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 has said i

shouldn't pay a lower tax rate than my secretary, so we put in what we call the buffett rule so that there will be at least a minimum income tax charge for millionaires so that they pay at least as much on an income tax rate as their secretaries. sound radical? i don't think so. i think it sounds reasonable. so does mr. buffett. we take the revenue that comes in from charging the millionaires that we just talked about under the buffett rule and we apply it to the refinancing of college debt. that's how we achieve this. that's how we get it done. this bill would help people like grace staydy. she is from champaign. she took out a $33,000 federal student loan to get a degree in special education and she's just completing her first year at a teacher in a low-income school district in illinois. in a letter she said haoeupl shocked and -- i'm shocked and

distressed at the way my student loan debt continues to multiply. she says she makes her faithfully every month but the debt continues to rise as the interest rate accrues. it is the shame that even a degree from a respected school and a good, secure job grace can't save money and she can't keep wup her student loans. she writes to me and says, "senator, i'm not a banker or a businessperson. i was born to teach. shall i teach my students to follow their dreams or to follow the money?" good question. borrowing has always been part of getting a higher education for many americans. i know this story personally because i was a beneficiary. the national defense education act was passed in this chamber in 1958 when congress was scared to death, scared by what? scared by a basketball-sized satellite that the russians had launched called sputnik.

and it was beeping as it went around the world, and we thought it was the end of life as we knew it, because we knew the russians had the bomb. now they were in outer space, and we weren't. 1957. so this chamber met with the house and said we've got to do something. one of the first things we're going to do, we're going to get more americans in college. we need better-trained, better-educated americans to fight the soviets and make sure we don't lose the space battle. along cons the national defense education act and opens the door for me to borrow the money to go to college and law school. pay it back over ten years with 3% interest. well, i paid it back. i didn't think i could because it seemed like a huge amount of money at the time. i won't tell you the amount because it will really date me. but i will tell you today students don't face the same circumstances. the debt they face is so dramatic. john and his wife in chicago recently contacted my office. they both went to great

not-for-profit public schools for their undergraduate studies. john went on to law school. his wyche went on to medical school. john is a first year lawyer in a firm, his wife second year medical residency. they received good educations and now they have jobs in their fields and let me tell you what else they have. they have a combined student debt, john and his wife, of $300,000 in student loans. they pay $1,300 a month in student loan payments. they participate in the federal income based repayment program which moderates their monthly payments, but here they are just starting out, maybe with a family, and a $300,000 debt. how can they buy a house? they've explored it. no bank will come near it to even loan them the money for a house. that to me is most disgraceful. not only that these students end up coming out of school in debt. they're postponing their lives. they're postponing marriage, children, homes, cars.

many are moving in with mom and dad to that basement apartment because dad just came out of retimer -- retirement to help pay off the loan. these are real stories that i've run into. i mentioned to you earlier hannah moore, or at least i want to make reference to hannah moore. i spoke about her on the floor. she is from chicago. what a sweet young lady. she made a fatal mistake. she went to one of these for-profit colleges in chicago called the harrington college of design. great advertising if you've seen it. do you know what her reward for pursuing the american dream by seeking a college education at this for-profit school was? it was $124,570 in student debt, much of it from private loans for what is basically a worthless, worthless diploma from the for-profit college. her story isn't unique. and i just saw her last monday and the debt has gone up. it is now over $150,000. this poor, attractive, smart and

determined young woman doesn't know where to turn. her life looks like a brick wall when she looks ahead. i think she's 30, maybe 32. can you imagine? that's what she has in store, having thought she did the right thing and went to that college and got this degree which she thought was worth something. turns out it wasn't. the federal reserve bank in new york warns us student debt isn't just a personal problem. it's a national problem. it threatens americans in terms of investing in our future, investing in homes, investing in businesses, and it even threatens their future retirement security. hannah's father had to come out of retirement to help her pay off the bills. in addition to last week's refinancing proposals -- and i see senator coons here. i'll close by saying senators warren, jackrd and i have proposals to -- jack reed and i have proposals, a bill that would not overload students with

