly double with what they're paying now. one would thing you would get double benefits, right? wrong. because of the government involvement in this, what they are going to get is instead of 80% coverage, they're going to get 70% coverage and instead of a $2,500 deductible, they're going to have a $5,000 deductible. well, who are these people? they're ordinary, regular american people. they're 60 years old and they do not qualify for a tax subsidy. they tell me that now the cost

of their health insurance is going to be three times what they're paying for the cost of their house. they told me senator, we are not extravagant people. we live in a 1400 square foot house, we do not take vacations, never bought a new car, raised our kids, and saved for their educations. both of us went to college. they talk about how they taught their children to pay their taxes and to work hard and be contributing members of society. the presiding officer: the time controlled by republicans has expired. mr. risch: thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the economic whip. mr. durbin: how much time do we have on the democratic side? the presiding officer: democrats control the next 45 minutes. mr. durbin: thank you, madam president. madam president, this week democrats are going to continue the conversation about college

affordability. i was joining senator elizabeth warren of massachusetts and jack reed of rhode island, in fact, 24 whose oost to introduce the bank on students emergency loan refinancing act. why are we talking about student loans? ask working families. ask the kids why we're talking about it. because there is more student loan debt in america today than there is credit card debt. it's huge. it's growing. if you finished college a few years back, like me, and had a student loan loan that worried you, you wouldn't be what students are facing today. the average student coming out of college $25,000 in debt. imagine sitting down at the desk in the college admissions office at age 19 as they push the papers across the desk to you and ask you to sign up for $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 in loans so you can start your

class on monday. there you sit, $20,000 in loans to start my class on monday? and you're 19 years old. wait a minute, mom and dad have to cosign with you. and that's not unusual. so that now it is a family debt. i had a press conference in chicago, madam president, on monday. this wonderful woman came in and told the story about how she and her husband with two sons were determined to get them both through college. but she hasn't been able to do it. ening you know why? the first son took five years and she and her husband had to borrow the money to get him through school. get schools but so much debt for their family they can't even consider allowing their other son to start college yet. he's waiting for his turn. that's where we are in america today when it comes to college education. if you don't happen to be wealthy or so smart that you get everything paid for, and you're stuck in the middle with working

and middle-income families, you're facing debt challenges families have never seen in the history of the united states. 1.7 million illinoisans -- that's more than 10% of our population, almost 15% of the population of the state of illinois -- have outstanding student loan debt. 15%. one out of six, one out of seven people in my state with student loan debt. nationally, 40 million borrowers with more than a trillion dollars in student loan debt. on the average, graduates of the class of 2012 left with $28,000 in debt, but the individual debts are often much higher. i've had students that i invited, come to my web site and tell me your story and it's heartbreaking. heartbreaking. these students have debts of over $1,100,000 and they went to

the for-profit universities. they're the ones that inundate you in advertising. you can't get on the train in chicago without getting hit in the eyes with all these for-profit colleges. the biggest ones, the university of phoenix, kaplan, devry, just to mention a few. it's a different category. these are not the public colleges and universities. they're not even private colleges and universities. they are for-profit schools. and believe me, they make a profit. what's the difference between for-profit schools and community colleges? the university of illinois, depaul university, georgetown university? the difference is this -- as a category, for-profit colleges and universities have 10% of the high school graduates go to school at for-profit colleges

and universities like the ones i mentioned. but they receive 20% of the federal aid to education. why? they're so darned expensive, that's why. and the students who sign up for these gram raws schools with all the marketing end up signing up for more debt than you can imagine. twice the debt of students that go to most other schools. but here's the kicker, here's the one that the for-profit colleges and universities don't want to talk about. 46% of all the student loan defaults, students' failure to pay off their loans, 46% of them, students from for-profit colleges and universities. set that aside for a minute. as awful and scandalous as that is in this country, the exploitation of these students and their families for schools which many times offer worthless diplomas, worthless degrees and absolutely no ticket to a job, as bad as that is, let's talk about the bigger picture.

90% of the other college students and what they're facing. they're borrowing money right and left. they are sinking themselves and many times their families more deeply in debt than they ever imagined, and they have no idea what they're getting into. you see, student loan debts are not like other debts. it's not like you borrowed money for a house or a car or a boat or temporary loan to get by. student loan debt is one of the few debts in america not dischargeable in bankruptcy. what does that mean? no matter how bad things get for you or your family, no matter what economic tragic comes your -- tragedy comes are way, if you ent up in bankruptcy court and try to clear the table and start over, you'll never, ever be able to discharge your student loan debt. there's an extreme circumstance where you can, it's so extreme

it almost never happens. so a student loan debt is a debt for a lifetime. you'll either pay it off or you'll carry it to the grave. they actually execute these on grandmothers on social security and i'm not making it up. grandma wanted to help her granddaughter, cosigned the student loan, granddaughter dropped out of school, never paid back the loan, defaulted, they went after granny's social security check on the student loan. that's what we're talking about here. and that's why we got to change it. that's why the democrats have come forward on this side of the aisle, we're waiting for our first republican to join us to do something about refinancing college debt in america. to at least, at least bring down the interest rates. to allow students to consolidate their loans at lower interest rates. so that they'll pay less in interest. that poor family i told you about from chicago where the mother came and testified they couldn't let the second son

start college because they've never paid off the debt on the first one, couldn't see how they would, year after year they were churning thousands of dollars into payments, all retiring interest and not retiring the principal. the interest just keeps piling up and good forbid you miss a payment. it's awful. the bank on students refinancing bill, which senator elizabeth warren, jack reed and myself are bringing to this floor will help current borrowers take advantage of what we have in low interest rates right now. those with federal loans can refinance at lower rates, the same rates as students taking out their first loans this year. 3.86% for undergraduate direct loans, 5.41% for graduate loans, 6.41% for plus loans taken out by the students' parents. you're going to say those are not rock bottom interest rates. believe me, they're a bargain in every category here against

what these students are facing today in paying off old debt. many students will find their interest rate on their loan cut in half. what does it mean? those of us who borrowed some money in life to buy a home and buy a car, a change in the interest rate of three or four percent gives you a chance to start reducing the principal and that's what we want to do so that this debt can be put behind these people. those with private loans many of which have sky-high interest rates, few protections for borrowers, at least had the version of the bill we've introduced can be refinanced into federal loans with lower rates, stronger consumer protection. you ought to hear what these collection agencies do to students and their families when they don't pay on these loans. you think you've had problems on the telephone with people calling and harassing you? they never quit. they need their money, they'll just not let you go no matter what your circumstances. this bill will allow young people to lower their payments by hundreds of thousands of

dollars a year and have a chance to actually get ahead of their debt. what's more, the bill we are offering is fully paid for. here's how we pay it. you know the name warren buffett, third or fourth wealthiest man in america? happen to know him. comes by and has lunch with us from time to time. talks about business and investments. but the one thing he wants to talk about the most is what he thinks is fundamentally unfair. warren buffett comes in here and says why that warren buffett the billionaire has a lower income tax rate than his secretary? why? it's not fair. and it isn't fair. because his profits in life, his income in life come from capital gains treated at a lower tax rate than ordinary income, which his secretary receives. so warren buffett