was told her services were no longer needed. she lost her job. she lost her dignity, and she had to wear a coat in her house because she had to turn the heat down in order to simply make ends meet. you fast forward to a couple of months ago. i was with governor molloy in connecticut and a congressman from her district, and we visited her at her job. just punched her ticket to the middle-class as a result of for resilience. left..

who buoyed zero-sum politics the politics firm you and you take nothing. we can have an economy where shared prosperity. the labor movement is about leading the economy for decades into a nation of shared russ verdi, or everybody who worked hard and saved by the rules could realize the american dream and that is what we are doing today and that is why i am so excited to be here with you. indeed, if little over a year ago our unemployment rate was 7% and now we are down to 5.8%. very few people would have predicted that progress and we have made that progress and we continue to move in the right

direction. again, we hear your voice lakia, we hear your voice leon, we hear your voice leaside. america works best when we feel the full team and there are too many people on the sidelines saying i want to get into the game. i've got game and we have to get them into the game. too many people are working hard and this is not a phenomenon is simply the last few years. this is a phenomenon of decades. prosperity must be shared. and yet you look at road activities since 1979 tiered productivity has gone up over 90% and real wages have remained all to flag going up 2% 3%. that is not shared prosperity. the american workers have held basic cake of prosperity, that they are not sharing in the first of their prosperity. a fundamental tenant of our

moral coveted was prosperity would he shared. false choices would be reject it. it is not the choice that by either take care of my share of the worker. you can do both. the ford motor company proof that appeared in louisville kentucky, estimate they had next agile crisis. they weren't sure they were going to survive. there were down to 700, 800 employees and now they are growing and that does even include their supply chain. how did they do it? shared sacrifice leading to shared prosperity. uaw, ford leadership, working together singing we are all in this together. we all succeed when we all succeed but we all succeed only when we all succeed and not pathway to prosperity has led ford back has led the other american model makers back and it has led countless other businesses that i'd meet a in

and day out and that is why i come to you with a sense of optimism. i'm not a lazy people of the labor movement to get it but i see business leaders who understand that my most precious asset is my worker and when i treat my work are fairly my worker rewards me by sticking around and been forgot it. by the way, the most frequent thing i hear from players hear from employers is tom, do you know what i need most? i need customers. this is a consumption deprived recovery. when you look at the data it proves that out because you look at inflation-adjusted spending from folks in the top 5% since the end of the recession has increased over 15% in inflation-adjusted spending of the other 95% has increased about 1%. why? because the reason we are here today, wages have been slashed. prosperity has not been shared at false choices have been the

order of the day. we can't do this. we can't raise your wages. it is a structural problem. i categorically reject the notion that if structural inevitable nothing we can do about it. low wages are a choice. they are not a necessity. your benefits are a choice, not a necessity. this president stands for the proposition that everybody everybody who works hard and plays by the rule should be able to share that prosperity. and that is the unfinished business of this recovery as ensuring that our prosperity has brought days and widely shared. how do we build that pathway to shared prosperity? we build it together. we build it by making sure we have every step in that staircase to shared prosperity well fortified. and it starts with taking every effort we can to lift wages at

every opportunity. and it starts with the minimum wage. you know nobody works a full-time job should have to live in poverty. that is a simple value proposition . now was the proposition that underlay the fair labor standards act, which fdr signed 76, 77 years ago. either way at the time he finds the fair labor standards act what he called a number of calamity hollowware is, folks who sent that if you establish a minimum wage, it would be the end of the world as we know it. our nation would go to hack in a handbasket. it was remarkable to tear some of the things that were sad businesses that would be h. aranda cole, industrial dictatorship. if we had a minimum wage. in 1892 a few years earlier there is a trade general and

they railed against a radical notion that an eight hour workday, workers on federal contracts would be quote about as vicious a piece of demagogy than could be conceived. it is important as we have this discussion to remind folks that the labor movement rodda a 40 hour workweek. give yourselves a hand. there appears to be the 40 hour work week is a thing of the past. there are a number of people who believe that there is working a 40 hour work week and getting your food at the food pitcher you. that is not who we are as a nation. i sat in my office was fast food workers a few months ago when i

heard their stories and they break my heart. this is not the america that we should eat. i heard for one worker was that i was so sick that i didn't go into work at a fast food restaurant. by the way when your server is sick i kind of want you to stay home. call me maggie. he told me that he got into work the next day and his lawyer told him you are fired unless you bring in a note from your doctor. he said how can i bring in a doctors note when i can't afford to go to the doctor? those aren't my words. those are his stories. i see this story everywhere i go. the story of a janitor whom i met in houston. he's been working for 30 years. she's making only $9 an hour. she was asking you why can't i get access to health insurance? i said if your governor has medicaid expansion you would have access to health insurance right now. you need to talk to your

governor. why do people wake up every day thinking -- [inaudible] that is not what my faith teaches me and that is not who we are as a nation. that is why we need to keep moving forward. that's why we need to keep working on raising the minimum wage. but you shouldn't have to win the geographic lottery to get a fair wage. that is why we need a federal floor. this is why the president will relentlessly worked to increase the minimum wage because as i said earlier, there is no dignity at work in a 40 hour work week and going to the food entry to get your food. that is what is happening in america all too frequently. we will continue to work overtime to put in the regulation because when i was a kid in buffalo new york if you if he told you my friend's parent as a manager,.net is where the middle class.

today you've got people who aren't managers working 60, 70 hours a week make in as little as 455 hours a week. we have cases in which the managers making less than the workers they supervise. that's about 23 24 grand a year. you can survive i'm not. that is why the president directed us to revise the overtime regulation and we are going to do just that making sure people have a decent standard of living is a critical reason why the president did what he did on immigration in december. there is no substitute for comprehensive immigration reform and i appreciate the leadership of the afl-cio. i appreciate the leadership of faith communities. i appreciate the leadership of business communities and business leaders. this is a bipartisan issue and one of my regrets for the last

congress is it that bipartisan senate bill has come to a vote in the house that would've passed and this would be in the rearview mirror. i've got no doubt about that. if it comes to an up or down vote, that would be the law of the land. you saw the last election. united states, nebraska, south dakota alaska, arkansas, these red states overwhelmingly passed state initiatives to increase the minimum wage. this has always been a bipartisan issue. george w. bush signed an increase in the minimum wage. his father before him. every president except to since fdr has denied increases in the minimum wage. these are bipartisan issues and that is why we have to keep fighting and we can't give out. i saw the movie soma last week and they didn't give us. we are going to celebrate the 50th anniversary of bloody sunday. you don't ever, ever give up and we all know that.

a labor movement knows that because you never give out. that is why we are going to keep having. we've got a lot or work to showcase prosperity. it's not simply over time. it's not simply immigration reform but it is making sure for instance, do we increase laws on the books because you know what what i have seen in this job both on the federal level and state level is wage that remains the rabbit problem across america. they just commissioned a study that looked at wage theft. wage and hour violations in two states. how a foreign and new york. in these two states alone, we saw wage and hour violations primarily targeting low-wage workers that amounted in tuesday's two over $1 billion a year. two states. and for many of these that comes, they were losing 40% of

their already meager wages. 40%. for our butterfly that matter are laws are only as good as the political will of the people enforcing them. the wage and hour division in the prior reached an agreement with a large retailer in which it would give it notice prior to entering the facility to conduct child labor investigations. i used to be a prosecutor okay? i don't think it is the best practice to announce two drug dealers that i will be at the corner of fourth and pass on friday cannot team drug investigations. i don't think that is the best practice if your goal is to address drug related misconduct. and i don't think it is a very good idea in this context either. and that is why as we build this stairway to shared prosperity,

we need to make sure we fortified the horsemen because this is so critically important, because people are not making enough to begin with an all too many people are not receiving the money that they have earned as a result of wage theft. and that is why we continue to work on these issues. that is why we continue to work on the issue of misclassification. work is a big heart of our challenge here, of wage that nation, the changing nature of what we call an employee. i meet so many workers who act like an employee. that? like an employee because they are employees but they are called independent contractors. why does that have been? in many cases it is perfectly permissible. in all too many cases what we see if they called independent contractors that they don't have to pay fair wages. they don't have to pay their unemployment insurance, workers comp insurance.

we ended up with three victims there. worker, employers who play by the rules. i made all employers to say i don't cheat and i cannot compete because my competitors cheat. the tax collectors do the. where i worked in maryland, we called this problem what it was. this classification is like a clerical error. i put my paper in the wrong place. we call the workplace fraud because that is what it was. [applause] and as we build -- as we build this staircase to shared prosperity, we need to make sure we hold whoever has my job accountable to make sure that people who are working and honest days work get paid their wages. we also need to make sure that as we have this rate of wage stagnation, as we talk about how people like so many people in this room who are working hard

can get those wages that they deserve. we need to make sure the frame is expanded so it's not simply fair wages. it has benefits as well. i have traveled to australia. i've traveled to canada, germany and the u.k. in the last few months. what those nations have in common and what every other nation on the planet has in common is that they have some form of paid leave. because when you give birth to your child or when you are taking care of your parent who is very ill, you shouldn't have to make a choice between the job that you need in the family that you love. and yet we are so behind the rest of the world in this area because we have not got into the 21st century on paid leave. i met a guy in germany when i met with the german chamber of

commerce. he worked in germany. he's from ohio. his wife in here about to have their second child. he said tom i would never come back. at least in the near future of the united states because we're going to take a year off to care for a child. we believe the most important family value is the value of time spent with your family. i asked every business in that place, if you have the ability to water down a repeal you're paid leave laws would you do so? there were two answers i got. a one-word answer in a two word answer. the one-word answer was no the two word answer i can't say because i see people applauded this room. they understand it because it is not simply the moral and ethical thing to do. it is india might self-interest of an economy that want to drive want to drive. look at labor force participation of women in the united states and canada.

about 15 years ago our participation rates of women from 25 to 54 were identical. and now you fast-forward to today. women in canada about 7.5 points higher than the u.s. that translates to 5.5 million more women would be in the workplace if we had kept pace with canada. i talk to employers they are including global employers with a u.s. footprint to figured out how to comply with paid leave laws in canada. they figured out how to comply in the u.k. and germany and they are thriving and they all say it is part of their competitiveness. so as we had this conversation, let's not send a subtle for $10.10. let's talk about benefits. let's talk about scheduling and all of those things that keep us up at night because this is about the dignity of work and the dignity of work also includes when your son can't go

to school because he is sick he shouldn't have to put them on the bus. i talked to school bus drivers. school bus drivers are the most learned people in america. they tell me i see that mom at the best off with their son or daughter and the mamas crying. i know what is going on. mom is putting a sick kid on the bus because mom has no other choice. when women succeed, america succeeds. when family succeeds, americans succeed and that is why you will hear a lot will hear a lot are

tightening senator kennedy are now, it is not echoing that. i read tom brokaw's book a while back, the greatest generation. what is really interesting about the greatest generation is on the trial lawyer and i don't read notes very well. i want to apologize to her speechwriter. america's greatest generation was remarkable people. what is remarkable is not only what they did during the war but what they did after the war. they hope to grow the labor movement and they understood that the word collective-bargaining meant that we could work for our collective good. they understand that there are no such thing as false choices that businesses don't have to choose between their workers and their shareholders. we can do both and it is not a coincidence in those ensuing

decades that we thought rises and standards of living. we thought rises in real wages than we saw a shared prosperity that is what we need. that is why spend time in germany because code determination is part of their dna. it is why they are one of the 10 largest companies in america. they understand that they succeed in partnership with their workers. not at the expense of their workers. ford motor company understands that we succeed in partnership with our workers not at the expense of our workers. it is tough to understand that we succeed and we all succeed when we all succeed. randy white garden understands that we are building communities. teachers are all about making sure that we all have we've been teachers, students,

parents, we all have the tools to succeed and are all in this together. everywhere across this country of employers and unions and other worker organizations whether its folks organizing domestic workers, cab drivers blending voice then we see faith communities and responsible businesses say i am fair and if we are going to continue success in lifting up wages, this is the area where we have to redouble our effort is making sure that we have voice, understanding history and the history is when we work together collectively we all succeed. i come to you and i leave you with the same sense of optimism that i walked in this room with. i will tell you i've got a great job. i feel like the luckiest guy on

the face of the year. this president, he gets it. he's a community organizer at his court and he understands that change comes from the bottom up, not from the top down. that is why he is here in spirit and he is here in his values. and that is why we understand that the ark of the moral universe bends towards justice and had also been stories people who expand opportunity for everyone not people who seek to muzzle worker voice. not people who believe if you blow out your neighbors candle your candle will shine brighter. not for people who believe it is only those who win the cost lottery bank at good wages that work. you know, we are celebrating mark the 13 day and a couple weeks. we are not celebrating george wallace said in a couple weeks because martin luther king sought to expand opportunity. we see so many examples in our nations history and the labor

movement side-by-side with dr. king in that effort. that is why i am so optimistic because yes there are days when you will undeniably look at some of the headwinds and say where do we go? will be half on our side are the facts. what we have on our side is the american people, the middle class, so many folks who understand that we all succeed when we all succeed and as a result, i am not salute a confident that we will translate and transform some of these headwinds out there and tell one of inclusion and opportunity and a tail wind of shared prosperity. the arc of the moral universe does not stand on its own. today's conference is about making sure that we are all part of that banding. dr. king also said you know we will live to route the day not only of the acts of people like

jim clark and paul connor, but the silence of good people. and so we cannot be silent in the face of this remarkable challenge of ensuring shared prosperity. we can do this. the difference between the late 90s than the prosperity we saw then and the prosperity we are beginning to see now is the prosperity of the late 90s was shared prosperity and we need to make sure the prosperity of today also becomes shared prosperity. we can do that. but wages are not structural, not inevitable. they are choices and remarkable business leaders about there. remarkable faith leaders out there. remarkable workers out there who are doing this for everybody. building an america that works for all. making sure the stairway to shared prosperity is fortified

and i am confident. i am absolutely confident that we could prevail. it won't be easy and it won't end on its own. with all the people in this boardroom and the millions of folks we meet in our travel, i am confident that the story of success that we see will be the story of success for everyone. so have a great day. and let's keep it up. unique to hold us accountable. you need to tell us what we should be doing and we will work together because there are so many people in this room. lanter p., business leaders faith leaders serial advocate who are moving forward and i am confident we will get there. so have a great conference. thank you for shining the light on this and thank you for all that you do.

[applause] >> lets give it up for secretary perez. [applause] as secretary perez said we are here today because we are optimistic. we know we can do this. we know when workers do well, we all do well. next we are going to hear from two workers who will talk about how much better our communities and our autonomy would he is more workers had opportunities to learn and advance and provide that abides for themselves and their families. our first speaker will be lisa hansen, a correctional officer in maryland and a member of the

federation of state county and municipal employees local 1427. she will be followed by leon speller an electrician in washington and a member of the international brotherhood of electrical workers local 26. please welcome lisa and leon to this stage. [applause] >> good morning. my name is lisa hansen and i am a correctional officer, a sergeant. this has been my job for 20 years. the job i do goes unnoticed. it is a dangerous job, but it is also a very important job. we assess and provide in nate's poor service is and they go back

into society to be per.days. we have a simple mantra about the work that we do. fair firm and impartial. the public depends on workers like me to make sure the correctional rules are enforced for the inmates staff and policy. i always try to conduct myself as a professional. i try to think of each inmate as a person, as a human being who deserves decent treatment and dignity. some of these inmates come from broken homes. some of them don't come from homes at all. they raise themselves. that is why it don't look the crimes they commit. it helps me to look at them as individuals. it helps me to provide this service is i need to provide. i am here at the raising wages

because wages are too low. people want a way out and a way out. people won't provide for their family members if they can't. if they can't communities fall apart. that is how we get young people grow we not been broken are raising themselves. it is a cycle that we need to break. raise the wages. thank you. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. thank you all for being here. my name is leon speller and i've been for the last three of the four years. i had a difficult childhood ear that graduated high school which

i attended for one year. when i came home that year i had a son and later $2. i was only 19 years old. i knew my family wasn't going to feed itself so ultimately was sent to me. money became a priority. i left school and got a job at safeway. growing up in the d.c. area you don't hear too many other jobs of being a firefighter or dr. and for me i was lost. i didn't know what i wanted to do. so later on i landed a job working at lowe's home improvement which paid more because my salary at safeway wasn't enough. sometimes you see a window when you climb through hoping your destiny is on the other side. later i got a job contracting and this is my introduction. it's something i love to do and i got to work with my hands in the field. unfortunately it was contracted and eventually came to an end. i was back to the drawing board.

thankfully i found about the electrical apprenticeship program. this broke graham offers on-the-job training and class training. i don't know many programs where you can get a paycheck for working weekly and get paid to go to school. ..