debts. i think there ought to be an open, complete disclosure to students about the debt they're getting into. if there's a better alternative, taking government loan that you can consolidate at a lower interest rate as opposed to a private loan which rips you off with a high interest rate. some of this is very basic. senator harkin and i introduce add bill to bring better coordination and focus to federal oversight to for-profit colleges and universities called the proprietary education and oversight education improvement act, a long title for a bill that basically is trying to come to grips with the scandalous behavior of the for-profit colleges and universities. for too many americans today the promise of a fair shot, an affordable college education has become a long shot. that's not the american way of doing things. we want to have an educated generation prepared to lead this country. they cannot do that saddled with debt and going to worthless schools. it is time for this generation

to step up. allow these students to refinance their debt to give their lives back in order and to start looking ahead with some promise and hope. get their parents out from under the debt burden that they assume with their kids. stop the rip-offs that are coming from these for-profit colleges and universities. put an end to some of the rip-offs even by semigovernment agencies. all of these things have to come to an end, and it will only happen if we do it. and it will only happen if we do it on a bipartisan basis. i hope my colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle, will join our effort. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. coons: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware is recognized. mr. coons: mr. president, i come to the floor today to speak about a ream opportunity that we have this week in this congress, in this senate to come together in a bipartisan way to adopt measures that will actually create jobs and help grow our economy. this week we're considering tax extenders, a package of bills

that can do a lot of good for the middle class, our economy, and our nation. together various proposals in the tax extenders would spur investment in manufacturing, clean energy, innovation, make it easier for families to afford a home or to send their children to college, open up career pathways for veterans and bring investments and jobs to communities in need. they recently passed by a voice vote out of the finance committee here in the senate, sending an important signal that we can come together, democrats and republicans, to move our economy forward. mr. president, i mentioned innovation and manufacturing in particular, as two of the things this broader package helps promote. i'd like to discuss two important bipartisan policies in this package, bills that have been rolled into the extenders package that can do a lot of good for start-ups and for innovative small manufacturers. for firms that invest heavily in the research and development that is needed to yield groundbreaking discoveries and steadily growing manufacturing

employment here in the united states. r&d, research and development is the cornerstone of any competitive company and i would suggest country. and in the 21st century, for us to have and sustain an innovation economy, it is certainly the cornerstone of our nation's future. that's why for a number of years bipartisan majorities in congress have supported the r&d tax credit so that innovative companies are incentivized to keep investing in critically needed r&d, in new ideas and new products. but there's long been a problem with the structure of the r&d credit. it doesn't reach early-stage, start-up companies, those who are most innovative and those who have the greatest promise to grow. as the g.a.o. has reported, over half of the current r&d credit goes to firms making over $1 billion. though they're important as well, it's become clear that we're missing an opportunity to incentivize the most innovative and smallest, the most start-up companies, especially in manufacturing. an industry that invests a huge amount in r&d but has had a

challenging environment competitively, globally in the last decade. today, because the r&d credit is a credit and not a tax -- it is a credit only if you have a tax liability, only if your company is profitable, a preprofittable company can't access it. if you're a small business that pace the a.m.t., while there are many credits you could claim, the r&d credit isn't one of them even though it is so important to our economy. this leaves out firms at the early stage where they're facing the highest risk of failure but who also have a technology focus that have generated more net jobs than any other area of our economy in this century. these firms staoeuplts -- sometimes called gazelle firms are young, innovative businesses with the potential to explode in size. think steve jobs and steve woez knee -- wozniak starting what

would become apple. think rick burkemeyer who started biotech companies in the delaware reputation, someone with a reputation as a leader in his field. even so, raising capital for a start-up venture is always a challenge. rick today is the founder of c.d. die i don't go tphos particulars, a leader -- diagnostics, that makes tests to tell if a joint is infected or irritated. it would help doctors determine if surgery is needed or not and avoid expensive and sometimes unnecessary procedures. today they have 82 employees and believe they will have well over 170 in two more years. exponential hockey stick-like growth like this is great. but if he and his company were able to use the r&d credit before they reached profitability, they would be able to hire more people, grow more quickly by investing in more equipment and get products to market faster. another young delaware company

that would benefit from the r&d tax credit is a & p of newark delaware. i sat next to ray yen where he gave the keynote. ray's company began with one employee-him. today it is a leader in making nanotherapeutics and biotechnology that is affordable, wearable and easy to use whether protecting against biotechniques in the war setting. these companies have managed their cash well and are great examples of how to run a start-up. for each of them, they went through a very demanding period from their first capital investment to when they had reliable revenue coming in that is often called the valley of death or the gap between launch and sustainability. they would be farther along, more mature and more robust if they had been able to access the r&d credit with their early

expenditures. so over the past few years i've been working diligently with a group of fellow senators, republicans and democrats, to find ways that we could work together to reshape and target a portion of the r&d credit to make it accessible to these sort of early-stage companies. i want to give particular credit to republican senator mike enzi of wyoming who has been tireless and thoughtful. we've not always agreed. we come from quite different political perspectives, but his investment of time and of thoughtfulness in crafting the final outcome, the start-up innovation credit act, is worthy of thanks and of compliment. and senator schumer on the finance committee has really helped move the r&d credit, a revision forward into the tax extenders package. manufacturing jobs for america is a broader initiative that more than 26 senators have participated in that includes more than 33 bills. and this bill, the start-up innovation credit act, is one of them, one of many bipartisan bills that can help manufacturers to grow, can help them to invest and can help them

get through a critical early-stage period. senator roberts, pat roberts, republican senator of kansas, has also worked with me as well as with senators enzi and schumer on a revision to the r&d credit that isn't available to firms, mostly small businesses that pay the a.m.t. so we changed that as well. both o -- of these provisions have been adopted into the tax extender package. i also wanted to mention that the first i reference the start of innovation credit act was also supported and has been moved forward, with contributions by senators rubio and blunt, stabenow and moran. this is a terrific way forward to find a path for companies that are too early in their development to pay employment taxes but to use a fix that allows them to claim the r&d credit against the unemployment taxes when they aren't paying the income taxes. this kind of credit has been used before in states like iowa and arizona, new york,

connecticut and pennsylvania, and they have been game changers, helping new firms to open their doors, to hire more workers and to keep their doors open. by allowing companies to claim the r&d credit against either the a.m.t. or their payroll tax obligations, we don't pick winners and losers, we don't focus on a specific area of the economy or technology. what we are doing instead is supporting any private sector firm that invests in research and development. it means cash in the pockets of small start-up companies which can make a critical difference, especially when financing and credit are tight. mr. president, together these bipartisan proposals can do a lot to put more americans to work today, unleashing the innovations that will create the jobs of tomorrow. the federal role in research and innovation, i believe, is fundamental. it is also bipartisan. i thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their partnership and collaboration, and i want to specifically thank the chair of the finance committee, senator ron wyden,

for his leadership in ensuring that the tax extender package is available now here for us on the floor to consider, that these provisions were included and his support for moving forward on these vital job-creating proposals. now let's work together here in this chamber to move across the finish line and get the job done so america can get more of our best people to work. thank you. mr. president, i come to the floor today briefly to recognize the men and women of law enforcement across this nation in the annual police week ceremonies, from last night's candlelight vigil to tomorrow's wreath-laying ceremony, we here in the capitol offer our gratitude, our thanks and our support to the men and women of law enforcement and their families, and i wanted to simply comment for a few moments today on how difficult it has been earlier today to be a member of this body as two different