>> it needs to happen now. enough is enough. that's what senator elizabeth warren said so eloquently in a recent speech on the senate floor. and it's what she says every chance she gets. enough with the corporate greed that's wrecking this country. [applause] senator warren speaks truth to power. she always has and we know she always will. that's the thing people love about her. there's no question where she stands. senator warren does not waver. she does not back down. she does not check poll numbers and donor lists before taking a stand. [applause] it doesn't matter where she is

or whom she's talking to. everywhere every time she stands up to corporate greed. she gives a voice to the concerns of we the people and she challenges all of us to do better. we can and we must do better by american workers. and with a leader like senator warren i'm confident that we will do better. brothers and sisters please welcome a fierce steadfast champion for working people, senator elizabeth warren. [cheers and applause] >> hello. hello. good to see you. thank you. thank you.

good morning. it is good to be here on this cold morning, and thank you for the introduction. also thank you for your good work at the north carolina afl-cio. you're making a difference in the lives of many, many people, so thank you. thanks for all you do. [applause] i want to begin this morning by thinking rich trumka and damon silvers. i want to thank you for your leadership on economic issues. i want to thank you for your good council and most of all of want to thank you for your friendship. thank you very much. thank you. [applause] >> i also want to say thank you to my friends from massachusetts. steve tolman is supposed to be here today. there he is. all right. thank you. of got to save the guys from massachusetts made it happen, so thank you very much. you are why i hear today. i love being here with my labor

friends, and i'm especially glad to have this chance to be at the afl's first ever national summit on wages. you follow in the best traditions of american labor movement for more than a century are always fighting for working people. union and nonunion. and today you have spotlighted an economic issue that is central to understanding what's happening to people all over this country. now, i recently read an article in political and it was titled, everything is awesome. it's true. and the article detailed all the good news about the economy, 5% gdp growth in the third quarter of 2014 unemployment under 6% now, a new all-time high, the dow, low inflation. despite the headline the author did recognize that not everything is awesome, but his point has been repeated several

times. and i made different statistical measures, the economy has improved and its continuing to improve. and i think the president and his team deserve credit for the steps they have taken here. in particular, job growth is a really a deal and we celebrate it. good for you mr. president. [applause] but i spent most of my career studying what's happening to america's middle class and i know that these four widely cited statistics give an important steps to of the health of the overall economy. but the overall picture doesn't tell much about what's happening at the ground level to tens of millions of americans. despite these cheery numbers america's middle class is in deep trouble. think about it this way.

the stock market is soaring, and that's great if you have a pension or if you have money in a mutual fund. but if you and your husband or wife are both working full-time with kids in school and your and among the half or so of all americans who don't have any money in stocks, how does a booming stock market help you? corporate profits and gdp are up, but if you work at wal-mart and you are paid so little that you still need food stamps to put groceries on the table. what does more money in stockholders pockets and an uptick in the gdp do for you? unemployment numbers -- part-time job and still can't find full-time work or you have just given up because you can't find a job to replace the one you have to. you are count as part of the drop in unemployment. but how much is your economic situation improving? inflation rates are still low

but if you're young and started off life with tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt locked into high interest rates by congress, unable to find a good job or to save money to buy a house, how are you benefiting from low inflation? a lot of broad, national statistics said our economy is getting better, and it's true. our overall economy is recovering from the terrible crash of 2008. but there have been deep structural changes in the economy, changes that have gone on for more than 30 years. changes that cut out hard-working middle-class families from sharing in the overall growth. now, it wasn't always this way. coming out of the great depression, america build a middle-class unlike anything on earth. from the 1930s to the late

1970s, as gdp went up, wages went up pretty much across the board. in fact, listen to this number 90% of all workers everybody outside the top 10% got about 70% of all the new income growth. sure, but the richest 10% kabul to more than their share, they got 30% of the growth. but overall as the economic pie got bigger, pretty much everyone was getting a little more. in other words as our economy as our country got richer our families got richer, as are families get richer, our country got richer. that is how we built a great middle class in american. [applause] but by the 1980s wages had flattened out while expenses kept going up.

the squeeze was terrible. by the early 2000s, families were spending twice as much adjusted for inflation on mortgages as they had a generation earlier. they spent more on health insurance, more to send their kids to college. mom and dad both went to work, but that meant new expenses like child care higher taxes and the cost of a second corporate all over the country people talking to their belts where they could, i it still hasn't been enough to save them. families have gone deep into debt to pay for college, to cover serious medical costs or just you try and stay afloat a while longer. today come young adults may be the first generation in american history to be worse than their parents did. remember how, i'm just telling you, up until 1980, from

1935-1980, 90% of the people, all people middle-class, working folks, the poor they got about 70% of all the income that was created in this economy, and the top 10% of the rest. well, since 1980, guess how much of the growth in income over the last 32 years, how much of the growth in income dead than 90% get? zero. none nothing. in fact it is worse than that. the average family not in the top 10% makes less money today than they were making a generation ago. so who got all of the increase in income over the last 32 years? 100% of it went to the top 10%. all of the new money earned in

this economy over the past generation, all of that growth in gdp went to the top. all of it. that is a huge structural change in this country. went i look at the data here and this includes years of research that i conducted myself, i see the evidence everywhere of the pounding that working people are taking. instead of building an economy for all americans for the past generation this country has grown an economy that works for some americans. for tens of millions of working families who are the backbone of this country this economy isn't working. these families are working harder than ever but they can't get ahead. opportunity is slipping away. many feel like a game is rigged against them and they are right. the game is rigged against them.

since the 1980s too many people running this country have followed one form or another of supply side or turtledove economic theory. and many in washington -- trickle down. many in washington today supported. when all the varnish is removed trickle down just means helping the biggest corporations and the richest people in this country, and claiming that those big corporations and rich people could be counted on to create an economy that would work for everyone else. now, no surprise, trickle down was popular with big corporations and the lobbyists but it never really made much sense to george bush senior called it voodoo economics. remember that? and he was right. but let's call it for what it is. trickle down was nothing more than the politics of helping the rich and powerful get richer and more powerful. and it cut the legs out from

under the america's middle class. [applause] >> sure go down policies are actually pretty simple. first, fire the copts. now the copts on main street the copts on wall street. pretty much the whole republican party come in different going to be honest, too many democrats have talked about the evils of big government and called for deregulation. it all sounded good but what it was really about was tying the hands of regulators in turning loose big banks and giant international corporations to do whatever they wanted to do. turning them loose to rigged the market and reduce competition, turning them loose to outsource more jobs, turning them loose to load up on more risks and then

hide behind taxpayer guarantees, turning them loose to sell more mortgages and more credit tranche is that she america's families but in short, turning them loose to do what ever short term profits and even if it came at the expense of working families. now, trickle-down at a second part to it, that is cut taxes for those at the top. cut them when times are good cut them when times are bad. and when that meant there was less money for road repairs less money for medical research and less money for schools, and our government would need to squeeze kids on student loans trickle-down advocates said, so be it. and look at the results. the top 10% got all the growth in income over the past 30 years, all of it and the economy stopped working for everyone else.

the trickle-down experiment that began in the reagan years failed america's middle class. sure the rich are doing great. giant corporations are doing great. lobbyists are doing great but we need an economy where everyone else has a shot to do great. [applause] the world has changed beneath the feet of america's working families. powerful forces like globalization and technology are creating seismic shifts that are disrupting our economy, altering employment patterns, and putting new stresses on old structures. those changes could create new opportunity, or they could sweep away the last vestiges of economic security 490% of american workers. -- security 490%.

those demands new economic policy for federal government. but too many politicians have just looked the other way. instead of running government to expand opportunity for 90% of americans and to secure of security and uncertain world instead of rethinking economic policy that deals with tough new realities, for more than 30 years washington has far too often advanced policies that hammer america's middle class even harder. look at the choices washington has made. the choices that have left america's working families in a deep hole the choice to leash up the financial cost. the choice in a recession to bail out the biggest banks with no strings attached while families suffer. the choice to start our schools and burden of our kids with

billions of dollars in student loan debt while cutting taxes for billionaires. the choice to spend your tax dollars to subsidize oil instead putting the money into rebuilding our roads and bridges and power grids. the choice to look the other way when employers quit paying overtime, reclassified workers as independent contractors come and just plain old stole people's wages. [applause] >> you bet. and the choice to sign trade pact and tax deals that let subsidize manufacturers around the globe sale here in america while good american jobs got shipped overseas. for more than 30 years too many politicians in washington have made deliberate choices that

favored those in money and power. and the consequence is that instead of an economy that works well for everyone america now has an economy that works well for about 10% of the people. it wasn't always this way, and it doesn't have to be this way. we can make new choices. we can make different choices choices that put working people first, choices that aim towards a better future for our children, choices that reflect our deepest values. this is up to us. and one way to make those choices is to talk openly and honestly, and directly about work, about how we value work. and we value those who do the work. we need to talk about what we believe. we believe that no one no one

should work full time and still live in poverty and that means raising the minimum wage. [applause] >> we believe that workers have a right to come together, to park in together coming to rebuild america's middle-class. [applause] >> we believe in enforcing labor laws so that workers get overtime pay and pensions are fully funded. we believe in that. [applause] we believe in equal pay for equal work. [applause] and we believe that after a lifetime of work a person is entitled to retire with dignity. and that means protecting social security and protecting medicare and protecting our pensions.

[applause] we don't make things better for workers if we don't get out and talk about work. but we also need to talk about jobs, about how we create jobs here in america. we need to talk about how we build a future. and let's make it clear. we believe in making investments investments, investments in roads, in bridges and in power grids, in education, and research. investments that create good jobs in the short run and help us build new opportunities in the long run. we believe in that. [applause] and we believe in paying for them. not with magical accounting scams that pretend to cut taxes

and raise revenues but with real honest-to-goodness changes that make sure that everyone, including corporations, pays a fair share to build that future or all of us. [applause] and let's get ready for what's coming. we believe in trade policies and tax codes that will strengthen our economy, that will raise our standard of living, that will create american jobs. because we will never give up on these three words, made in america. we believe in that. [applause] and we need to talk about jobs. we need to talk about work. we need to talk about one thing more and that is politics. if we are ever going to

unrelated the system, then we need to make some important political changes. and let me give you a place where we should start -- unrig. we know that democracy does not work when congressmen and regulators bow down to wall street political power. and that means it's time to break up the wall street banks and remind politicians, they don't work for the big banks, they work for us. that's what it's time for. [cheers and applause] >> you bet. changes like this are not easy. but we know they are possible. we know they are possible because we have seen david beat goliath. we have seen the lobbyists. we have seen it throughout our history. we saw it when we fought for and won the consumer ahmadinejad

protection bureau. you just ask the people in this room. applause but we saw when we pass health care reform. we saw it when president obama took important steps to reform our immigration system superb executive order just a few weeks ago. change is hard but change is possible. that's what we know. [applause] this is personal for me. when i was 12 my three big brothers were all off in the military. my mom was 50, a stay at home mom, and my daddy had a heart attack and to turn our little family upside down. the bills piled up. we lost the family station wagon. we came about that close to losing our home. and i remember the day when my

mother, scared crying pulled her best dress out of the closet, put it on put on her high heels and walked to sears to get a minimum wage job. that minimum-wage job was enough back then to support a family of three, and that minimum-wage job meant that we saved our home and we saved our family. my daddy ended up at the nation's can't. my mom kept working at sears but i graduated from community college that cost $50 a semester. and i ended up in a united states senate applause but -- [applause]

>> i tell that story because i believe. i tell that story i grew up in america that was investing in its kids. and america that was building a future. i believe in that america. i believe in what we can do. i believe in the future we can build, and i will tell you this. i'm going to fight for that america, and if we fight together that -- [applause] >> thank you. [cheers and applause]

>> brothers and sisters that is the power from senator warren. [applause] >> the american people are hungry for a message like we just heard. american workers are ready for shared prosperity. we are ready to get to work. we are ready to raise wages. and coming up we are going to talk about how we do that. we have one of the most dynamic

diverse roundtables you will ever see. but before we get to that we are going to take a 15 minute break, and we will be back here right at 10:45. do not be late because you don't want to miss this roundtable. and when you come back in get an index card so you can write down your questions for our experts. take a break. see you back here at 10:45. [inaudible conversations] >> in a moment we'll go live to the floor of the u.s. senate where members are expected to begin the day with gentle speeches. senators will vote on a terrorism risk insurance bill known as -- the house approved a measure yesterday by a vote of 416-5. it will renew the expired risk program through 2020. work will continue on a bill

authorizing the keystone xl pipeline to carry canadian oil to the u.s. formal debate will begin next week. lawmakers will vote to approve all outstanding committee chairs to chairs of the armed services and energy committees were approved yesterday. and now to live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: 9 senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, we thank you and praise your name because of your goodness and mercy to us and our nation. you are robed in majesty and we

look to you to establish and to keep us strong. today, provide our lawmakers with your guidance so that they will accomplish your will. may they never presume upon your generous provisions or live as if they are independent of you. lord, infuse them with your love, wisdom, and power, as they seek to speak words of healing and hope. today we ask you to extend your mercy to the people of france as they deal with the tragic terrorist attack. we pray in your merciful name.

amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the president pro tempore: the majority leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: mr. president i move to proceed to s. 1. the president pro tempore: without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 1 s. 1, a bill to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that following leader remarks the senate proceed to the consideration of h.r. 26, the house-passed tria bill.

further, the only amendment in order be an amendment to be proposed by senator warren which is at the desk with the time until 1:45 equally divided in the usual form. i further ask that no other amendments or motions be in order aside from budget points of order if applicable and that if a point of order is raised the motion to waive be considered made. i further ask that following the use or yielding back of time and the disposition of any pending actions -- of any pending motions to waive the senate vote on adoption of the warren amendment, the bill be read a third time followed by passage of the bill as amended if amended and the adoption of the warren amended if amendment be at a 60-vote affirmative threshold. the president pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: mr. president with this agreement we're able to complete unfinished business from last congress and reauthorize the terrorism risk insurance program. these votes will occur this

afternoon at 1:45. the energy committee is meeting this morning to report out the keystone bill. we'll begin processing that bill next week. those who have amendments to keystone should be working with chairman murkowski and ranking member senator cantwell to schedule a time to come and offer. i hope that our colleagues on the democratic side will allow us to get on the bill and start a fair and open amendment process on monday or tuesday of next week. the new republican majority has pledged to run the senate differently and to stop protecting the president from good ideas. that's why we look forward to the senate beginning consideration of a bipartisan

job-creating infrastructure project, the keystone x.l. pipeline. right now the keystone jobs bill is being considered by the committee. the keystone jobs bill will then be subject to real debate and amendment here on the floor of the senate. and then we plan to send the keystone jobs bill to the president's desk with bipartisan support that may be a departure from what senators have become used to, but for members on both sides i think the change will certainly be welcome. i think senators in both parties are ready to have their voices and the voices of that you are constituents heard -- voices of their constituents heard in the senate. the senate understands that keystone presents a real opportunity for washington to finally prove to america that it can prioritize jobs for them over the demand of powerful special interests. that's what the voters told us they wanted just last november, and that's just exactly what

washington should aim for now by passing this bipartisan job-creating infrastructure project. as we consider the keystone jobs bill let's keep focus on the real issues at hand. things like jobs for the middle class, reliable energy costs for families. let's also acknowledge that this is not really a debate about the environment. president obama's own state department has previously said that keystone's impact on the environment would basically be negligible. negligible. so let's maintain our focus. let's keep the voters in mind who sent us here and let's remember what they told us just last november. one of the things they told us is they'd like to see more teamwork across the aisle. so for a president who said he'd like to see more bipartisan cooperation, this, my colleagues, is a perfect opportunity. a number of the many democratic supporters of this bill have

already written to the president urging him to choose jobs, economic development and american energy security and approve this pipeline. we're asking the president again today to do that by working with us to end the gridlock and get this job-creating infrastructure project moving. keystone has been studied endlessly from almost every possible angle. and the same basic conclusion seems to be coming back, and the conclusion is build it. build it. keystone's construction could support thousands of jobs that could invest billions in our economy. that's why democrats say build it republicans say build it, prominent labor unions say build it and most importantly the american people say build it. the president has called for congress to send him infrastructure projects to sign. keystone is the largest shovel-ready infrastructure project in the country that

makes sense. so we're going to send it to him, and we hope he'll sign it. can he ultimately veto an infrastructure project that could increase workers wages by $2 billion a project whose construction alone could according to the president's own state department, support many thousands of jobs? he may or he may decide to try and make divided government work. either way this congress is determined to do what we can to pass bipartisan jobs legislation. that's what the american people asked us to do and that's just what we're going to do. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: mr. president the majority leader has stated this morning that we've got to stop protecting the president from good ideas and use as his

exhibit a the keystone pipeline bill which is likely to come up for debate before the senate at the beginning of next week. it's an important measure an important issue that has been talked about over a long period of time and the actual debate on the senate floor will commence beginning the next week. he has moved a bill. the majority leader has moved the bill through rule 14 process which is under the senate rules an effort to bring a bill directly to the floor not through the committee. at the same time there's a parallel effort underway in the new, newly formed energy committee of the senate, formed as of yesterday i might add to consider this bill as well to mark it up. so i'm not sure which bill will come to the floor. perhaps the effort will be merged at some point. but there is no delay from our point of view or from any of the motions or objections that we've raised. we asked only that the committee structures be established so

that the bill could go through the orderly process of committee. that happened yesterday and now it's in the hands of the energy committee. if their markup is going to be perhaps later this week or next week then we'll be prepared to bring this measure to the floor after the regular order process of committee consideration of this bill. this bill, of course, is going to be subject to the new approach of the new majority amendment on the floor. i welcome that. i've been looking forward to that and the return to that for a long time. we have already said though we plan on being in the minority for a short period of time, while in the minority we will not be obstructionists. we're going to do our best to work in a constructive fashion towards bipartisan solutions. there will come moments of disagreement and members will assert their rights and privileges as members of the senate. we will follow the traditions and the rules of the senate in that regard. i will tell you that when this measure comes to the floor there are some important questions

that need to be answered. i listened to two republican senators senators blunt and thune, yesterday come to the floor and say something which puzzled me. i thought there was a question, at least a question raised earlier as to whether or not the oil that is flowing through this pipeline is ever going to be sold as a product in the united states. i don't know the answer to that as i stand here. for the longest time the companies that wanted to develop this pipeline and the refinery have not agreed that their product will be sold in the united sea senator after senator come to the floor and say we've got to have more oil in the united states. initially, as i understand it, this pipeline was to end at a refinery in texas where it could be exported overseas, meaning that the actual oil product may not benefit american consumers of gasoline diesel fuel. during the course of this debate pipeline,

amendments are going to be offered to give members an opportunity to go on the record as to whether or not the ultimate product from the keystone pipeline is going to be sold in the united states and ultimately whether there will be jobs created in the united states as a result of it. these are worthy policy questions, and i think they will come up during the course of our amendment. i also take exception to the majority leader's suggestion that this particular measure in the keystone pipeline has been studied endlessly and is stranded because of the efforts of the president. let me tell you as we stand here today discussing the keystone pipeline the court system in the state of nebraska is still trying to resolve some questions about the location of this pipeline. sensitive questions to our environment. there is an aquifer in this area that they don't want to jeopardize by placing the pipeline in the wrong location.