senators who are strong supporters of law enforcement have come to this floor to attempt to move forward important pieces of legislation only to have that effort blocked. earlier today, senator patrick leahy, the president pro tempore and chair of the judiciary committee, came to the floor to seek unanimous consent to move forward the federal bulletproof vest partnership reauthorization bill that came out of the judiciary committee, and senator ben cardin of maryland came to this floor to seek unanimous consent to move forward with a bipartisan blue alert bill. i am a cosponsor of both bills. both had very broad support within the law enforcement community and both are bipartisan bills. yet in each case, one senator, one senator objected to our proceeding to consideration of these bills. i just want to share with those of us here in the chamber now that earlier today at a hearing on the judiciary committee, considering again the value and the impact of the federal bulletproof vest partnership, we had a chance to hear from

officer ann carzales from texas who gave riveting, moving testimony about how a bulletproof vest provided to her by her small town department in texas saved her life when she was shot at point-blank range in a routine traffic stop very early in the morning. today her husband will be -- would be a widower, her daughter would be an orphan were it not for this vital federal-state-local partnership that has provided more than a million bulletproof vests over the many years it has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. with us this morning were also two delaware capitol police officers, sergeant mike manley and corporal steve reinhart, with them as well the head of the capitol police department. both of them were on duty in the lobby of the newcastle county courthouse last year when a gunman entered and started firing at random. they were both shot and both survived because of bulletproof vests provided to them in part because of this federal-state

partnership. we cannot let down the men and women of law enforcement. we should not let partisan politics and ideology in this chamber prevent us from moving forward in a bipartisan way to deliver the officer safety investments and improvements that have already cleared the judiciary committee, that already have bipartisan support in both sides of this aisle and to allow one individual to continue to hold up these important bills. it's my call to my colleagues that we worked tirelessly together to make sure we overcome this needless obstruction and move forward this week to honor the service and sacrifice of those 268 law enforcement officers whose names have been added to the memorial this year and to those hundreds of thousands of others who even today, even tonight will be on patrol keeping america safe. thank you, and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut is recognized. mr. murphy: i ask that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. murphy: i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak for up to 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. one of the protagonists of lee owe tolstoy's epic "war and peace" is the iconic general. he was brought out during the pole invasion and his unorthodox

strategy confounded and frustrated his superiors and his underlings alike. he becomes convinced as tolstoy depicts that napoleon will lose the war by overextending his army. he believes that by playing the long game, he will exhaust and defeat the seemingly invisible and unstoppable french army. tolstoy creates a fictionalized version of the general, of course, but one of the most famous passages from "war and peace" is worth repeating here today. speaking of those who doubt his strategy, he says -- "patience and time are my warriors, my champions." he goes on to say he knew that an apple should not be plucked while it is green. it is fall of itself when ripe, but if picked unripe, the apple is spoiled, the tree is harmed and your teeth are set on edge.

like an experienced sportsman, he knew that the beast was wounded and wounded as only the whole strength of russia could have wounded it. now, whether or not this famous general ever shared this exact sentiment, it's representative of a time when the russians better than anyone on else knew how to play the long game. mr. president, how times have changed. over the past few weeks, i have listened in agony to my republican friends criticize the obama administration for having no coherent policy regarding the current crisis in ukraine. i come to the floor today to rebut that argument and also to add a few suggestions on how the administration's policy can be enhanced. now, i certainly understand republicans' frustrations. news of the ongoing daily drama in ukraine dominates the international news. russia seems omni present, manipulating events on the ground by the hour, and there clearly has not been a

proportional pound-for-pound response from the united states or the collective west. now, this frustration is fed by memories of the cold war. obsolete, even ancient memories, given how fast the world has changed since 1991. but the president's critics, fueled by these largely irrelevant memories, insist that when russia acts, we must meet fire with fire, crippling unilateral sanctions immediately, lethal arms for the ukranian military, new missile capacity in eastern europe. the problem is that this is a strategy for 1964, not 2014. russia simply doesn't matter to us in the same way that it used to. they are a secondary world power whose power is diminishing. their demographics are catastrophic, their economy can't survive the inevitable global energy revolution and their endemic corruption is going to rot their society from

the inside out. the invasions of crimea and eastern ukraine are signs of russian weakness, russian insecurity, not russian strength. last fall, two former russian republics, georgia and moldova, refused russian overtures to join their nation economic union and inked preliminary agreements to join the european union. ukraine at the last minute bowed to russian bullying and refused to ink the same deal but it set off a series of events that pushed russia's man in kiev out of office. in a panicked reaction, russia invaded and the consequences have been devastating. russia's economy is in freefall and nearly $70 billion of capital have left the country in just the last few months alone. no major institutional investors will touch russia today with a ten-foot pole. to make matters worse, russia has been kicked out of the g-8 and generally has become an international pariah, not allowed at the table of major powers. russia's increasingly isolated

from the united nations. things are going to get even worse as the europeans use this crisis as a wake-up call to move faster on plans to make themselves truly energy dependent of russian energy and also to reinvigorate nato. now, in "war and peace," he goes on to say this of his critics. he says -- quote -- "they want to run to see how they have wounded the beast. wait and we shall see. continual maneuvers, continual advances. what for? only to distinguish themselves as if fighting were fun. they are like children from whom one can't get any sensible account of what has happened because they all want to show us how well they can fight but that's not what is needed now." now, mr. president, the story of "war and peace" and the russian french war is, of course, not entirely a useful parallel to the current crisis in ukraine or to the proper response of the united states. what is needed now is much more than just patience and time.

but our response needs to be proportional to our nation's national security interests, not proportional to russia's actions in their back yard. that's why the administration is right to strongly support this new ukranian government without overreacting in a way that could compromise our relationship with other nations or make a situation worse, not better on the ground in ukraine. so i want to take a few minutes this evening to lay out what a coherent, thoughtful approach to the crisis might look like and how, in fact, the actions of the obama administration largely follow this pretty simple out line. first as the ukranian prime minister has been quick to tell visiting dignitaries, the most important help the united states can provide is economic assistance conditioned on necessary reforms to show the ukranian people that a western-oriented government can deliver prosperity to their country.

russia has effectively invented a new form of warfare that is based on gradual provocation where putin uses psychological methods, intimidation, bribery and propaganda to undermine resistance so that firepower is rarely needed to get his way.buy work on vulnerable countries with weak economies and a susceptability to russian overlordship and corruption. so the best way to repel russian provocations is to strengthen the ukrainian economy and its government institutions, both in the short and the long run. the $1 billion in loan guarantees authorized by congress and the $17 billion leon approve -- loan approved be i.m.f. are an important part of that process and the conditions imposed, which include a floatinfloatexchange rate, theyt some of the toughest medicine necessary to get ukraine back on its feet.

the united states hasn't sat on the side lines when it comes to economic aid to the ukraine. we have led from day one, and the results are impossible to deny. second, let's recognize what military assistance makes sense and what military assistance does not make sense. it makes sense to shore up our treaty obligations in eastern and central europe by positioning more troops in places like the baltics and poland and romania, just in case the russians were thinking of traig to use these types of destabilizing tactics in nato countries, make them think twice. but remember that ukraine is not a nato ally. we have no obligation to defend their sovereignty. and it is totally unrealistic and indeed irresponsible to think that we can make up for decades of military neglect and mismanagement inside of ukraine with a few million dollars of aid today. ukraine doesn't need more small arms.

their problem isn't that they don't have them. their problem is that they don't know how to shoot them. and there is no way the ukrainians can effectively utilize more sophisticated weaponry. the only way they could do that is with u.s. military advisors standing side by side with ukrainians and there's really no appetite in the united states to commit personnel to a ground war in ukraine. now, to be clear, i don't offer these cautions because of a danger of provoking russia with an inflex of u.s. arms. russia is going to do what russia is going to do in eastern ukraine regardless of what small military investment the united states makes today. but i do worry that since any lethal assistance from the united states would have little to no effect on the ability to repel a russian invasion, it would nen be sold by putin to his public as a russian military triumph over the united states. that's a truly bad outcome.