they are fighting it out in the courts of nebraska as to the right location and the authority of officials in nebraska to choose that location. that goes on as we debate it here on the senate floor. so to suggest this is so-called shovel-ready and all we need is the green light from congress and the president to move forward oversimplifies and overstates the case. i wanted to clarify that for the record. mr. president, at a separate place in the record i'd like to make note of the fact that there is an effort underway in the house of representatives today to amend the affordable care act. for those of us who voted for it and proudly support the affordable care act, this is no surprise. many of the people who did not vote for it and those on the other side of the aisle have opposed the affordable care act since it was signed into law by president obama. some believe that that opposition really is grounded in this notion that this is president obama's affordable care act so-called obamacare.

well, i would say that that opposition is not grounded in the area of what has happened since we passed the affordable care act. there are members of the united states senate, republican members who said they want to veto and eliminate every single word of the affordable care act. every single word one of the republicans from texas said the other day. if they do this, it will be disastrous. let me tell you the record of the affordable care act to date. the affordable care act has given millions of americans access to health insurance many of them for the first time in their lives. i've met them in the city of chicago and around my state. at the same time it has reined in insurance companies and it has lowered health care cost increases. because of the this law a person -- because of this law a person no longer needs to stay in a job simply to have health insurance or be denied coverage

because of a preexisting condition. who among us does not have a family member or friend without a preexisting condition? hardly anyone. almost anything qualifies as a preexisting condition under the old law. under the affordable care act you cannot be discriminated against because of a preexisting condition that you suffer from or someone in your family. when the republican senator from texas says he wants to repeal every single word of the affordable care act, he repealing the protection of those with preexisting conditions and families with children with preexisting conditions from having access to health insurance that they can afford. that was the reality of the situation facing america before the passage of this bill. i might add that because of the affordable care act preventive care is free and the cost of prescription drugs for senior citizens is staption substantially

lower. those that want to repeal the affordable care act are really putting the risk preventive care which eliminates some of the worst and most expensive medical conditions, and at the same time they are suggesting that we ought to say to seniors pay more for your prescriptions. if you want to repeal the affordable care act you're repealing provisions that help seniors make their prescription drugs affordable. out of the gate, house republicans are pursuing an extreme bill that they are considering this week that undermines the affordable care act that is likely to come to the senate soon and we are told is a high priority by the new majority in the united states senate. according to the congressional budget office, the house republican bill would increase our nation's deficit by $45 billion. what happened to all these deficit hawks who have been preaching to us day after day and week after week about our

nation's deficit? parntsly whenapparently when it comes to the affordable care act, they are going to ignore the reality that the bill being considered by the house will add $45 billion to the nation's deficit. that bill would also cause one million people in america to lose their employer-based health insurance. the purpose of this effort under the affordable care act was to bring more people into snurps -- into insurance coverage. the first act by the republican congress is to take up to a million people off of coverage for health care. and this action soon to be brought to the floor in the senate would increase medicaid and chip enrollment by 500,000 by one million people. taking people out of coverage from where they work, moving them into government health insurance programs. does that sound consistent with what we're told over and over is the republican philosophy? i don't think so.

eight million americans in private health insurance plans since october 1 -- that's the enrollment. over nine million people have gained coverage through medicaid and chip. in illinois, more than 800,000 people now have health insurance because of the affordable care act. over 217,000 people purchased a plan through the illinois marketplace. my wife and i purchased our plan through a marketplace that was created by the affordable care act. an additional 530,000 people have enrolled in medicaid in my state. 125,000 young adults in illinois have been able to join their parents' plan. any parent with a child in college who's about to graduate knows that this change in the law is dramatic and helpful. those of us who've had kids graduate from college and worried about their health insurance once they were out of school this affordable care act

says these young people can stay on their parents' health insurance policy until they reach the age of 26. while they're looking for a job internships, travel, part-time jobs they're covered by their parents. peace of mind. so when republican senators say they want to repeal every single word of the affordable care act they want to repeal this provision, which is providing my state coverage for 125,000 young people who are staying on their parents' plan. according to a gallup poll released yesterday the uninsured rate has dropped over 4 points since the affordable care act went into effect a year ago. now, that was our goal. more an more peoplemore and more people in health insurance coverage. the uninsured rate that they now report is 12.9%. that is the lowest point since gallup began to track this measure of health insurance coverage. the affordable care act includes

several changes that are meant to help slow the growth in health care costs and they are working. instead of paying hospitals for the services they provide the old fee-for-service program hospitals are paid on the basis of making patients better. and if their patients have to go back into the hospital, the hospitals are paid less. there is an incentive to take care of people, to make sure that when they're finally released they're ready to go home and not likely to return. despite climbing readmission rates since 2007, those hospital readmission rates are now falling since the passage of the affordable care act and the change in outlook when it comes to health care. hospitals are responding in a positive way to the incentives in the affordable care act. and more of their patients are going home in better and stronger conditions and staying at home. health care spending per enrollee has slowed in the private insurance market in

medicare and in medicaid. for the first time in years we are seeing the rate in growth in health care costs slow down. that is a dramatic increase in opportunity, not just for individuals who pay health insurance premiums and businesses but it means less expense for our government. it helps to reduce our deficit. the solvency of the medicare part-a trust fund is now 13 years longer than it was prior to the passage of the affordable care act which the trustees in 2010 said had substantially improved the financial status of the trust fund. the law is also helping seniors as i mentioned he he earlier, with the cost of their prescription drugs by closing the so-called doughnut hole. do you remember that crazy provision that assist said said if you're getting prescription drugs under medicaid it would cover the

cost of drugs to a certain point and then you would have to pay to a certain point and then it would come back and pay again. the so-called doughnut hole. the republican senators who have vowed to repeal every single word of the affordable care act are going to reopen that doughnut hole, which will mean seniors will have more out-of- out-of-pocket suspensions for prescription drugs. some goamps have decided governors have decided not to expand medicare under the affordable care act thereby denying health insurance coverage for millions of people. the affordable care act has already given about 9 million americans access to medicaid. by not expanding medicaid in these other states, these governors are leaving billions of dollars on the table to cover people in their states, dollars that could be used for health care for people who need it the most. i've met those people. one of them was ray roman

spvmentrow -- romanromanowski who played in bands all his life. never, ever having health insurance. now he has it. he qualifies for medicaid. he carries the coverage in his pocket proudly. at age 62, he is glad to have it so he can deal with some of the issues that folks face as they get older. unfortunately, when these governors decide not to expand medicaid to cover people in their state everybody pays. people who would otherwise qualify for medicaid still need health care. they still g.e.d. get sick. they still show up in the emergency room and basically they et go the services and the rest of us pay for it. isn't it more responsible to say that individual should have their own responsibilities to have their own insurance and show up for preventive care? one of the things that i worry about is that this proposal before us that senator

mcconnell has said is a high priority will address one of the issues about when employers have to provide insurance coverage. it's an issue which was addressed in the bill but has been controversial. senator mcconnell said, making the switch from 30 to 40 hours a week is at the top of the g.o.p. obamacare priorities. this is a provision being considered by the house of representatives now and it is one that we ought to reflect on for just aempt mo. it may seem -- for just a moment. it may seem simple that if you raise the requirement to 40 hours of week before the employer has to pay for the health insurance that it will mean fewer people will be disadvantaged. exactly the opposite is true. the workweek bill affects how many people are covered by the employer mairntiondz the -- the employer mandate which went

into effect january 1 for businesses with 100 workers or more. they have to offer insurance these businesses with more than 100 workers to 70% of their full-time workforce this year or pay penalties. full time is defininged as 30 hours. critics say it will force employers to slash workers' hours to he is cape the penalties. but many democrats and even some policy experts say the change being considered by the house of representatives now will do more harm than good. utah see millions more -- you see, millions more people work a traditional 40-hour work workweek than the 30-hour weekwork. so putting it at 30 gives employers an incentive to -- if you aren't required to provide health insurance unless an employer is working 40 house the house action they're taking

today creates an incentive for employers to avoid the mandate by reducing the hours worked by those who are currently working 40 hours. the cato institute is no liberal think tank. it is one of the most sceivive. michael cannon wrote wednesday that the bill now being considered by the house might lighten obamacare's business burden but drive up government spending by making more people eligible for health care subsidies. he wrote "how is it is this a policy victory" adding that it is a wrongheaded strategy. this would dliel a lot of harm, not just to the affordable care act but to a substantial number of people across america. our leader on thew this issue is pat patty murray. she issued a statement this week which really is spot on when it comes to the wrongheaded approach being considered by

house republicans and soon to be brought up here. the senate help committee may take up a bill as soon as the end of this month. the senate help committee ranking democrat patty murray pledged to fight the change. "it's deeply disappointing that as one of our first priorities republicans are putting afford putting forward a proposal that will not only hurt workers by denying them health insurance coverage but would encourage employers to cut many workers' hours across the country." the house bill would add $53.2 billion to our nation's deficit from 2015 to 2025. because fewer businesses would pay the fieps and fines and because some many employers who would have been covered at work are now going to be covered by government programs. the c.b.o. estimates that a million americans would lose their health care coverage that they have at work if the republican proposal re-veils and up to a million will end up by government programs as a result

of it. this is the wrong approach. i say to my friends in the retail industry and the restaurant industry, the offer i've made and i'm sure many others have made is still there. let's sit down on a bipartisan basis and find the right solution. this effort to increase the deficit to push more people into government coverage and to eliminate health insurance for millions of workers across america is the wrong way to approach it at this point. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous orderer the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will proceed to the consideration of h.r. 26 which clrk the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. h.r. 26, an act to extend the termination date of the terrorism insurance program and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 1:45 p.m. will be equally divided in the usual form. the president pro tempore. mr. hatch: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the president pro tempore. mr. hatch: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that my remarks be placed in the appropriate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. hatch: mr. president i rise today to join my colleagues, both democrat and republican to urge the swift passage of a bill in the senate that would create jobs, strengthen our economy and put more money in americans' pocketbooks the bipartisan hoeven-manchin bill to authorize the keystone x.l. pipeline. i am going to talk about that for a few minutes but then i might have some remarks about what the minority -- assistant minority leader has been saying. i want to address the keystone pipeline project and why it is important. first i want to focus on how the keystone debate reflects on the state of the senate and on good governments more broadly. after all this project is now in its sixth year of limbo waitingwaiting for a single permit

to be issued. this debate has gone on longer than an entire term of the united states senate. my colleague from florida senator rubio recently commented that the american public no longer has confidence that the federal government works anymore. he's right. and the american people are justified in their skepticism. he's right. this project is a perfect example of why. a debate over the merits of and drawbacks to the pipeline, a debate that centers upon sound science and agreed-upon ground rules is long overdue. such a debate represents the best traditions of the senate, a meeting of minds where respect and tolerance shape the contours of the gate and such a debate is valuable because a commonsense regulatory process is integral to a sound economy and the rule of law. time and again president obama

has suggested that an issue such as this is too important to get bogged down in politics. and that we should trust in the integrity of the regulatory process. to this i have two replies. first, this is exactly the sort of debate that we should be having in the senate. this is the body that is supposed to debate the important issues of the day. and when a project as important as this is stalled without meaningful justification for so long, our investment -- involvement is even more important. and in this case we have sought to legislate according to the best traditions of this body, reaching across aisle and taking all voices into account. second curtailing debate on this issue has had the result of turning the construction of what should be a commonsense infrastructure project into an abstraction. a political symbol that has little to do with the actual proposal under consideration.

without discussion of facts and evidence in this chamber all of which i believe counsel in favor of approving the project the opposition has been able to obfuscate the facts and avoid having to defend their position. the senate is a place where we can best accomplish good policymaking not political grandstanding. especially on the issue of such importance as the keystone pipeline. i was encouraged by yesterday's colloquy on the resolution to allow the keystone pipeline to move forward because it represents a return to the way we should talk about serious issues that is, through actual debate. but that colloquy and the work we are doing today has been met with further resistance from the white house. even before we consider any number of amendments from both sides of the aisle, the president has already threatened to veto our legislation calling for pipeline construction to move forward.

this is an unfortunate way for any president to begin work with a new congress. our country and north american energy security will greatly benefit from this project. it improves efficiency. and energy infrastructure. and takes pressure off of moving oil by rail. it will increase our g.d.p. by approximately $3.4 billion lane and the state department which has provided clear-headed analysis of the benefits of this project has found that keystone will support roughly 42,000 jobs during the construction phase alone. it will provide refineries with up to 820,000 barrels a day of north american oil. the keystone pipeline is an environmentally sound way to transport this oil. in fact, the state department's extensive environmental impact statement concluded that building the baseline pipeline

would be better for the environment than not. we have to be clear here. the oil is going to go to market no matter what by truck or rail if not by pipeline. building this pipeline takes this oil off of the tracks, off of the roads and transports it in a way that is safer more efficient, more environmentally sound and better for creating good-paying american jobs. at the end of the day the keystone pipeline as so many other bureaucratic failures demonstrate that the regulatory process is broken. it should not take years and years navigating the bureaucracies only to have the government decide not to make a decision. here in this new congress we are focused on helping create jobs and getting our economy back on the right track. which is why regulatory reform will be a key art of our agenda over the next two years. i hope the president will change change his mind and join us not only in approving this important

project but also in preventing similar abuses from recurring in the future. having said that i would like to make a few remarks about what the distinguished instant minority leader had to say this morning about the affordable care act. i have a great deal of admiration for him and his ability especially to articulate matters. on this one i have to disagree with him because what he doesn't tell you is after all of this hoopla after all of this problem, after all of the costs, after all of the rising costs, after the many, many problems with the affordable care act we're still going to have about 30 million people who don't have insurance. i mean think about it. that's why we did the affordable care act why the democrats did the affordable care act. was to take care of those people. we've had eight million people covered. there's still going to be almost the same amount of people without health insurance that existed before. and a number of of the things he finds so good about the health care bill we would have put in a health care bill ourselves.

yes, they were needed changes this business of putting children on the parents' policy till age 26 and some of the other mentions the distinguished senator made. i have a great deal of admiration for the distinguished senator from illinois. he's a very bright guy, one of the most articulate people in this body, and -- and having said that, was a little disappointed in some of the things he said. just this week harvard university -- these are professors that are pretty well paid. it's an expensive jurisdiction. i know because i have some family up there. the fact of the matter is, is that in harvard these professors are all upset because their costs are going up, that they have to pay out of their own pockets. my goodness gracious. if they think they're hurt with their high salaries and most of their insurance covered by harvard, can you imagine what

the average person is going to feel like when they have a rough time because they've held off on a lot of the affordable care act, i should say, -- quote -- " the affordable care act" -- unquote, they've held off on this until after the election that just occurred. knowing that the costs are going to continue to escalate and rise in ways that we can't even take care of them and if we don't do something about it now it's going to be a dog gone mess in this country that nobody, not my friends on the other side who voted for it, or republicans or anybody else really contemplated. all i can say is, it's a mess. most people are concluding it's a mess except those who really want to take us down the social path towards -- towards having the government control every aspect of our lives in health care. to be honest with you i could

talk all day on this issue but we're on the keystone pipeline and i have to say as somebody who has put through some of the most important health care bills in history ranging from the orphan drug bill to -- forebegan trug bill to the child health insurance program and many many pharmaceutical bills and others as well, i've always been willing to sit down and try and work these matters out. i have to say that midleg from illinois in choosing one senator's comments about every word that doesn't represent everybody on this side. any senator is entitled to their viewpoint, opinion. and -- but a lot of us really believe that there's a great deal of work that has to be done if we're going to have health care really improve in this country and work the way it should work. i could go on and on but i wanted to make a few of those comments. and even with the so-called

eight million they that they have they claim they have, on health care, i don't know that that's true. they have problems in every step of this program. and the reason they have is is because it's lousy written program that was forced through in ways that didn't allow the real process in the senate to work. on every other bill that was that high off the floor passed by only one side in both houses by only one side, you know it's a lousy bill. something that is going to cost like this bill is going to cost. i would challenge my friends on the other side especially my friend from illinois to acknowledge that we need to work together to solve these problems. because they're not going to go away. that bill is one of the lousiest

pieces of legislation i've seen in the whole time i've been here and that's why it was only supported in a totally partisan way. mr. president, i've talked long enough on this. i don't want to take time away from the keystone pipeline because that also is extremely important. oil is cowan down to 50 bucks a barrel or even below but that isn't going to last a long time. but the fact that we have oil now and that we're discovering oil now something that wasn't around in years past, the fact that we're -- we're working to have this countrying totally oil independent, and this is something that's really terrific the keystone pipeline will help us in that regard, and it's hard for me to understand why my friends on the other side, at least some of them, and maybe the president who has viewed a veto threat

which i found profoundly disappointing, continue to argue the way they do. well, i've said enough. i just -- i'll close with this and yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. risch: just for clarification it's my understanding h.r. 26 has been reported to the floor and we have two hours of debate equally

divided, is that correct? the presiding officer: the time until 1:45 p.m. is equally divided. mr. risch: thank you mr. president. it's my pleasure today to rise to speak in favor of h.r. 26 the terrorism risk insurance program reauthorization or what is more popularly known as the tria legislation. during the last congress, my colleagues and i worked hard to put together a bipartisan bill that gained wide support. however, literally in the waning hours of the session we were unable to complete our work at the end of the last congress and i'm very glad to see that this legislation has now been moved promptly by the house of representatives and again promptly today in the senate to move forward and finalize it. i particularly want to thank tropical storm for bringing this bill to the floor so quickly because reauthorization of the tria program is essential for the certainty that we need in our insurance marketplace and

for other important functions in our markets. i also want to recognize some of the senators who have been very integrally involved in this in path. many -- past. we fiend he need to recognize senator hurricane and senator heller -- senator kirk and heller senator reed, senator brown our new ranking member on the democrat side and many others who have helped to move this legislation forward. additionally i want to give thanks to former chairman of the banking committee chairman johnson and his staff who deserve a great amount of thanks as they have worked closely with us in moving this bill forward and my own staff on the republican side who have put in so much time and effort to make sure that we got this important legislation moved over the finish line. working together we developed a bill that was supported unanimously out of the banking committee in what was a very partisan environment that we can

all recall from last congress. and we then approved it in the senate by a vote of 93-4. showing the broad bipartisan support that has been developed for this legislation. building on the senate's framework, the house passed that are own version of tria last congress by an overwhelming vote of 417-7. and yesterday in this new congress the house again voted by a marijuana of 416-5 to extend the program another six years. the legislation that is currently before us in the senate. these strong votes demonstrate the importance of this program. chairman hernsarling and senator schumer and others deserve our thanks for bringing the differences to a focus and getting us to this point. this bill requires that the private insurance industry absorb and cover the losses for all but the largest acts of

terror. ones in which the federal government will almost certainly be forced to step in if this program were not in place. the bill increases the insurance industry's aggregate retention level and the companies' coinsurance level meaning it increases the participation of the private sector in responding to the insurance issues created by an act of terrorism in the united states but still provides the stabilities that the market needs to assure there is coverage and protection. once it reaches that level the recoupment will be indexed to the amount of insurer deductibles for all insurers participating in the program. this is a significant reduction in the potential exposure and cost to taxpayers. under this bill each company will take on a greater portion of losses above their deductible. this is done by increasing the

coinsurance level from 15% to 20% and raising the level at which the program is triggered from $100 million to $200 million. as these levels are increased the federal share is reduced. this bill maintains the amendment offered by senator flake to create an advisory committee focused on finding additional private sector solutions to lowering the federal exposures to loss are from a catastrophic terrorist incident in the united states. getting terrorism risk insurance right is important in order to protect taxpayers and limit the economic and physical impact of any future terrorist attack on the united states. this bill will help us maintain a properly balanced terrorism risk insurance program that increases the nation's economic resilience to terrorism. the bill also includes separate legislation that will establish the national association of registered agents and brokers or

what is commonly known as narab. i've been an original cosponsor of this legislation in the past because it simplifies the process of agent licensing across state lines while preserving states' rights. specifically the authority of state insurance regulators. the bill has broad support from the insurance community including the national association of insurance commissioners, the independent insurance agents and brokers of america the national association of insurance and financial advisors, and the council of insurance agents and brokers. by reducing costs and increasing competition among insurance producers we will generate lower costs and better service for consumers. importantly narab 2 this legislation, deals specifically with marketplace entry and would not impact the states'

day-to-day authority over insurance marketplaces. state regulators will serve on the board of narab with the same objectives they have as insurance commissioners -- to protect the public interest by promoting the fair and equitable treatment of insurance consumers. the idea for narab is now 14 years old and i'm very glad to see that we're now going to get it across the finish line. the final tria bill also includes the vitter amendment that was added in the senate to require that the federal reserve board have at least one member with experience working in or supervising community banks. finally, the bill also includes a very critical reform to the dodd-frank financial legislation legislation. this has commonly been referred to as the end user amendment issue, a piece of legislation

that also has historically received wide bipartisan support. this is a targeted fix that i've been pushing for over four years. ever since the dodd-frank conference, there has been a debate regarding whether nonfinancial end users were exempt from margin requirements. now, most americans won't really understand the details of these kinds of transactions if they aren't involved in the derivatives industry, but it's critical that we allow end users, those who produce products or provide services those are the ones who are using the financial system and the benefits it can provide to provide productive additions to our economy that they not be subjected to the rigorous requirements that were put into place to control financial sector dealings in derivatives. then-chairman dodd and senator lincoln acknowledged that the language for end users was not perfect and tried to clarify the intent of their language with a

joint letter. in the letter, they stated, "the legislation does not authorize the regulators to impose margins on end users. those exempt entities that use swaps or hedges to mitigate commercial risk. if regulators raise the costs of the end user transactions, they may create more risk. it is imperative that the regulators do not unnecessarily divert working capital from our economy into margin accounts in a way that would discourage hedging by end users or impair economic growth." and i might add to that quote from these senators that it would also increase costs in the marketplace to consumers. stand-alone legislation passed the house to fix this problem last congress with 411 votes broad bipartisan support. in the senate, legislation to deal with the end user program was introduced originally by a

bipartisan group of six democrats and six republicans. congressional intent was to provide an explicit exemption from margin requirements -- from margin requirements for nonfinancial end users that qualify for the clearing exemption, which this language accomplishes. unless congress acts the new regulations will make it more expensive for farmers manufacturers energy producers and many small business owners across this country to manage their own unique business risks associated with their daily operations. an unintended and harmful consequence of the language in the dodd-frank legislation. i mentioned in my earlier statement that this bill had the support of 93 senators in the last congress. the final bill before us today passed the house by an overwhelming vote of 416-5.

again, i encourage all of the senators to vote for the legislation we have before us today and help this first piece of legislation in the senate in this congress get a quick resolution so we can resolve one -- in fact, two or three -- of the critical issues facing our economy today help strengthen our economy and promote jobs and increase our movement along the pathway toward economic recovery. again, i want to thank senator schumer, senator reed, senator kirk and senator heller for their partnership in bringing this bill forward. thank you mr. chairman. i yield the floor. mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you mr. president. i rise today to speak on h.r. 26 the terrorism risk insurance program reauthorization. i thank senator crapo and appreciated and enjoyed the relationship that we have had over the last eight years since

i joined the banking committee and he was already a relatively veteran member of that committee and very knowledgeable and very straightforward and fair. and i appreciate his work and especially on this legislation also. i support the reauthorization of the terrorism risk insurance program. i did not want to -- want it to expire in december. many of us on both sides of the aisle in the senate worked to try to get this reenacted in december. unfortunately, because of partisan games in the house of representatives, it didn't happen. that's -- but that's why i voted for tria reauthorization s. 2244, in the banking committee last june. i supported the bill in the full senate passed in july are as senator crapo said, by a vote of 93-4. 2244 made important reforms to tria in order to gain bipartisan support but still provided long-term certainty to the marketplace. but what was unfortunate was last fall, house republicans were unable to embrace a bill

similar to immigration, if you will, were unable to embrace the senate bill that had broad bipartisan support. they waited till the last days of the last congress to engage the senate in an effort to reauthorize tria, something that's -- that is dangerous if unauthorized the situation can be dangerous if unauthorized. and fortunately we're going to be able to move today get this to the president pretty quickly and at least protect our cities and our communities and our people. while tr aprovisions the house and senate -- tria provisions, the house and senate eventually agreed on went further than i would have liked they represent a compromise, something we obviously don't see enough around here these days. ultimately though, the swap end user provision that was added by house leadership to the tria bill at the last moment was not a compromise. it was moving in a different direction. it was a weakening of dodd-frank dodd-frank. it was not the way that this

congress or any congress should enact legislation should proceed. this -- that provision the end user provision, did not go through regular order in the senate. the committee held no hearings no markups to consider its merits or its demerits, and this bill was never brought to the senate floor to be debated. that's what people whether it's in florida or idaho or ohio, that's what people are unhappy about, legislation that needs to pass things that there's strong bipartisan across-the-board, almost unanimous support for and then special interest groups get provisions in that don't belong there, that were never debated and never discussed. unlike tria, the swap end user provision is controversial. it overrides regulators' proposed rules. it prevents future regulatory flexibility. it allows another avenue for derivatives risk to build up in the financial system. as if these actions of inserting this provision in legislation

that was overwhelming, almost unanimously -- enjoyed almost unanimous support adding these kinds of provisions simply doesn't work for our system, it doesn't -- it's not the way we should be legislating. and it begs the question, did we learn nothing less than a decade ago when we know what happened to our financial system and the greed on wall street and the pain it caused on main street in boise and pocatello and columbus and cleveland was pretty hard to measure. financial crisis exposed risks in all areas of the market. the provisions in wall street reform targeted dangerous exposure to the system by strengthening protections by using clearing and margin requirements. under wall street reform, commercial end users are exempt from clearing requirements. regulators have provided them with accommodation from margin requirements recognizing that business-related need of these companies. the end user legislation added to the tria bill goes above and beyond the existing law and the

existing rule making, could tie regulators' hands in the future if excessive risks were to develop. thus exposing the financial system and taxpayers to more harm. just one example that -- that this end user provision can cut both ways. two days before christmas reuters reported -- quote -- "the major u.s. airlines, including delta and southwest are rushing to finance losing bets on oil and revamp fuel hedges as tumbling crude prices leave them with billions of dollars in losses, according to people familiar with the hedging schemes." we know that most of us are thrilled with the price of gas going -- price of gasoline at the pump going down below -- significantly down below $2 a gallon. but we know there are other people that are a little bit less thrilled, as delta -- as this story illustrates with delta and southwest. we know that the economy of texas and north dakota have had problems because oil revenues have declined. we know all that but we also know when you enact provisions

like this that aren't debated that aren't discussed that haven't had hearings there can be unforeseen consequences. seven years -- less than seven years after the financial crisis, we shouldn't forget the risks involved. let's not forget impact of the financial crisis on consumers and investors and taxpayers and the financial system as a whole. what we do here has impact in omaha and in -- in cleveland and it's important that we really do understand what we're doing by going through regular order. slipping this provision into the tria bill is just the latest republican effort to roll back wall street reform. in december, we know the same cast of characters attached an effective repeal of section 716 the lincoln amendment, to the end-of-the-year spending bill. yesterday they tried and thankfully failed to pass a bill consisting of 11 smaller bills that included attempts to weaken a number of important dodd-frank provisions. i'm concerned about -- i don't

like the way this has been done today. i want to see tria passed but madam president, we've seen this movie before. we'll keep seeing it over and over again. this seems to be the new wall street playbook. it seems to be the new republican playbook. i hope that it's not the senate leadership's playbook, where you take a bill that most people like that has pretty much overwhelming support that's a must-pass bill and you help wall street and wall street lobbyists get provisions in they can weaken consumer protections. consumer protections rules on wall street that will keep wall street safer so we don't have to have another -- we don't have to have another federal bailout. i yield the floor madam president. mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: madam president first i want to thank my colleagues who are here today. senator brown, this is his first

first -- just a day into the session, as ranking member, and it's clear to all of us in the caucus he's going to be a hardworking, conscientious ranking member and i look forward to working with him and congratulate him on his new position. i want to thank my good friend, senator crapo, who will be leaving as ranking member. we have the new ranking member and the former ranking member. i wish that were not the case, but so be it, and mike has been just a pleasure to work with on this bill and on so many other bills, so i appreciate his hard work as well. now, i rise today in support of reauthorizing the terrorism risk insurance program, a purpose that has brought me to the floor of this body several times in the last year. we all know what a crucial piece of legislation is -- crucial piece of legislation tria is for our country. it should be reauthorized and reauthorized without political

jockeying and attempts at point scoring that we have seen through the several months, but the good news is that tria will pass today and millions of americans can breathe a sigh of relief not just those to insure and build buildings but people who work in buildings. office workers restaurant workers, those who work at shopping centers. sports fans. those who care about having new stadiums. all of these depend on terrorism risk insurance. we all know the history. after 9/11, when my city was devastateed, -- devastated, people couldn't get financing to build new buildings. insurers said the damage from terrorism, both loss of life and property damage, is so, so great that they were not going to insure without a federal back

stop. and in a bipartisan way we came together in 2002 and passed the tria bill, and it helped propel the economy for the last decade. because some on the other side are not sure this should be a government function we could not make it permanent. it would be a lot better if we could, but we extended it for periods of years and it came to pass that it expired on december 31 of this last year of 2014. in the senate here, the bill that i was proud to sponsor helped by my cosponsors senators murphy and jack reed and tim johnson, menendez, kirk, heller, crapo blunt and johanns we anticipated no problems, and the bill passed 93-4. senators from bernie sanders to ted cruz voted for it.

and everyone thought it's worked it hasn't cost the government a nickel. it will pass easily. but unfortunately it got caught up in the machinations of the house, and there were some on the house side who didn't want terrorism insurance at all and some who were extremely reluctant. i will say this -- i believe speaker boehner and majority leader mccarthy understood the importance of this, and i worked with them in the later months of last year to try and get a bill done. and at the end of the day, i was able to negotiate a bill with the chairman of the house banking committee who was at best a reluctant supporter of terrorism insurance and come up with a proposal that made some changes but kept the program intact. and it was a good compromise and it is the compromise that is

before us here today. it's a little different than the original bill. it extends us for six years. the $100 million limit has been raised to $200 million. but still the program can function very well under these proposals. and so i am very glad that we have brought it to the floor very early in this session glad that it has passed the house and i'm glad that hopefully by the end of today it will be moving to the president's desk. but there is one sour note in all of this, and that is the attempt -- and i agree completely with my colleague from ohio, the ranking member, mr. brown, that the idea to add extraneous measures to this provision is a wrong one.

in my view -- dodd-frank has strengthened the financial system and the banking system of this country. the loose regulatory regime that was in place before, everyone agrees helped cause the worst financial collapse we've had since the great depression. now, there are some on the other side i understand who disagree with that view, and that is something that will obviously be subject to debate. but to attach a provision at the last minute, which is what the house did at the end of last year, put it on the bill and said take it or leave it, is wrong and unfair. i think every fair-minded person whatever their view of dodd-frank is, would feel that we should debate an important amendment any amendment that would roll back parts of dodd-frank, given the fact that most everyone who has looked at it has thought it has been a

success. and so that plus a change in the narab provision which my colleagues have mentioned led to some problems. we on the democratic side, while we do not like, do not like the rollback of dodd-frank and the end user provision even last year were not prepared to stop the bill from going forward but the change our house republican colleagues made was blocked by a republican senator coburn, and at the last minute in the waning hours of the session, it was stymied. now, today senator coburn, my dear friend, who i miss and i wish him the best of health, is not here, so he will not be here. he was not here to object to the mac -- unanimous consent request that was made in a bipartisan way. and so we were voting on this

bill. but the bottom line is simple -- republicans monkeyed around with the bipartisan compromise to earn a pound of flesh in what they knew was a must-pass piece of legislation. glad it won't kill the bill, but it never should have been there to begin with, and the amendment that will be proposed will allow many on this side of the aisle who believe in tria but didn't want to see at the last minute the rollback of dodd-frank, albeit one of the smaller rollbacks that have been proposed to ride on the back of the important terrorism -- antiterrorism proposal. using must-pass unrelated legislation to chip away at dodd-frank piece by piece even small pieces like the end user provision without debate or even in the committee process is not how we should go about the business of considering

important regulations on financial services, and i join chairman ranking member brown in saying that should not happen in the future and we should do everything to stop it from happening. the good news is in this new session, there were attempts by some on the republican side to dilute the tria provision further. from what i'm hold, the chairman wanted to dilute it further despite the negotiations we had. i want to thank our republican leadership for not allowing that to happen, republican leadership in the house. and so the same basic compromise that the chairman and i negotiated in the wee hours of last year's session will be on the floor today and tria will not be weakened any further. so mr. president i'm proud of the compromise congressman

henserling and i reached on the substance of tria. i am hopeful that we can pass a bill without extraneous issues, and i certainly believe that tria should be signed into law as quickly as possible, because we all know that if we don't have terrorism insurance it's going to greatly hurt our economies. the damage has been minimized because most of the insurance clauses have 30 and 60-day notice provisions, so there has been no effect up until now but if we dither any further it would have serious effects on our rebounding economy effects i think no one who cares about jobs who cares about working people who cares about new construction in america would want to countenance. so mr. president -- madam president, excuse me, madam president, i am glad that tria will pass today. our country needs it.

i want to thank again all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in both houses who worked hard to do this, and i hope we will not find what happened today happening again, which is adding extraneous rollbacks of dodd-frank without debate, without discussion to future legislation. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted or vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i'd like to take a few moments and just respond to

some of the remarks of my colleagues. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: first of all let me say i am very pleased to see that we have strong support crool on -- across the aisle on a bipartisan basis for two of the three key parts of this legislation -- the reauthorization of tria or the terrorism risk insurance program, and narab for the insurance industry. it appears that the focus of the debate between us or disagreement between us today is going to come down to that part of the bill that deals with the end user exemption under the dodd-frank legislation and so i'd like to talk about that for a little bit because there is -- in some of the argument about this provision there has been the implication that this is an effort to help strengthen wall street at the expense of main street. the reality here is just the reverse. this is an opportunity to try to stop unintended and bad legislative language from

hammering main street under the guise that it was to protect us against wall street. let me explain what i mean. derivatives -- and i'm reading right now from a summary of the house bill, which is the version of the language we're going to be voting on today and i will be reading some and summarizing some. but derivatives are contracts whose value is linked to changes in another variable, such as the price of a physical commodity. my colleague from ohio, senator brown, referenced delta airlines who buys contracts for fuel for their airplanes and they do this in order to hedge the risk on the price of fuel, and it's a critical part of their risk management for their business. other businesses, farmers in idaho hedge their risks in their farming and ranching opportunities in the same way by trying to make sure that they have protected the price of certain commodities that they

need to utilize in the conduct of their business. derivatives have historically been used by businesses large like delta and small like the idaho farmer, and everything in between, to manage the risk of their businesses. end users trade in derivatives to hedge business and economic risk and that's very important to understand because over time derivatives have grown and the use of an investment in derivatives has grown and instead of just end users trying to manage risk and commodities for their products and for their physical needs and business needs, many derivatives -- in fact probably most of the -- many of the -- more than a majority of the derivatives that are invested in today are no longer based on a physical

commodity but are linked to variables like interest rates or stock prices or currency valuations or other factors like that and the market in derivatives has moved into areas that are similar to investment like in the stock market, and because of that, dodd-frank sought to -- and one of those kinds of activities was one of the big problems in the financial collapse. and so dodd-frank tried to address that abuse of derivatives that was found during the time of the financial collapse but it was never intended to deal with the original utilization of derivatives by end users. again, as i said earlier those who produce a product like a farmer or deliver a service like airline transportation like delta airlines or others, those who utilize derivatives in their

business to hedge business risk and economic risk as opposed to those who invest in derivatives for speculation in a market, and that distinction was very important. i was on the conference committee when we did the conference committee on dodd-frank. we discussed this then, and everyone literally all of us, including the two sponsors of the bill -- senator dodd and representative frank -- agreed that end users were not intended. i'll quote from the language that senator dodd put into a letter along with his then-colleague senator lincoln. this is senator dodd's language -- quote -- "the legislation does not authorize the regulators to impose margins on end users. those exempt entities that use swaps to hedge or mitigate commercial risk. if regulators raise the cost of

end user transactions, they may create more risk." i'm still quoting senator dodd. "it is imperative that the regulators do not unnecessarily divert working capital from our economy into margin accounts in a way that would discourage hedging by end users or impair economic growth." it was not the intent although it was a concern at the time that the language may have gone too far. but clearly the sponsors of the amendment -- and i don't have the language in front of me, but representative frank has made similar comments that it was not intended for this to be covered by the legislation. but the language actually did go so far as to cover end users. and now the regulators, in hearings before the banking committee, have uniformly told us that they feel that their hands are tied and that following the language of dodd-frank, they have to start

imposing margin requirements on end users which will cause the kind of economic harm which i've discussed earlier. and so it's necessary for congress to respond and clarify that this exemption exists for end users in our financial system. now one of the arguments that has been made -- actually before i move on to that, let me go back and give a couple of examples and this is, i believe, from testimony that was given in the house where hearings have been held multiple times on this issue. it's true that we haven't been able to get hearings in the senate on this issue but it doesn't mean that the issue hasn't been raised in the senate. i personally in 2011 brought an amendment to an appropriations bill to make this exemption part of the law and was stopped by the then-majority who said they would not allow either a vote or a hearing on the issue. so it's true that we have not been able to engage in hearings

or votes in the senate on this issue, but it is not true that we have not been engaging in trying to get to this issue in the senate. in the house where they were able to hold hearings, i want to quote a couple of examples of testimony that was made in the house. this first one is from the c.e.o. of ball corporation -- excuse me. miller coors. craig riners who gave this testimony said "miller coors does this for the purpose of doing business. at miller coors we brew beer and our commitment is to make the best beer in the united states. in order to achieve these goals we must find a way to mitigate our commodity inherent risks.

this is what the end users do. the other is ball corporation a supplier of metal packaging to the beverage and food industries. in testimony to the house the f.c.o. stated -- the c.f.o. stated a requirement for end users to post margin would have a serious bact on our -- bact on our ability to invest in and grow business. for example ball is investing significant amounts of capital in plant expansions in texas indiana, california, and colorado. totaling well in excess of $150 million and adding several hundred jobs when complete. tying up capital for initial and variation margin could put those types of projects at risk at a time when our economy can ill afford it. the impact of posting initial margin for risk can easily exceed $100 million while the change in value in our trades over time could easily surpass

$300 million. diverting more than $400 million of working capital into margin accounts would have a direct and adverse impact on our ability to grow our business and create and maintain jobs. so again my point is the end user exemption must distinguish between those who invest in derivatives for speculation and those who invest in derivatives in order to control and hedge risk in their business. a critical distinction. and economists and experts and regulators alike have said that imposing those extra margin requirements on the end user will have negative economic effects, not positive stabilizing economic effects. now, having said that, i want to move forward again going back to the house report. and i'm almost done with it. again, it says however

derivative end users the firms trying to manage their risk rather than speculate for profits do not pose a systemic risk. furthermore, forcing end users to post margin in the form of cash or government securities could cause harmful effects for the economy and consumers. if end users are posting a margin those funds are unavailable for investment in jobs and expansion which means we are pulling capital out of our economy unnecessarily and in a harmful way. in the very arena. not wall street but main street, the very arena where we need capital formation and need the kind of growth in our economy that that would then cause to generate greater jobs and strength and stability. the examples i've used were examples of companies who were dealing in hundreds of millions of dollars of issues. but as i said earlier, this is not just that. small businesses, ranchers,

farmers, others all utilize this in order to hedge their commodity risks their business risks in our economy. and i just want to enforce the point and make it clear that this is, this is something that was never intended to be in the law, that our regulators have said they have to do. in hearings before the senate banking committee, i have asked our regulators about this. in fact, frankly that reminds me that we have actually had testimony in the senate on this issue because i've raised it in multiple banking hearings with our senate regulators. i mean with our financial regulators. and they have told us that they believe this fix is a prudent fix. we have our regulators telling us they have to issue regulations that they don't feel are needed or necessary and that congressional fix would be helpful to our financial markets

and to our business productivity in america. we have those being regulated as end users pleading for relief from this harmful statutory language. and we have an opportunity today to correct that problem. i encourage all senators to recognize the critical need to move forward rapidly on fixing this end user exemption just as we need to move forward rapidly on reauthorizing tria and on passing the narab legislation. and with that, madam president i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you madam president. senator coats, i will be no more than three minutes. i want to issue a short response to my friend from idaho that the issue here is more about process than substance.

we have slight disagreement on substance partly from the delta issue. i understand farmer and rancher in idaho and the farmer in idaho and the importance of managing risks. i was amused about the issue he raised about manufacturers. those same manufacturers who came in front of our committee that produce beer or soft drinks that were paying more for their metals for their aluminum cans because of the overreach in commodities from some wall street firms. but this is not the time to debate that. the issue is really the process of this change, madam president that i was part of the legislation with senator collins and with senator johanns the last session. it was a lengthy process. senator crapo supported our efforts in committee and beyond. it was a slight change to dodd-frank. it was a change that we did cautiously. we made agreements and

compromises. we brought in sheila bair who helped in the crafting of the language with the collins amendment. we worked with her. we worked with senator collins. we worked with senator johanns and i started the process. got her she being senator collins, became the lead sponsor of it. the compromise through hearings in both houses and hearings in the senate banking committee; there were discussions in both houses. we came to that agreement with a free-standing bill. that's the way this should be done. i would be happy to have a debate with end user provision with senator crapo and chairman shelby and the rest of us and then we come to a conclusion and we get compromise and we move forward. the lesson here, madam president, for senator coats -- before senator coats steps up and gives his comments, the lesson here is let's do this in the future the way we did collins-brown-johanns last year and do this right so all sides can be represented, we come to compromise the bill,

stand-alone bill goes to the president. that's the way this should have been done. iesm hopeful that's the -- i'm hopeful that's the way it will be done in the future. i yield the floor to senator crapo. mr. crapo: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: i yield 15 minutes or as much time as he may consume to senator coats. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: thank you madam president. i very much appreciate the comments that have been made here and tend to support the legislation that is before us. however, i would like to just make a few remarks here relative to the start of a new congress and a new senate in this new cycle. this is a fresh start for us and an opportunity to reverse course after a very frustrating period

of time and dysfunction in the united states senate. i'm hopeful i'm optimistic. some say i shouldn't be. but i am hopeful and optimistic that all of us, colleagues both new and old republican and democrat, will be able to work together to achieve serious and positive results for the many issues that we face here for our country. we have to put behind us those days when congress careened from one cliff to the next, from one crisis to another crisis and failing to successfully bring forward positive legislation that addresses the problems that we face. and we face numerous issues. threats to our security, including radical extremism like isis terrorists like those responsible for the horrendous murders in paris yesterday cyber attacks nad yacht border security -- inadequate border

security and any number of policy issues that threaten our security in the united states. unfortunately many of the administration's responses have fallen short to what is needed to successfully address these numerous threats. and thus, addressing these issues and protecting our homeland is paramount in this critical time. and congress has an important role to play in this in 2015. i want hoosiers that i represent to know that i will continue to fully engage in what i believe is this essential priority. and here on the home front the 114th congress must be about legislation that sets in conditions -- the conditions for economic growth. i consistently hear from hoosiers back home telling me that washington needs to focus on building an economic climate that encourages job creation and expands opportunity for all who

seek to work. we have staggered through a very difficult period of time. i believe personally, and i think it has been demonstrated by the results that the policies of this administration have not successfully addressed this problem, falling far short of what is needed. these concerns must be addressed. they must be addressed now and there are several areas where republicans, i believe can work with the president and work with our colleagues to grow our economy if the president is willing to work with us. many of these issues have bipartisan support in this congress items such as what we will be taking up very shortly: the keystone pipeline. unfortunately already the president has issued a slap in the face to those of us who simply want to bring up something that is supported by nearly 70% of the american public that has been cleared

over six years' period of time from any kind of negative environmental impact, but has been resisted over and over with less feeble and more and more feeble excuses from our president as to why we can't go forward with this. repealing the excise tax for medical devices again something with very significant bipartisan support. 79 members of this body in the last cycle voted for repeal of this egregious tax on gross sales that has hampered growth of one of the most dynamic industries in our country something that provides exports and revenue and high-paying technical jobs that put people back to work and give them decent income. re-for the purposing federal regulations that business after business in my state tell me keep them from hiring and from growing. oamg openingopening more markets to

and reforming our tax code. these are just a few issues issues that have bipartisan support that need to be addressed that can be addressed in this senate that do not bipartisan support in a way that we can work with our colleagues to bring forward meaningful legislation and hopefully the president will join us in that effort. in addition to what i have listed, there are other issues the 114th congress must tackle. for example just last week, an employer car survey revealed that a majority of small businesses say that the obamacare health care plan has reduced their profits causing many of them to freeze or cut workers' wages or real estate duce other benefits. -- or reduce other benefits. this survey affirms the constant flow of letters and e-mails i receive from hoosiers who have seen their premiums and deductibles rise because of obamacare. we were promised by the president that premiums would

not rise, not a penny he said, and you can take it to the bank. he put a big period, "trust me, your premiums will not rise, your cost of health care will not rise." that has obviously not been the case. we have seen egregious and crippleing increases in deductibles and premiums as a result of obamacare. now, with a divided federal government and in order to achieve needed results, we have no other option but to work together on a responsible legislative solutions to grow our economy tackle our debt and deficit appeared keep america's homeland safe from terrorist threats. that is the challenge that's before us. that is the challenge that the american people want us to address. that is the result of their going to the polls in november, demonstrating what they would like us to do. so i look forward to rolling up

my sleeves redoubling my efforts and getting to work on behalf of hoosiers and my nation and i trust that my colleagues will join in that effort and we can move forward in a way that we haven't in the last few years. with that, i thank my colleague for the time and i yield back. -- whatever time may be remaining. mr. crapo: madam president i yield ten minutes or such time he's may consume to senator heller. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: thank you, madam president. and i rise today to speak on the terrorist risk insurance program. but before i get started with my remarks, i want to thank my friend from hide for his hard work and effort on behalf of all of america on an issue like this. i think his efforts to educate us in our conference and others on both sides of the aisle speaks values of his ability to lead on an issue like this. but as a member of the banking

committee and a coauthor of the senate tree tria reauthorization bill, this is a critical issue that i have worked on closely with my issues for nearly a yeesh year. terrorism is a real threat. whether it is north south east or west, and that's why i've been so involved in reagan to get tria extend -- in trying to get tria extended. when you think of terrorism you think you have some of the bigger cities. but i've said this before, and i want to say it again in my home state, las vegas is considered to be one of the leading international businesses and visitor destination cities in the world. southern nevada welcomes 40 million visitors annually and has a population of nearly 2 million people. we have 35 major hotels aalong the las vegas strip, many of them which have 15,000 occupants at once. if a terrorist attack were to occur in las vegas our entire state economy would be devastate

devastated without tria. but it's not just about las vegas. in northern nevada our visitor and gaming business is one of the largest employers which includes the city of reno. unless they have is being ssess they have access to affordable terrorism coverage, they will have difficulty to capital. tria has hopped many hotels, hospitals, office complexes shopping centers colleges, universities have access to terrorism insurance coverage. and i want that to continue. while i was disappointed that we could not reach an agreement before tria expired at the end of 2014, i'm pleased that this legislation has been brought to the floor so quickly by the majority leader. this bill before us today is a good bill. yesterday it passed the house with 416 votes and if i can repeat that, 416 members of the house, both leans and republicans

and democrats, supported this legislation. i strongly support this bill and urge all of my colleagues to support passage of that th bill today. with that, madam president i yield back the floor. the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. crapo: madam president i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. crapo: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. crapo: and i also ask unanimous consent that during quorums calls the time that elapsed be allocated e-equally to both sides -- equally to both sides. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. crapo: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: i ask that the quorum call be suspendedment. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. durbin: alan gross a contractor with the u.s. as i said went to havana cuba and took with him some internet equipment that he was going to leave at a small synagogue that still has survived for decades in havana, cuba. he checked in at the airport when he arrived took all of the equipment that he'd brought and put it right through customs for inspection by the cuban government. shortly thereafter he was arrested charged with spy activities and the like, and imprisoned for five years. alan gross of maryland. i'm happy to report, madam president, that just before we adjourned for the holiday recess, we were greeted with the great news that alan gross who'd been jailed in cuba for five years was finally on his way home. i met my -- i met with alan in havana at his holding area in a prison hospital several years ago. i couldn't understand how this

man could survive day after weary day of being in imprisoned for trumped up charges that really bear into relationship to reality. he was given a 15-year sentence for simply bringing internet equipment to the cuban people. when i saw alan, he had lost more than 100 pounds and had been unable to visit back home with his mother, who had just recently passed away. amid their own enormous pain, gross' family remained tirelessly committed to ensuring his well-being and return to the united states. many members of the united states senate and house of representatives visited him when they had the chance in havana to keep his spirits up. we tried everything imaginable with the cuban government and with our own government and others to tray to secure his -- to try secure his release. tragically his detention was yet another obstacle in trying to turn the page on what i consider a decades' old foreign

policy towards cuba. many people helped make his homecoming a reality. notably, president barack obama senators mikulski and cardin from his home state of maryland really helped to lead our efforts, chris holland congressman from the state of maryland as well, and i can't leave out senator pat leahy who really took a personal issue as his staff did in trying to help. president obama was the one who helped to finally engineer his release, but i think the president will be the first to say he could not have achieved this goal without the able assistance of an amazing man who has millions of fans around the world named pope francis. pope francis urged both sides the united states and cuba, to meet and talk with one another to work to find a solution for the release of alan gross and try to resolve other

humanitarian issues between our two nations writing personally to both president obama and cuban president raoul castro. pope francis played a great role. over 18 months quiet talks moved forward including a critical one late last year hosted by the vatican. pope francis said to a group of new vatican ambassadors the day after the release of alan gross "the work of an ambassador lies in small steps small things, but they always end up making peace, bringing closer the hearts of people,sowing brotherhood among people. today we're happy because we saw how two peoples who had been apart for so many years took a step closer yesterday." what wise and beautiful words from this imrissive impressive pope francis, the first from laton america and one widely

recognized for his humility and dedication to the poor and commitment to reconciliation. he is clearly continuing the role of the vatican in pursuing peace and freedom. whether pope paul ii's role in poland or the vatican's help in a border stand jf in the 1970's and a 2007 des dispute between britain and iran over hostages, that is why today senators leahy, flake cardin, mikulski, enzi udall and brown are joining me in introducing a resolution that praises pope francis' role in the release of alan gross. the resolution is simple and straightforwardstraightforward. it commends his holiness for his role in encourage the improved relationship between the united states and cuba and it warmly,

warmly welcomes home alan gross to the united states. madam president, i know that cuba itself elicits many strong and passionate political feelings among many here in the senate and across america. i respect the differences many of us have on this issue. i am certainly no fan of the castro regime, neither fiddle nor raul and i pursued accountability on human rights violations on that island including the suspicious death of the cuban patriot and activist others wald paya. while many of us may disagree on the best path forward in seeking democratic change in cuba i hope we can aludra extra that pope francis deserves thanks and praise for his role in bringing alan gross home. i would ask any of my colleagues who would like to join in cosponsoring if they would like to i'd be honored to have

them i'll try to move this resolution in a timely fashion but i hope we can go on record in the united states senate commending the pope's efforts. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. brown: i thank the democratic -- the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i thank the democratic leader for -- the whip for his comments. i was part of a group with senator leahy and senator whitehouse and senator flake to work on this, the credit overwhelmingly goes to congressman been hollen and senator durbin and senator leahy, and the negotiations and the discussions that the administration did. i also appreciate the opportunity to be a cosponsor of senator durbin's bill. i mentioned to him that one of the most intriguing and most admirable things that pope francis said was talking to --

as he travels the world and ministers to the poor and talks to his flock that he exhorted one day he exhorted his parish priest, he said go out and smell like the flock. he said make sure that you -- pretty much -- a good admonition the to all of us that you make sure you go out and make sure you know how people live their lives and minister to them and govern this country better if we do. i appreciate senator durbin's words. mr. durbin: i failed to mention congressman jim mcgovern. congressman van hollen and jim mcgovern who were committed to alan gross' release. mr. brown: madam president i ask putting us in a quorum call the time be divided taken equally from both sides. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

ms. stabenow: madam president i would ask suspension of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you very much. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you madam president. i rise today to pay special tribute to reverend michael c. murphy a dear friend of mine, a man of great faith who for decades inspired the people in lansing, michigan, and who passed away recently in washington, d.c. a city where he had only just begun to make his mark. reverend murphy talked often about being called, being called in the spiritual sense into service in the spiritual sense of the word he followed that calling at pivotal moments in his life and we are all better for it.

for instance, even though he was born and grew up in chicago, reverend murphy felled a calling not long after he arrived in mid michigan. while enrolled at michigan state university in pursuit of a master's degree in counseling, he got a job at the michigan consumers council. as he learned about the legislative process and how public policy affects families and individuals and communities, he decided he wanted to devote quoth himself to that kind -- devote himself to that kind of important work. yet at the same time he felt the spittual call to the ministry which led him back to the seminary in chicago. for some time, he drove back and forth from lansing to chicago, balancing a public service mission with a mission that was more personal and

spiritual. ultimately in 1987 my friend mike murphy, as a recently ordained minister, founded st. steven's community church in lansing. it would belong to the united church of christ, a denomination that appealed to reverend murphy because it was multicultural, committed to social justice and human rights, just like reverend mike murphy himself. for the next 22 years these causes were consistent themes of reverend murphy's sermons. even as the minister of a growing congregation however reverend murphy felt the calling to serve a broader public, a broader community. beyond his church. in the 1990's, mid 1990's he

won election to the lansing city council. then in 2000 he won a seat -- he won a seat in the michigan legislature. he was honored to be on the ballot with reverend murphy as i came to the united states senate at the same time. during reverend murphy's three terms in the michigan house he was a champion for improving education, for enhancing access to health care, for all citizens and for policies that would promote job growth in his great district and all across michigan. more than anything though, reverend murphy's constituents knew that if time is -- if times were tough he would be their champion. in may 2003, a 13-year-old herbal student -- middle school student named jasmine miles was

struck by a car and killed. she was walking home from school on a road that didn't even have sidewalks. reverend murphy decided that the best way to help jasmine's family was to prevent any other family from being devastated in the same way. so he gave jasmine's family a role in a bill that he sponsored in the michigan house to require crossing guards, skywalks and other ensafety enhancements at crossings used by school children. since jasmine miles' school safety act became law and with his leadership, it is law there are -- there's no telling how many young lives have been saved. one of the so many ways in which his actions impacted the people in lansing and in michigan.

even after reverend murphy stepped down from office due to term limits, he continued working with the state as an activist who offered tips on how transportation officials could improve the safety of walking routes for children across michigan. and he continued to bring -- to be a force for bringing neighbors closer together. lansing never felt more vibrant than it did on the day of the capital city african-american parade a great celebration an annual event that reverend murphy founded. there were marching bands and floats and great food, music and dancing. about five years ago reverend murphy was called again and this time he was called to come to washington, d.c. where he would become pastor of

the people's congregational united church of christ. we tend to find comfort in knowing that a person we loved passed away while doing the thing that he or she was most passionate about and that certainly was true for reverend murphy. he spent his final moments in prayer preparing for one of those wonderful sermons that he always gave that was uplifting to everyone who was fortunate enough to listen. he brought his spirituality into his service to the community and his service to the community into strengthening his spirituality. a wonderful wonderful man that touched so many lives including mine, and very -- in very powerful ways. to reverend murphy's son brandon and his daughter rachel and all

of his family we will keep you in our thoughts and prayers we are grateful to you for sharing your father's different with us and we will -- gifts with us and we will dearly miss him. thank you, mr. president. i would yield the floor. mrs. fischer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: mr. president if i may i would like to begin my remarks today by expressing my deep gratitude to a hardworking public servant and a loyal friend, mike hibble. mike and i have known each other for more than ten years. i was so grateful that after i was elected to the united states senate his wife chris gave her blessing so that he could come to washington to serve as my chief of staff. mike has had a long career of public service working for his fellow nebraskans including two decades in the nebraska legislature where he provided policy and legal advice to a

number of our state's top leaders. in this role and in the private sector mike has brought a wealth of experience on a range of issues. before coming to the senate, he also served as executive director of the nebraska public service commission for nearly six years. when i chaired the nebraska legislature's transportation and telecommunications committee i had the chance to work very closely with mike to improve infrastructure across our state. when the time came for me to choose a chief of staff i had exactly one name in mind and that was mike hibble. his integrity his level head and his tireless work have served him well here in washington. anyone who has ever opened a senate office from the ground up associates the unique challenges that come with being a chief of

staff and being a chief of staff for a freshman senator. a wide range of skills are required to hire staff establish operations and even to pick out those paint samples. through it all mike was patient, he was persistent and he worked closely with me to always ensure that the interests of nebraskans were and remain the top priority. he never lost his sense of purpose. he always kept us laughing with those deadpan one liners. and after two years on the job mike will be returning home to god's country the state of nebraska which we both love so much. i have no doubt that in whatever path mike chooses next, he will continue to work for the people of nebraska. and i want to thank his family,

his wife chris his son patrick his daughter emma for letting me have him let the state have him again here for two more years. i know that they are looking forward to spending more time with mike as he moves back home in the coming weeks. mr. president, on behalf of all nebraskans i do thank mike hibble for his many years of service to our state and for his leadership as my chief of staff for the last two years. i thank him for his counsel his candor and his leadership. mike, you are going to be missed but know you have made a difference. mr. president, i would also like to welcome our new colleagues to a new year and a new congress, and to you as well. our nation is facing many great challenges, from threats to our national security to a languishing economy that is starting to show signs of

revival. we have been granted a sacred trust by the people we represent to decrease barriers to opportunity and growth, and we have been entrusted by voters to alleviate the burdens that misguided policies have placed on the backs of hardworking american families. i have been honored to serve as the voice for nebraska here in this senate for the past two years, and i am excited to take on the important issues that we face in this new congress. as we begin this new year, i wanted to share with you some of the priorities that i am going to be focusing on. congress' first duty is to defend this nation. as a member of the senate armed services committee, i am committed to working to neutralize the growing threats to our homeland, to our allies and to destroy our enemies. we must maintain our presence as

a powerful force for good. peace through strength is a proven strategy. however, it also requires us to meet the changing demands and needs of our military, including the need for a more robust strategy to counter increased cyber warfare. at the same time, providing for a strong defense abroad also requires a robust economy here at home. in my home state of nebraska, people have faced an onslaught of washington red tape. from middle-class families struggling with obamacare's broken promises to community banks who are forced to meet impossible new standards. moreover each new day seems to bring about costly new federal regulation from agencies like e.p.a. washington's invasive reach is

unending. now we have d.c. bureaucrats at the e.p.a. attempting to regulate everything from farm ditches to back yard pools. this overregulation is killing jobs driving up consumer costs and disproportionately hurting families who still feel too much economic pain. mr. president, far too often we focus on complex terms and big picture policies without looking at people and families and how they are impacted. from a mother working multiple jobs to put her children through school to a young woman who is a college graduate hoping to start a career, millions of people are being impacted by policies that are hampering our growth and our potential. like most nebraskans, i believe we need to do more to promote innovation and economic growth

and that there are more opportunities and greater options. that means a simpler fairer tax code more regulatory certainty for job creators and modern rules for new technology. we must help and not hold back innovators and small businesses so that they can grow, expand, invest in the people who make them great. tackling any of these problems must begin by shining the light on the waste fraud and abuse that is occurring with our federal government. the american people have sent a very clear message to washington this past november. they have had enough. they have had enough of a do-nothing senate. they have had enough of a white house sidestepping congress and running roughshod with executive orders. the american people are

demanding accountability, and now with this congress, that's going to happen. there is much to be done, and it starts with keeping the priorities of our middle class at the forefront. i for one am excited to face these challenges each and every day in 2015, and i thank nebraskans for the privilege of serving as their voice here in the united states senate. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. brown: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. crapo: thank you. mr. president, i'm going to speak for the last time on this bill but i'm going to be speaking about an amendment which i expect to be brought forward by the senator from massachusetts in a few minutes. because we're running out of time i'm going to respond to

her amendment before she actually offers it. then i expect that she will offer it in the next few minutes. but senator warren, i expect, will offer an amendment to strike the end user provisions of the legislation before us today. i've already discussed those to some extent, so i won't get into too much detail about it. but i do want to respond once again on the importance of keeping this end user exemption in this legislation. this provision for those who didn't hear the earlier debate, would enable nonfinancial end users -- these are organizations that are trying to manage their own economic risk in their businesses. this is not wall street. this is main street. this is farmers ranchers, small businesses and large businesses across this country. and allow them to keep their limited funds and capital in play for their use for

investment growth and frankly expansion and job development in our economy. in recent months there's been an increased discussion by both sides about the issues relating to the dodd-frank legislation and the need for fixes. some of these fixes should not be controversial or political. there's bipartisan agreement that the dodd-frank rules go too far and some of them need to be fixed, such as fixing the end user exemption that is before us today. i have just been notified that there's only five minutes remaining. mr. president, i expect i'll only use about five but if i go longer, i ask unanimous consent to extend for a couple of minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. crapo: thank you very much mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. crapo: acknowledging that the architects of the dodd-frank legislation itself -- senators

lincoln and dodd -- on the senate side stated their intent to exroi explicit exemption for nonfinancial end users. i know that's a complicated thing to explain. i explained it in detail already. i won't do that again right now. but acknowledging the language for end users in the draft of dodd-frank was not perfect based on a letter which i quoted earlier to then-chairman frank and peterson stating that this legislation does not authorize regulators to impose margins on end users. those exempt entities that use swaps to hedge or mitigate commercial risk. despite the clarity of their intent dodd-frank was not fixed in conference and regulators have interpreted that in fact the statutory language does contain an ambiguity which they interpret requires them to impose margin requirements. it's not just current or former

senators who have advocated for this clarity. regulators have spoken out about it as well. as i mentioned earlier in february 2013 at a humphrey hawkins hearing then-chairman of the federal reserve ben bernanke identified the end user exemption as one of the specific dodd-frank provisions that congress should reconsider. specifically i asked him about it. i said if we were able to achieve some bipartisan consensus on steps to improve dodd-frank, what are some of the provisions you think need clarification or improvement for reconsideration? an end user legislation reform was one of those that he identified. i also asked former chair bernanke about the role of end users in our economy and whether they pose a systemic risk. he stated "i certainly agree that nonfinancial end users benefit and that the economy benefits from the use of derivatives. it seems to be the sense of a

large portion of congress that the end user exemption should be made explicit and speaking for the federal reserve, we are very comfortable with that proposal." we attempted to address this issue last congress. we introduced a senate bill with six republican and six democrat sponsors that ultimately grew to 20 sponsors but were unable to get any consideration of in this congress. unless congress acts, regulations based on the current statute will go into place which will make it more expensive for farmers, manufacturers energy producers and many small business owners across this country to manage their risk. there are many examples of other members of congress in the house and senate, republican and democrat, who have spoken about the need for certainty and exemption with regard to this provision. i want to conclude by reading from a letter sent out by a coalition of end users. these are businesses like i

said large and small across this country who are alarmed at the damage this current statutory language will do to their business operation. i gave several specific examples of this earlier in our debate. but the end user coalition has said in a letter that it sent to congress that they represent hundreds of end user companies that employ derivatives to manage their business risk. in other words not to speculate in markets but to manage their business risk and that they strongly support this language. their point is that this language -- and i quote from them now -- would not help financial companies. it would not create any systemic risk. it would not reverse any regulatory policy and it would not create an exemption that congress did not intend. in fact, it fulfills the commitments made on the record to end users by the committee chairs and sponsors of the dodd-frank act at the time of its passage.

the end user language simply would protect main street companies -- i emphasize main street. we're not talking wall street here. main street companies from harmful and unnecessary marginal requirements and it would preserve jobs. a coalition of chief financial officers and corporate treasurers released earlier this year underscores this need. 86% of the survey of these companies responded that fully collateralizing over-the- counter-derivatives would adversely impact business investment acquisitions, research and development and job creation. another coalition survey found that a 3% initial margin requirement could reduce capital spending by as much as $5.1 billion to $6.7 billion and cost 100,000 to 130,000 jobs. so the issue here, mr. president, is not just fixing an issue because it's

going to have a huge damaging impact on companies across this country that need it for their business risk management. it's an issue for developing more robust economic development and jobs in our economy which badly needs it. the idea for providing clarity to end users and regulators precedes the passage of dodd-frank and i'm hopeful that now we can get it across the finish line. including the end user fix provides certainty for main street businesses who played no roll in the financial crisis by establishing a clear exemption for excessive margin requirements on our economy. thank you very much, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that all future quorum calls be allocated in terms of time equally between the two parties and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without

objection, so ordered. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. warren: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president i

ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. warren: mr. president, i have an amendment at the desk and i ask for its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from massachusetts, mrs. warren, for herself and mr. schumer proposes an amendment numbered 1. strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following. ms. warren: mr. president i ask consent further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. warren: mr. president after 9/11, congress passed tria the terrorism risk insurance act to make sure that commercial developers could afford the high cost of insuring their properties against the possibility of a devastating terrorist attack. this is a bill that, for people who build the tallest or own the tallest buildings in the world, tria is a critical program that helps drive economic development and create

jobs. last july senate democrats were united in support of a bill that would reauthorize bill and establish a national association of registered agents and brokers called narab. the bill passed with 93 votes. senate negotiators then reached a compromise with the house on both tria and narab. but at the 11th hour house republicans tacked on a provision that would roll back an unrelated provision in dodd-frank and then they left town for the year, knowing that the senate would either have to swallow the change or let tria expire. that same bill, the tria compromise, with the extra dodd-frank change attached to it is currently being debated by the senate we've seen this movie before. at the engd of the last congress house republicans tacked a rollback of a no bailouts provision in dodd-frank onto the must-pass funding bill.

that rollback, which was literally written by lobbyists for the giant bank citigroup was a wall street you giveaway. plain and simple. it made our financial system less safe, and it increased the chances of another taxpayer bailout, all so that the biggest banks in the country could rake in more profits. but it passed the house and then the house left town, and the only way to stop it here in the senate would have been to shut the government down. now, once again the house has attached a dodd-frank change to a must-pass piece of legislation. whatever your views on the substance of that provision none of us should endorse the tactics that house republicans have used to try to achieve this change. while some might find this particular dodd-frank change desirable or unobjectionable that may not be the case with

other changes that republicans decide to strap on to important must-pass bills. if we fail to challenge this cynical strategy now, it will only encourage republicans to pull our financial regulations apart piece by piece. just over four years ago every democrat voted for dodd-frank as a necessary response to the worst financial crisis in generations. republicans have not hidden their intention to try to undo these basic financial reforms. if republicans want to try to roll back financial reforms let's have that debate on the merits of each proposal. but we cannot have that debate if we permit republicans to attach financial reform rollbacks to must-pass pieces of legislation like government funding bills and the tria reauthorization bill.

that's why senator schumer and i are offering a substitute amendment that reflects the original compromise between the house and the senate, an amendment that includes the compromise language on tria and narab but omits the dodd-frank change. a vote for this amendment is fully consistent with the vote that 93 senators took last july, a vote in favor of a clean reauthorization of tria and establishment of narab. for that reason, i'm hopeful that it will pass and that we can send the president a clean tria bill and that we can debate this dodd-frank provision separately. i am also hopeful that senate democrats in particular will support it on the principle that the senate expects the house to honor the results of good-faith negotiations and will not support procedural tricks to tack on dodd-frank changes to

unrelated must-pass bills no matter what those changes might be. the treasury department supports this amendment. here's what they said: "we support a long-term renewal of tree yarks given the important role it plays to our national security and economy. while making sensible reforms to further reduce taxpayer exposure. it is unfortunate that some are attempting to use tria legislation to modify the wall street reform act. we support the warren substitute amendment which represents the bicameral, bipartisan tria compromise from last year that would have averted any lapse in the program." i agree with the president. i voted for tria in the banking committee, and i was one of 93 senators who voted for it on the senate floor. but i cannot support wall street reform rollbacks through these hostage tactics. so if we're unable to pass a

clean tria amendment then i will also vote "no" on the bill. thank you mr. president. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quoarmt. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, how much time is left for both sides? the presiding officer: the democrats have five and a half minutes remaining. the majority has none. mr. brown: thank you mr. president. i yield to the senator from new york and thank him for his leadership for a number of years on this and the hard work he did in leading up to december to try to get this passed and the unfortunate response of the house of representatives the republican majority there and

thank him for his leadership now on this. mr. schumer: thank you. and once again let me congratulate my friend from ohio on his ascending to the ranking membership of the banking committee, and i know he will do a very outstanding job there and we look forward to it. and, mr. president before we vote on the amendment before us, which i urge my colleagues to support, i want to reiterate the importance of reauthorizing the tria program. undoubtedly, tria is a national priority but it's particularly important to my home state of new york, one of the world's most targeted cities. after 9/11, i helped introduce and pass the program as a solution to what was a vexing problem in the insurance industry. how to calculate the risk associated with a terrorist attack. it's something we never had to do before.

construction and economic growth did not depend on whether developers could en insure their property against a terrorist atafnlg but, of course -- attack. but, of course, 9/11 changed that as it changed so many things that day. tria emerged as a responsible partnership between the public and private sector, with the government providing a backstop for private insurers. as far as new programs go, it's been extraordinarily successful. over the past decade, tria fueled the rebirth of lower manhattan. i see it every time i drive through it. you only need to look at the skyline because we now have a new world trade center, which has emerged from the shadow of the old towers. you only need ask the construction workers who have helped rebuild the area or that look at the tens of thousands of jobs that came back after we rebuilt. the redevelopment of lower manhattan is first and foremost a symbol of our city and our

nation's resilience, but it is also a testament to how effective terrorism reinsurance has been at creating the right conditions for growing our economy and creating jobs in our cities. passing tria today will keep up the program -- will keep the program alive and continue the remarkable growth we've seen in new york over the past several years. and it will do the same for the skyscraper in los angeles the stadium in nebraska, the shopping center in tennessee. so this program affects the whole country. any large project depends on terrorism insurance. and i know there are some of my colleagues particularly those in the house would say this isn't the government's role. well government hasn't spent one nickel on this program. it has been fully reimbursed. and it is the government's role to foster jobs, to foster

economic development to step in not when the private sector can do the job well but when the private sector can't do the job and after 9/11, people weren't building construction wasn't going forward not only in new york but in the country because people could not get terrorism insurance. that's why i am a he glad tree croix-- i'm gladtria will pass today so week put the temporary expiration of the program behind us. i'm proud to say that attempts by the other body to either not pass the program or so limit it so that it would be ineffective which happened as recently as in the last few days, have failed. and i thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. i thank mike crapo, who is the ranking member of the baying committee. and i thank speaker boehner and

leader mccarthy for understanding the importance of passing this legislation. the gorkted negotiated bill between chairman hencer link and me leaves the program full any tact to what it was before and has successfully worked. we did not back off on what we had to do. as i've said before, it's regrettable that extraneous measures were attached. they should be open and debated and that's why i will be fully supporting the amendment that will be offered. -- will be offered by the senator from massachusetts. but terrorism insurance will be renewed, and i am very glad for that. i thank senator johnson the chairman i thank senator brown the present ranking member, and all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle particularly the 93 who voted "yes," from

bernie sanders to ted cruz, who saw the worthiness and necessity of this program, which will now go forward. i yield the floor and note the absence of a erm quovment quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: mr. risch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. risch: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. risch: mr. president i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. under the previous order the

question occurs on amendment number 1 offered by the senator from massachusetts ms. warren. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: does anyone wish to vet or change their vote? -- wish to vote or change their vote? if not on this vote the yeas are 31, the nays are 66.

on the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order the clerk will read the title of the bill for a third time. the clerk: h.r. 26, an act to extend the termination date of the terrorism insurance program established under the terrorism risk insurance act of 2002, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order the question occurs on passage of h.r. 26. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are

there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 39, the nays are 4. the 60-vote threshold having been achieved, the bill is passed. mr. mcconnell: move to reconsider. a senator: move to lay on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that at 2:00 p.m. on monday january 12, the motion to proceed to the consideration of s. 1, a bill to approve the keystone pipeline be agreed to, and that senator murkowski be recognized to offer a substitute amendment that is in the text of the committee-reported bill. before the chair rules for the information of all senators, it is the intention of the chairman and the leadership on this side of the aisle to ask that the two bill managers or their designees offer amendments in an alternating fashion to allow for

an open amendment process. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. mcconnell: so, mr. president, what is the pending business? the presiding officer: the motion to proceed to s. 1. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending motion to proceed to s. 1 a bill to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline signed by -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that the reading of the nails be dispensed with. -- of the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that not withstand ago the provisions of rule 222 the mandatory quarrel be waivedaged the vote on motion poo invoke cloture occur at 5:30 p.m. monday january 12. ferraro is there objection?

-- the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection so ordered. mr. mcconnell: mr. president we'd hoped to begin work on the bipartisan hoeven keystone jobs and infrastructure bill today. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: we'd hoped to continue offering amendments tomorrow. unfortunately, some of our colleagues across the aisle objected to proceeding to this bipartisan legislation. so that forces a few changes to the schedule. first, it means we'll have to file cloture on the motion to proceed, which i just did. and then, as a result, it means that under the rules of the senate we won't be able to begin offering amendments until next week. you know, frankly, it is unfortunate. many senators on both sides had hoped to use tomorrow to work on the bill and i did as well. but we'll work through this because we're determined to get bipartisan jobs legislation on the president's desk as soon as

we can. mr. president, i yield the floor. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president i ask unanimous consent the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president i ask that i be heard and i know that we are all concerned right now with what -- the progress that's going to be made on our -- on the pipeline, and i'd like to make a few comments about it. i've got three charts. hold the one up that was from oklahoma. i want to remind everyone of --

i want to real estate mind everyone that we had a -- i want to remind everyone that we had a visitor in the state of oklahoma -- the only time that he has been in oklahoma. it was president obama. he came to cushing oklahoma. let me explain where cushing oklahoma is. it's in the central part of the state. and it is the hub of all the pipelines, all the way from canada down to mexico. and of course the pipeline in question here that we've been talking about over and over now for months and months and months is one that we understand just how great this would be. and so the president knowing that this is very popular -- and this is back actually before -- this is before the election, wasn't it? -- yeah, back before the election, made a trip to oklahoma and talked about how good -- i'm going to actually read you the quote. here it is right here. i am "i'm directing my direction direction" -- keep in mind where this was. this was in cushing oklahoma, before all the tubes and right in the middle of the hub of the

pipelines going all the way through. and he said, "i'm directing my administration to make this project a priority, to go ahead and get it done." that sounded real good. the problem is, everyone in oklahoma knew that he wasn't telling the truth. and i don't like to stand here and use the "l" word because nothing really gets done by it. but he is a done everything since that time to destroy the pipeline. now, he was making the statement then that i'm not going to stand in the way of further production of this pipeline to go down south through texas. well there's good reason for that because he couldn't do anything about it. that doesn't cross any international borders. and where he he has blocked this is where he can do it because it crosses an international border between canada and the united states. and i want to mention because there's a person who's been very active in the political realm -- put up tom steyers thing.

he's been very much involved. and quite frankly, i don't object to people that are right-forward and honest about what their intentions are. this is the man, if you'll remember tom steyer, who is a billionaire, and he had several meetings and he said that we are -- he's going to put up $50 million of his own money and raise an additional $50 million -- that's $100 million -- to put in races in the coming election, which was this last november. and it's my understanding that in the final analysis he wasn't able to raise the extra money but of his own money -- this is his words not mine -- he put in $70 million. to -- according to him, "it is true that we expect to be heavily involved in the midterm elections. we're looking at a bunch of races. we guess is we'll end up being involved in eight or even more races," talking about some $70

million that he was going to be involved in. he didn't win any of those eight races and actually netted out a loss of nine races. so it's -- again he has a stated goal to try to do two things with his influence and his money. again, i don't criticize for this. he believes in his cause. and his two causes are number one, to try stop any further development on federal land, in other words, to try to do what he can with some of the suggested pollution and all the things that are supposed to go with it. the other thing is to stop the pipeline. and, again, he was the one canadian the statement and also has been very influential in this administration. by count it's been reported -- and this is about two weeks ago -- that he hassist hav has visited the obama white house some 14 times which led a member of a watchdog group

to say that tom steyer clearly has the president of the united states's attention. these white house meetings were often with president obama's counselor and chief environmental advisor john podesta. we've known his background for a long time. i personally have known him also. he has lobbied for the out of -- for steyer to be the united states secretary of energy. saying "i think he would a fabulous choice for energy secretary and i've let my friends in the administration know that. " so the reports also show that mr. steyer and podesta have met with george so rovment soros. i think it is necessary to remind the american people because it has been probably six months since anyone has even talked about some of the things that we can look forward to in terms of obstacles that are in the way of getting this thing

done that needs to be done. the president tries to down play the job numbers. we talk about the 42,000 jobs. he went on to say just a couple days ago well, wait a minute, those are just temporary jobs. well temporary jobs? all jobs are temporary. but these jobs will be there for a number of years and would lead to others and the president tries to down play the numbers by using the rhetoric -- downplay the numbers by using the rhetoric that has earned his statements multiple, multiple pinocchios. you know, "the washington post" has this program where they have -- they check the facts. and he's lost and several times has been the recipient of these pinocchio awards. so unfortunately his attitude toward the construction and manufacturing jobs is one that would stop jobs that would be for hardworking americans. and i would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, you know, this is really significant. we're talking about jobs. we're talking about important

jobs. we're talking about high-paying jobs. and probably i'm a little biased because, as i say we in oklahoma, in cushing oklahoma, are the hub of these pipelines going through america. so what is going to positively affect our economy nationwide is going to be probably even more in my state of oklahoma. so the other thing that the president has done, he's done a lot of talking about the transportation and infrastructure. of course this pipeline is part of it. you think of transportation infrastructure as roads highways bridges. iand i applaud every time i hear him say something that we need to do about transportation infrastructure. unfortunately it's always words. he never follows through. he had a program on two different occasions was going to be very ambitious and was going to start constructing new highways and he was very specific about where they were going to go. but then that was the end of it. you know, he got the word out there and everybody heard oh,

he must be for highways and then he forgot all about it. and again i'm pretty biased here because i chair the committee called environment and public works which is -- deals with all the infrastructure. and i would say this. we're embarking on a very ambitious transportation reauthorization bill and it's one that's going to include lots of modes of transportation and of course, it would all be a part of this pipeline and the benefits that are coming through. so i would say that he does a lot of talking about that but we're going to really have to get down and do it. i often wonder what would have happened back six years ago just to refresh your memories, the first thing this president did was his $825 billion stimulus bill. well how better could you stimulate the economy than have an ambitious transportation bill? and i remember my colleague on the other side of the aisle barbara boxer she and i introduced amendments to try to on this amount -- i opposed, of course vigorously the

$825 billion. that was a checkbook given to the president in the opening months of his office. but the fact that it was going to pass and we knew they had the votes to pass it right down party lines which it did then he was in a position to say, you know we -- we are now going to be doing these things so we thought -- barbara boxer and i thought well, let's get a percentage, i think our amendment was 8% of that would be reserved for -- and that's a modest amount -- for highways. if you really wanted to stimulate the economy there's no been way than to do it that way. so anyway, that is kind of the background of this, what has been happening and i really believe now that we have a majority and we are going to get busy and try to get this done, that we'll be successful in doing it. and i would say that we have a lot of critical infrastructure projects that are -- this is supported, i have to say by the chamber of commerce, by labor unions almost everyone out there is in -- in support of this. the -- yesterday i think it was

in one of the committee hearings -- and i want to make sure that this was properly answered in the committee hearing because it was in a committee i'm not on the energy committee -- that one of the -- my good friends on the democrat side of the aisle made the statement that we're very proud of the president because our production is dramatically -- has dramatically increased during the six years that he's been president of the united states. and i said, yeah, that's true, but it's been in spite of the president. let me give you a couple of statistics that people are not aware of. that is, in the shale revolution that's taken place in this country, we have increased during that period of time our production. we're really talking about shale production. by 1%.61%. can you believe 61% in five years? that's what it's been. but all 61% of that has been in -- in private and state land. on federal land, over which president obama has jurisdiction and can stop it, while the rest has increased by 61% it has

decreased by 6%. and i think that we -- you know, we need to make sure and remind people because we don't want people, the public walking around thinking that somehow we have a president that is not involved in a war on fossil fuels. he is definitely involved in that war on fossil fuels and in spite of that, the shale revolution. by the way let me mention one other thing about the shale resolution. because of the marcellous, what's happening back east, people have always thought historically about the west and the state of oklahoma being kind of the -- where all the oil is and the production is. and that really was true for a long period of time. but with the marcellous coming in in pennsylvania, new york, the northeast has been a heavy production area. in fact, i've heard figures that in pennsylvania the second largest employer right now are people who are involved in production in this shale production that's taking place there. i don't know if it's the second

largest. that has not yet been refuted. so the very important things are happening there. but the key to making all of this happen is the pipeline. and we know eventually we're going to be there but i -- i've heard there's always been a veto threat. i know we're going to pass a bill. it's going to pass the house and the senate. the president probably will veto it. he said he would. but i'm inclined to think that an awful lot of my friends on the democrat side are going to stop and think, wait a minute this is something that's good for everyone and there are going to it be a bunch of people overriding a veto. i think that -- you know, i really believe something like that's going to happen, this is so -- this is so significant. i'd like to say one other thing and that is people talk about -- try to say, you know, the reason we don't want this is because it's dirty, this is up in alberta, canada, this is something that's going to affect the environment and all of that. first of all it doesn't. people understand that is just

not a true statement. but if it were true, it is something that is ridiculous because china is already making their deal. this has been public, that china wants to have transportation across canada that would go into into -- into the west coast and be able to be sent over to china. now, if that should happen in terms of the pollution since they don't have any safeguards over there that would result in increasing not decreasing, any pollution that would be associated with -- with this production. so mr. president, i know a lot of peoplement people want to talk about this and i -- put up the other chart there. is this the one? to give you an idea of what all is there in moving this -- moving this production around this shows this chart is a very significant chart because it shows what is out there today and what can be produced. a minute ago i talked about the northeast. that's the marcellous that we're

talking about a huge benefit out there. and yet a lot of the penal of the people who represent that part of america are not even aware that this is not just a western united states thing. just look at the map and you can see. so we have an opportunity here and i feel very strongly that our friends up there with the pipeline coming down everyone's going to benefit. you've seen the charts and it's certainly the occupier of the chair right now has many times pulled the charts down showing the great benefits that are going to be there for the entire country along with our rapid path to be totally independent of any other country in our ability to produce our own energy. so this is a win-win situation. we're eventually going to get it but the sooner, the better. and i applaud the chair and others who are involved in the legislation that we're going to be considered as we speak now. with that, i yield the floor. suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president we've begun the new year in the 114th congress with the republican majority and a fresh commitment to get congress working again. overwhelmingly americans supported the pro-growth ideas of the republican party at the polls in the november election, sending a strong message about

their frustration with the gridlock that we've experienced in the democrat-led senate. so mr. president it's time to get to work, time to return to regular order and to debate ladies and gentlemen move bills through committee to allow for members on both sides of the aisle to offer amendments and to get the senate back on track passing bills the way it should be. the american people deserve a senate that works and the new republican majority intends to deliver. that's why it is so disappointing that president obama would threaten to veto the very first bill republicans plan to bring to the senate floor for a vote, a bipartisan bill to authorize the keystone x.l. pipeline, a bill that was introduced, introduced here in the senate, mr. president, with 60 cosponsors. mr. president, the keystone x.l. pipeline enjoys widespread public support and that's not surprising. poll after poll has demonstrated that the american people are concerned about jobs and the

economy and they want to get the country working again and to strengthen our energy independence. the keystone x.l. pipeline will help do just that. yet president obama would rather hold the economy hostage to the far leftwing of his party than put american workers first. his war on energy runs counter to what this country needs jobs and the affordable energy that will support them. i've shared time and again on floor what the state department said about the. mr. mcconnell:. it concluded that the pipeline will not only support 42,000 jobs during brunswick crux but will do so without significant impact on the environment and i might add without spending a cent of taxpayer money. the keystone x.l. pipeline has been stuck in limbo for over six years, has become more than just an energy issue. in my home state of south dakota rail backlogs cause tremendous delays for farmers trying to get their harvests to

market. the keystone x.l. pipeline would help alleviate this backlog by taking 100,000 barrels of montana and north dakota oil off the rails freeing up nearly two unit trains per day of capacity that is sorely needed by other rail shippers. this pipeline will bring useful tax revenue to south dakota. the state department estimates in my home state of south dakota alone construction of the pipeline will support 3,000 to 4,000 jobs during construction and generate well over $100 million in earnings. it will also bring over $20 million in annual property taxes to south dakota counties, places like jones county where i grew up could benefit greatly there from having this added tax revenue for their schools. the keystone x.l. pipeline will also decrease our alliance on oil from dangerous countries like venezuela yet president obama and some democrats continue to downplay all of these benefits. they say the jobs are mostly

temporary. well mr. president construction jobs are temporary by nature but that doesn't mean they don't matter. rather it means need to keep new projects like keystone x.l. to spur growth and develop new infrastructure fast. by shutting down a routine infrastructure project president obama is creating a difficult environment for future development and projects. the far left wing of the president's party claims it will increase greenhouse gases but reports from the president's own state department undermine this claim. in its final supplemental environmental impact statement the state department, the president's state department noted that the keystone x.l. pipeline is and i quote unlikely to impact the extraction of the oil sands or demand for crude oil in the united states. in other words the emissions

associated with the oil sand extractions will not change whether or not the pipeline is built and while oil prices may impact the production rate of oil sands the state department also found that -- and i quote again -- "the dominant drivers of oil sands development are more global than any single infrastructure project" -- end quote. they went on to say" the industry's rate of expansion should not be conflateed with the more limited effects of individual pipelines." this is again from one of the five exhaustive reports we've seen from the state department about this project. in fact, the state department's final environmental impact statement also compared the operational greenhouse emissions that would result from the pipeline to those that would result from various transportation alternatives such as rail, rail and pipeline and rail and tanker. the report found that the annual

emissions from these alternative transportation modes would be anywhere from 28% to 42% greater than if the oil were shipped through the pipeline. plus a pipeline is safer than truck or rail. mr. president, the american people have been clear on their feelings about this project. poll after poll has shown their strong support. republicans support the pipeline. democrats in both houses of congress support the pipeline. unions support the pipeline. the only people who seem to oppose it are president obama and members of the far left wing of the democrat party. after the senate passes the bill, it will have one final hurdle to clear -- the president of the united states. i very much hope that he will reconsider his veto threat and listen to the voices of american

workers and of bipartisan majorities in congress. if the pipeline's check benefits the support of the american people and five successful environmental reviews haven't convinced the president to approve this project i'm pretty skeptical that he ever will. but, mr. president i hope that i'm wrong and i hope that even more democrats here in the senate will join us and send a message about their readiness to work with republicans in this 114th congress. my colleagues can help show the american people that congress has heard their demands for change in washington and that their economic priorities will be addressed. mr. president, i'm sorry that american workers have had to wait years for this project but i'm hopeful that we can resolve this issue once and for all. a new republican senate majority is about creating jobs and economic opportunities for the american people, and it starts right here, right now, with the

keystone x.l. pipeline. we hope democrats and the president will join us. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president even during moments of intense polarization here in washington, especially over the last six years, it really is kind of refreshing to find a topic maybe a handful of topics on which there appears to be bipartisan consensus and that includes the topic du jour, the keystone x.l. pipeline, and i want to share just a few reasons why i believe that is the case. first, the keystone x.l. pipeline will be good for our economy and it will be good because it will create jobs.

now, i know there is some hair splitting out there. some people way well, these aren't really good jobs. they are only temporary jobs or some such but the truth is -- well let me just tell you what the president's own administration said about that. the state department, president obama's state department said that roughly 42,000 american jobs would be created directly and indirectly from the construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline. now, it is true that some of these would be temporary construction positions but by its nature, construction positions are -- you go to work on one job you finish that job and you move on to the next job and if the president has some problems with that, i'm not sure what he or anybody else can do about it. but there are also other permanent jobs that will be

created by this keystone x.l. pipeline related to refining and transporting this oil. many of them in texas. as a matter of fact, this pipeline which will go from canada over into north dakota down the united states will end in southeast texas where we have most of our refining capacity here in the united states, where it will be refined into gasoline and other types of fuel. and oh, by the way one of the blessings of plentiful supply of oil we've seen now as a result of what's happened here in the united states is lower gasoline prices. boy, those came just in time for the christmas holidays, i tell you, and put money in people's pocket. it was like a pay raise for hardworking american taxpayers. well, the president has also

tried to down play the jobs creation impact of the keystone x.l. pipeline by saying it would have -- quote -- "nominal impact." nominal impact on consumers in the nation. but i'm curious. at a time when the national labor participation rate is hovering at its lowest point in three decades and we're coming off of a financial crisis in 2008 which is finally after all these years recovered many of the lost jobs that were lost as a result of that crisis, does the president truly feel that any additional jobs, especially 42,000 additional jobs, is just nominal and not worth a candle. well i tell you, to the people who find work, who don't have work now those jobs are not nominal. to the people who are working

part time who want to work full time those jobs will not be nominal. and in an economy where we need to grow the economy so we create more opportunity for more hardworking taxpayers no job in my view, should be deprecated as just a nominal job as if it isn't worth having. that's what the president is saying. i'd also ask the president to visit the texas leg of this pipeline. as a matter of fact, the president did go to cushing oklahoma. the irony of that is once again the president seems to be claiming credit for something he didn't have anything to do with, because this domestic portion of the pipeline from cushing oklahoma down to southeast texas didn't require his approval at all. but what does he do? he holds a press conference there. it's just like the president

claiming credit for this renaissance in american energy that we have seen when he has had absolutely nothing to do with it. all of that has happened as a result of private investment on private lands and not on public lands. as a matter of fact, the federal government continues to make it harder and harder and harder to produce more american energy, which again according to the laws of supply and demand, as we have seen will bring down gasoline prices for american consumers. at this time when wages have been stagnant for so long as a result of the policies of this administration why wouldn't we do something to put more money in the pockets of hardworking american families? why wouldn't we do that? well i'd ask the president to visit the texas leg of the pipeline which was constructed

and went operational about a year ago this month, which is already transporting about 400,000 barrels of oil a day to gulf coast refineries. and of course again this doesn't require his approval, but that didn't stop him from claiming credit for it, but i think it's worth -- i think you would find it edifying and educational to go there. in texas alone more than 4,800 jobs 4,800 jobs, were created to construct that gulf coast portion of the pipeline. that includes heavy equipment operators welders laborers, transportation operators and supervisory personnel. you know, when our friends across the aisle spend so much time and effort trying to argue for a minimum wage increase, they turn around at the same time and they deny hardworking

americans from earning these high-paying wages and these high-paying jobs. i was reading an article just today about a welder in texas who went to school to learn how to be a welder. now, it wasn't a four-year liberal arts education like many of us have had. he didn't go to law school or medical school, but he's earning $140,000 a year as a welder. those are good jobs. those are the kinds of jobs we ought to encourage and they are the kinds of jobs that the keystone x.l. pipeline would help pay for. well perhaps these kinds of jobs don't count in the president's book because they aren't funded by the taxpayer. in other words, they are not a result of stimulus funds. the president seems to believe that the only jobs worth having are those that are paid for by borrowing money increasing the debt and having the federal

government pay for it. well, we have been down that road once before recently by the nearly trillion dollar stimulus. remember that? the president said these were shovel-ready jobs. i remember speaker pelosi at the time said they were targeted, taxpayer and timely, i think it was. it was three t's. well, the president came back later on when the stimulus did not have the desired effect, when this trillion dollars in borrowed money including the interest, didn't create the kind of economic recovery he had hoped for and he said well, i guess shovel ready didn't really mean shovel ready as if it were a joke. well, this is paid for -- this keystone x.l. pipeline is paid for as a result of private investment not as a result of tax dollars your money and my money going into this pipeline. the texas portion of the

pipeline was a $2.3 billion private sector investment. the taxpayer-funded infrastructure project seemed to be the only kind of investment that the president wants to actually see and encourage. again, examples are -- there are many examples, then perhaps the most notorious of which was solyndra where the federal taxpayer was asked to sink a bunch of money into a project that basically flopped because there was no market for the things that they were making. it just wasn't economically viable but that's the kind of investment the president wants to encourage while discouraging private investment that creates jobs. now, in texas we're proud of that portion of the keystone x.l. pipeline, and like so much of what makes my state successful, it was not built by

the government. i'm proud of the fact that my state is doing better than the rest of the country. i wish the rest of the country would do as well when it comes to job creation and opportunity because i worry as i think many parents worry that we are somehow losing the hope the aspiration for the american dream. when young men and women graduate from college and they can't find jobs so they end up living with their parents and we say well, it's okay because we'll let your parents keep you on their health insurance coverage until 26, as if that's supposed to be some kind of answer to their inability to find work commensurate with their education and their training. well, this is not a government solution. of course, you will remember the president notoriously said to the private sector well, you

didn't build that. well that certainly doesn't apply here because the private sector did build the texas portion, and what we would like to do is complete the canadian-u.s. portion so we can get even more of this oil down to texas to refine it into gasoline so it's available to consumers here in the united states. you know, the president acts as if well, if we don't complete this pipeline, it's just not going to be -- this oil is just not going to be produced. that's malarkey. we know that china is starved for natural resources and canada is not just going to sip on this -- sit on this valuable natural resource. they are going to build a pipeline to the pacific ocean put it on a tanker and send it to china or other countries who need those natural resources. well i'm beginning to think that one reason why the texas

leg of the keystone x.l. pipeline was so successful is because the federal government didn't have anything to do with it. that seems to be the -- the test. if the federal government's got something to do with it, it ends up not delivering as promised, but if the private sector does it it has the potential of living up to expectations. well we all know that the president has continued to delay making a final decision on the keystone x.l. pipeline. i know the distinguished presiding officer last year sponsored the bill in the house that approved the keystone x.l. pipeline. over here in the senate, i remember that the senator from louisiana, senator landrieu, was urging in almost desperate terms that senator harry reid allow a vote on the keystone x.l. pipeline after denying it for

many many, many months, even years. well we know what happened. it failed because very few democrats on that side of the aisle decided to support the keystone x.l. pipeline. perhaps it was because even at that time the president said he was undecided whether to sign it or to veto it. well, you know, at a time when the president has said -- of course he says lots of things, but i've learned one thing around washington, d.c. you can't just listen to what people say. you have to watch what they do. and the president indicated with the start of this new congress following the november 4 election that he was looking forward to working with the new congress in a constructive way. well i just have to ask you mr. president, is it constructive to issue a veto threat on a piece of legislation before it's even voted out of

the energy committee and isn't even on the floor for consideration by the senate? the majority leader, exphoinl, the senior senator from -- the majority leader, senator mcconnell, the senior senator from kentucky said we're going to have an open amendment process, so i anticipate there are going to be a number of amendments offered some of which will succeed some of which will not succeed. but i don't know anybody that can tell you right now exactly how this bill will leave the united states senate, although i'm confident it will pass since there are at least 63 senators on a bipartisan basis that said they'll vote for it. as we know, 60 is the magic number in the united states senate. so it's a pretty good idea that it will pass. but we don't know what other measures will be attached to it,

some of which will command more democratic votes. some of which may make the president more interested in taking another look at this legislation. but to prematurely issue a veto threat before the keystone x.l. pipeline even is voted out of committee, much less comes to the senate floor does not strike me as wanting to work with the congress. just the opposite. mr. president, i say enough is enough. well that's what we heard from the voters on november 4. enough is enough. they're sick and tired of the dysfunction here in washington d.c. i heard that story daily back in texas and around the country as i would travel. enough is enough. we want congress to function. we want our elected representatives to work together to find solutions to the problems facing our country and

the number-one problem is not enough jobs. not enough good jobs for hardworking americans. and so now the president has in spite of this, said i'm not going to sign that legislation once it reaches my desk. before the senate has even acted on it. just breathtaking. is that the president -- within the president's authority under the constitution? yes, it is. the president can either sign legislation or he can veto legislation. the constitution gives him that authority. but i think the president ought to have to explain to the american people his reasons for saying he won't sign this legislation. again, the same project that his own state department said would create 42,000 jobs.

again, at a time when the percentage of people in the workforce is at a 40-year low and while unemployment is coming down unfortunately, a lot of it has to do with the fact that people are not looking for work and have dropped out of the workforce. they've given up. hopefully in spite of the federal government, the economy seems to be strong enough to be growing finally but we need to continue to have our economy grow and we need to continue to let this american economy create jobs for hardworking american taxpayers. so i would say in closing mr. president, that i would hoapt president would make his decision -- i would hope the president would make his decision not wearing ideological blinders not just listening to the hard left base of the democratic party that thinks we can somehow survive and prosper

with only wind turbines and solar panels. by the way texas actually produces more electricity or wind energy than any other state of the nation. we do believe in an all of the above policy. but the president says he does, but apparently does not. at least his actions would so indicate. so we're missing out on a golden opportunity to further enhance north american energy security with one of our strongest allies and that's another really really important reason for this. why in the world would we continue to import oil from saudi arabia and other countries in the middle east that have their own problems and which in an unstable region of the world when we can import that oil from our best ally and next-door neighbor canada, and in a twhai benefits our economy and creates

jobs. i believe what the american people said on november 4 is they want effective efficient and accountable government and one that benefits all hardworking americans and especially hardworking american companies. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i rise to recognize jean atkins, my oregon state director who is retiring from team merkley h this month. she is a long serving member of my team and she is an outstanding public servant. an individual who has dedicated her life to making the world a better place. jean atkins and i first began working together a decade ago

after i took up the post of democratic leader in the oregon statehouse. it was a challenging but exciting time as my leadership team worked to build our policy agenda and get our caucus operations up to speed. a key component of that effort, of course, was to hire a superb caucus director. thus it came to pass that four members of my leadership team were seated in old wife's tale restaurant brainstorming over candidates for the position. that group consisted of diane rosenbaum, dave hunt who became majority leader of the house and then speaker of the oregon house; and brad ovakian oregon's labor commissioner. as we were brainstorming diane spoke up seined i know someone who would be tremendous but i am sure she would never take the position. dave hunt encouraged diane to

put the name forward anyway. and when diane said the person is jean atkins, brad ovakian responded, jean? i know her and she would be great. we immediately called jean and by that evening i was sitting in her living room attempting to persuade her that she would be just the right person for the position and that moreover she would enjoy the challenge. fortunately for her jean did take the position and thus, began a decade of close collaboration. the leadership, conviction and hard work that jean atkins brought to our team allowed us to make a big impact as the minority party in the oregon legislature and bigger impact when we won the majority two years later. at that point i became speaker of the oregon house and jean became my chief of staff. few legislative sessions in oregon history have seen the passage of as many major bills as that 2007 session and no individual was more important to

the success of that session than jean atkins. we passed domestic partnerships and a broad-based civil rights bill that outlawed discrimination against will go about the oregonians -- against lgbt oregonians in housing. we passed legislation setting energy standards. we cracked down on predatory payday lenders that were bankrupting our working families. we passed the access to birth control act requiring insurance plans in oregon to cover contraceptives just like other medication a law that is now helping to shield oregon women from the misguided hobby lobby decision. through this all we worked across the aisle encouraging bipartisan cooperation and were able to put together a session that a major newspaper "the oregonian" deemed the most productive in a generation. after i was elected to the u.s.

senate and took that office in january 2009, jean stayed on in the oregon house as chief of staff to the new speaker dave hunt, who helped to hire her six years earlier. in that role, jean played a pivotal role in expanding health care for oregon children. as dave relates after oregonians rejected a ballot measure in 2008 that would have raised the cigarette tax to expand health care to low-income children the oregon legislature was seeking alternative strategy to fund that. jean was the key staff member who brought a contentious dialogue among legislators to a compromise funding strategy that was successfully passed into law. that achievement brought health care to an additional 90,000 children per year. well done, jean. that was an extraordinary accomplishment. after the completion of that oregon legislative session, i was hoping that i'd have the opportunity to bring jean back on to team merkley.

the stars aligned and she became my oregon state director in august of 2009. oregon's house loss was the u.s. senate's gain. in her more than five years as state director, jean has overseen hundreds of town halls thousands of meetings and has made sure that the millions of americans who call oregon home have a voice in the u.s. senate. i wrote the day i hired her as oregon state director that jean is greatly respected by oregonians of all political stripes for her hard work and her dedication to the state. today that statement is even more true than five years ago. jean is known across the state as an honest broker who works hard to bring the voices of all oregonians into our office. she is a tough advocate for our state and has never hesitated to stand up for what she thinks is right and what she thinks is best for oregon. of course over the last five years we've also had the chance to get into a few adventures and

a few misadventures traveling around the state. on one memorable town hall swing, we were on our way between rural town halls when i suggested an impromptu revision of our route. i thought it would be interesting to take a shortcut via a minor semipaved road. the shortcut semipaved road, however, turned out to have been abandoned so long that go after a few miles it was no longer even visible. so there we were traveling off road in a van that was not designed for off-road navigation wondering if we were choosing the right path through the field or between the trees. and to make matters worse we quickly loss cell phone communication and couldn't alert the advance team that we were going to be late to the town hall. in fact we were wondering whether we might be out there in the woods for a night or two as we worked to walk our way out should we break an axle or blow a tire. through this all though i could tell jean's blood pressure and distress were elevating she

displayed the same unflappable demeanor that made her so effective in contentious policy dialogues with overwrought legislators. in that moment and in so many others jean was grace under pressure personified. jean is not someone who got into politics to be important or powerful. she got into policy and politics because she believed in public service and she believed that each person has the power to make a difference. it's one of the attributes that i have most valued about having her on my team. it's an attribute that has allowed her to make a huge impact in many of the different positions that she has held. today as jean looks forward to the next chapter of her life in retirement it seems only appropriate to reflect back and look at the huge difference jean has made not just in our office, but over the course of her career. she has been a long time

advocate for women's rights. this comes from her childhood growing up in bremer ton washington in the 1960's. her experiences shaped jean's steadfast determination for equality. she told me a story about her first job out of college as a bank teller in seattle washington. during that firstjob, the women were required to make turns making lunch for the entire bank every friday. jean worked hard to shine at this task, just as she worked hard to shine at all her other tasks, but she knew it was wrong that the women in the office were treated dimply than the men -- differently than the men. as she cared for her passion for equality forward through that job throughout her career. she went to 0 work for the women's equity action league here in washington d.c., and when she and her husband john moved back to oregon, she worked for the wims oregon rights organization. she worked for the columbia cal lamb ought. she worked for the women's and

reproductive health unit of the department of public services. her long and storied career has been powerfully connected to equality an unshakable commitment to women's health. along the way jean also engaged in electoral politics. she ran for the oregon house twice in the early 1990's narrowly losing geeps a well-established incumbent in her second race. as brad evocorian reallots, she restored relationship building a as political art form." jean atkins is an oregon gem. i wish her the best in retirement. i know that she has many more adventures ahead and many more contributions to make. thank you jean, for working hard to make oregon, our nation, and our world a better place. we will miss you. thank you.

i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware.

mr. coons: mr. president, i ask that the proceedings under the quormquorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: come to the floor at the start of this new year and new congress to speak about how we can and why we must work together to improve the affordable care act. since work on health care reform really began in earnest in 2009, debate in this chamber and across this country has too often been defined by fantastic claims and fear fearmongering and in the midst of this division, i feel too often the experiences of real people have been lost. while politicians on both sides cling to their sacred cows, too many americans become casualties of our divided politics. and i think on few issues has this been more true than on health care. mr. president, critics of the affordable care act seem locked into the belief that it will bring about america's demise,