but that shouldn't stop us from more quickly delivering nonlethal support to help bolster the ukrainian military in the short run. reasonable support like body armor and chiewn indications equipment that balances our limited direct interests in union with our humanitarian interests in savings lives. there is a middle ground between just sending a handful more of m.r.e.'s and just sending tanks and automatic weapons. we have ample time to explore these options. over the medium and longer run, we need to work with the ukraine to rebuild its military institutions that were neglected for so many years by its military leaders. third, focus, focus, focus on the may 25 elections. the russians occupy dozens, not thousands, of buildings in eastern ukraine. they have no hold or influence on other sections of the country near and to the west of kiev. as part of the international

effort, the united states has committed millions of dhars and thousands of hours of man power into making sure the may 25 election is held in a free and fair mearchlt now, the russians are likely going to do everything possible, everything within their power to stop this election from coming off. as of today, they effectively have no straw man in the race. it's more hikely or not, the results will be a victory for a free, whole sovereign ukraine and a damaging blow to russia's claims that ukraine can't govern itself. our state department representatives in ukraine are working feverishly to help ukraine conduct this election. we have helped deploy unprecedented resources from the osce to make sure that russia does not dislodge this election from occurring. that's american leadership happening right now on the ground in ukraine. fourth, let's be crystal clear on what will lead to the next logical level of u.s. sanctions, which would be industry-wide,

sectoral sanctions against the russian economy. we've moved deliberately so far because, wisely you president obama has desired to move in relative concert with our european aliessments but i think it is increasingly compleer to me and to many others that europe is simply not prepared to move at the pace necessary to send a strong message to russia about the consequences of their continued aggression. so having primarily mounted a dwerchtion today of the administration's policy in ukraine, i'd make one additional significant suggestion for amendment of this policy. i believe that the highest levels of american foreign policy leadership, from the president to the vice president to the secretary of state, should make it clear today to russia that if the may 25 elections do not occur in a free and fair manner, we will hold russia and only russia responsible, because if not for their interference, there can be no explanation for why these elections could not come off

properly. further, we should make it clear that if the may 25 election is not allowed by russia to be conducted according to osce electoral standards, the united states will peedly impose sectoral sanctions on the most important russian industries, including but not limited to the russian banking, energy, and raw materials sec terms of the hopefully, significant russian interference would prompt europe to act with us in order to protect our most important democratic values but we can't wait for them any longer. let's make it totally, completely, unequivocally clear today that the may 25 election doesn't occur in proper fashion, the united states will move towards industry-level sanctions against russia. now, this is and this can be a coherent, thoughtful u.s. strategy toward the crisis in ukraine. support ukraine economically, strengthen nato, don't overreact with reckless aid to the ukrainians, do everything to

make the may 25 elections a success, be clearer than current policy on what will trigger sectoral sanctions by the united states, and then act if russia doesn't listen. now, i get it that this isn't all that my republican colleagues desire when it comes to u.s. policy towards ukraine. but overreacting to this crisis is just as bad, if not worse, than doing nothing. i was in kiev at the very beginning, standing on stage at the midon with senator mccain urging the ukrainian people to urge more from their government. i was here veec advocating for t response. i believe that the united states should be playing an active role in this crisis, and i was making the argument before anyone else was in this chamber. but this isn't the cold war. this is a fight in russia's backyard and the cold, hard reality is that the stakes are just simply greater for moscow than they are for us.

and the world is no longer organized around who's with the united states and who's with russia. the foundational paradigms of global security now are about who has nuclear weapons and who doesn't, who's allied with the shia and who's allied with the sunni. where are the islamist terrorists organizin organizings helping them? i don't mean unchecked action doesn't have global consequences? china is certainly watching. but we ultimately won the cold war, mr. president, by playing the long game. we knew that if we held true to democratic and free market values, the world would notice that an alliance with us was far more beneficial than an alliance with the soviet union. that in fact is the very reason for this current crisis. the ukrainian people velletted because they saw the -- revolted because they saw the value of western economic and political orientation.

we didn't need to use intimidation or bribery or little green men. we just showed them that our stuff is better. and of course the irony is that the russians used to be the kings of the long game. napoleon was allowed to march into moscow after clearing out the city and only leaving about 10,000 people along. the frerchl army was strung out and left helpless. we don't have to resort to these drastic tactics of this old savvy russian general. there are actions that we can take and have taken to support ukraine and send a message to russia. but we shouldn't overinflate our national security interests. we do not need to win every battle to win the war. and this body, the united states senate, built by our founding fathers to see and play the long game for america, should understand that fact. we aren't the russians in 1812. we must engage in a robust policy towards ukraine that is

much more than simply time and patience. but that doesn't mean there aren't some important lessons to be learned. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i rise today to urge my colleagues to pass the tax extenders package that the senate finance committee put forward which would reinstate a number of tax provisions to help with job creations and

especially homeowners and workers get back on their feet. yesterday i spoke to the united egg producers, a group of many family farmers, some larger farmers. my state is number two in the country in egg production, second only to the state of iowa. i talked to tom hirtsfeld jr. and his son jordan who are third and fourth generation egg farmers in grand rapids, ohio, a community not too far from toledo in northwest ohio. the farm has been in the family since 1959. they produce 100,000 dozen eggs every day. it's a technical business, the eggs go from the chicken to the carton and into customers' hands, the production equipment requires major investment. soap when they need to acquire more property, they should be able to accelerate the write-offs.

bonus section 169 give our small business the capital to invest, tools important to expand and hire people and make more prosperous their communities. as we help existing businesses expand we need to focus on reviving industries specially manufacturing. we know wealth is created when we make it, mine it, or grow it. we do all of these those things in other a significant way in my state, ohio is the third largest manufacturing state only behind california, three times our population, and texas, twice our population. the new market tax credit will revitalize communities hit hard by shuttered factories by leveraging tens of billions in private investments. we know what the tax credit has done for development in areas that are generally a little poorer than most, we want to be able to -- we want to be able to target manufacturing, too, that's what our manufacturing communities act does.

last year, for instance, in portage county, community of streets borough lost jobs after commercial turf products shut its doors. but under the act the city could access financing to bring manufacturing businesses back to streets borough. for those who lops their benefits, the hctc needs to be extended. it preserves a program that ohioans like delphi salaried employees who worked hard and played by the rules, they know they understand, they trust, extending the tax credit for two years is fiscally responsible, we should improve the hctc, we should make it permanent as i've proposed in legislation that i've introduced with senators rockefeller and stabenow and hirono and donnelly. we should at the very least renew this critical tax credit. earlier this year i traveled across ohio and met with homeowners like hattie wilkins from youngstown, ohio.

she was laid off, fell behind her mortgage, began the foreclosure process, her bank because it was in their interest forgave her $35,000 that she still owed but hattie and thousands of homeowners across the country face higher taxes if don't want move to extend the mortgage forgiveness tax relief act. in many ways it's phantom income. if it's a short sale sore they get a principal reduction as i was speaking with ohio realtors about and they were discussing today, they never get the money for it but they're hit with a tax bill as if they've gotten this in income. we've extended this tax credit in this tax forgiveness in the past because members of both parties recognize there is still a critical need for this. all of these as part of the tax extenders help to create jobs, help to put money and homeowners' pockets, help people pay for health

insurance, help people stay in their homes and as i said ultimately they create jobs. this is good for our community, it's important that we pass the extenders as soon as possible in this chamber. mr. president, --. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: and i ask that all time be yielded back and that we

vote. the presiding officer: without objection all time is yielded back. the question occurs on the logan nomination. mrs. boxer: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 96, the nays are zero, the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the question now occurs on the tuchi

nomination. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask consent to yield back -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senate will come to order. the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask consent to yield back all time on the next two nominations. the presiding officer: without objection. the time is yielded back. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote: