Expanded Consumer Choice Act

Madam President, we have before us a bipartisan piece of legislation designed to provide very limited assistance to millions of Americans who have lost their unemployment compensation benefits. On December 28, the long-term unemployment insurance benefits terminated. At that point it was 1.3 million Americans; today it is 2.3 million Americans, and it is growing.

Since December 28, we have, on a bipartisan basis, been endeavoring to bring to this floor for a final vote a 5-month extension, some of which--in fact, with each passing day more of which--is retroactive rather than prospective. This bill is designed to help people.

In fact, this bill will provide them the benefits they were receiving based upon their work record because the only way you can receive unemployment insurance benefits is to lose a job through no fault of your own and continue to search for a job.

These are working Americans. The benefits we are talking about are roughly $300 a week. What does that do? For some people it helps them keep their home. It pays the rent. For some others it provides food for their families. For others it provides them the ability to have a cell phone that is plugged in, literally, because they need one when they get, they hope, the offer for a job interview or for a job. So contrary to doing nothing to help Americans, this does a great deal for people who have earned these benefits through their toil and effort and their continued efforts to look for jobs.

We have an obligation, a great obligation to increase the growth in this country, and to do it in a way that will allow people to find jobs. In my home State of Rhode Island, there are at least two applicants for every job--in many cases, three applicants. There is a disconnect in many cases between the skills they have had over decades of work and the skills that employers are looking for today. And we have to address that.

But, to prevent this legislation from going through is to deny millions of working Americans the support they need to get through a very difficult period. That is why, on a bipartisan basis, we have come together. We have 5 months fully paid for. This is a fiscally sound piece of legislation which benefits men and women across this country based upon their work record. I don't think there is a more important thing we can do at this moment, and to delay it would be a disservice to the people.

I think something else is important too. When we talk about economic growth, let us recognize this legislation will help growth in the United States. There have been estimates if we had a full-year extension of the unemployment insurance program it would generate 200,000 jobs. Those are significant numbers. That is roughly about 1 month's job growth over the last several years. If we don't do this, then we won't get that growth.

So not only is this a fundamentally sound, fair, and thoughtful thing to do for millions of American families, it is also good for our economy. It does provide the growth my colleagues are talking about when they say we have to grow this economy.

There is much more that we could do. Many of my Republican colleagues, who have come to provide their insights and support, have suggested longer term ways in which we could deal with the unemployment crisis--better training programs, et cetera. Indeed, we have a bipartisan Workforce Investment Act reauthorization that is in the HELP Committee that I hope we can get to the floor quickly because we have to reform our overall job training program in this country. As I go out and talk to businessmen and women in Rhode Island, they say there is a disconnect between the skill set many people have and the skills they need for their workplace.

There is another aspect of this situation. The long-term unemployed numbers in this country today are twice as high as they are typically when we have ended unemployment benefits previously. We have a significant problem and a growing problem of the long-term unemployed.

Again, we will wait for the data to be conclusive and decisive, but my sense is, going back to Rhode Island, many of these individuals are in their middle ages--they are 40 and 50 years old. They have worked for 20 years. They have good work records, but the skills that employers are looking for right now are not immediately those skills that they have. Of course, there are job training options available, but all of these things require support. Again, if you are juggling family responsibilities and trying to get job training, that $300 a week benefit check you have earned through your previous work is very helpful as you prepare yourself for a new job.

This legislation can't be delayed any longer. This is not about some political demonstration or some political messaging point; this is about getting aid and assistance to 2.3 million Americans today. And that number will grow with each passing day. It is about helping people who earned this benefit through their work.

I can't think of anything more important that we can do--and do it in a timely and prompt manner. That is why I hope we can move forward as quickly as possible on a bipartisan basis with fully paid for legislation which is fiscally responsible, which will provide assistance for millions of deserving Americans and in addition provide further stimulus to our economy.

A final point. Why does this provide a stimulus to the economy? Because these types of benefits go to a former worker, someone looking for work, and they go right back in the economy. This is not a sophisticated tax break that will allow someone to put some money aside for a rainy day. This goes right to the families, right to the economy--to the local grocery store, to the local gas station for the repairs of a car, to pay for daycare that is necessary for children--to do those things that will go right back and stimulate further growth in our economy.

For reasons both of fundamental fairness and individual recognition that these people deserve a break in a tough economy and the very real fact that this dramatically benefits our overall economy, I think we have to move.

I am pleased and proud that we have had the support of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move forward procedurally. I hope we can finish this debate promptly, move this over to the House, and then begin to work with the House so they recognize the same reality that on a bipartisan basis we have recognized here.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving my right to object, the underlying emergency bipartisan legislation is critical to helping 2.7 million Americans, and I would hope we could expeditiously move to that legislation. Therefore, I would object to the unanimous consent request by the distinguished Senator from Utah with respect to his amendment No. 2905.

Madam President, the same logic--given the emergency nature of the legislation before us, I would urge immediate action. Therefore, I would object to the senior Senator's unanimous consent request.

Madam President, I see Senator Blunt. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of Senator Blunt's remarks, I be recognized.

Madam President, because of the emergency nature of the underlying bipartisan bill to aid about 2.7 million Americans, I would object.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss the underlying legislation, which is so critical. It is an emergency. On December 28, we stopped extending unemployment benefits for at that point 1.3 million Americans. These are individuals who were working and who are looking for work, since that is the only way you can collect these benefits.

Since that time, they have been without the very modest support that emergency unemployment insurance provides. It provides about $300 a week. We are trying, on a bipartisan basis, to

move this legislation through this body and get it to the House so these people can get some help and support as they continue to look for work.

This legislation will support a program that is vital to 2.7 million Americans, and it is a bipartisan compromise. This is not something that is being jammed through exclusively at the will of the majority. This has been an effort that began months ago. First we worked with Senator Heller and then other colleagues--Senator Collins, Senator Murkowski, Senator Portman, and Senator Kirk.

We listened to their suggestions and incorporated them so we could move forward on a bipartisan basis as we have done on so many different topics. We would like to have a vote, move it to the House, and have it signed by the President so we can get the relief, support, and assistance to these Americans. Again, I have to emphasize that they are only qualified for this program because they lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and they are continuing to look for work in a very difficult economy.

The one other thing I wanted to mention, which is very important, is we are building on significant changes to the unemployment compensation laws that were passed in 2012. At that time the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives, Chairman Dave Camp of Michigan, described these as historic reforms. Our goal, as I said many times during the past few weeks and months, and prior to and since the ending of these benefits on December 28, is to find a path forward to a rather straightforward extension of the benefits. Again, this is a temporary extension. It is a 5-month total window, but with each day more of it is retroactive. The reason we wanted to look for a very straightforward proposal is that, first, it would recognize the important changes and reforms that were made in 2012. Many of the ideas I have seen and heard discussed around here actually were considered thoughtfully in 2012 and incorporated in many cases--not all cases-- into the legislation.

The other thing we want to do is make this as administratively feasible as possible to implement by the State agencies. Adding significant changes, such as adding a training component that didn't exist before, not only complicated the implementation, but when you stop and step back, it usually costs money.

One of the underlying premises, particularly from my colleagues who worked with us from the Republican side, is that this whole effort has to be fully funded. This bill is fully offset during this ten year budgetary window. This is paid for, it incorporates the ideas and suggestions from my colleagues on the other side, and it is now time to move for passage.

I recognize there are many issues we could deal with in the Senate. Many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have come to us with their issues. But to do that would undercut the ability to, in timely manner,--today or I hope tomorrow, but certainly this week--pass this legislation and move forward.

Millions of Americans are facing a crisis. They are out of work and looking for a job. In my State there are probably two applicants for every job, and in many cases there are probably three or four applicants for every job. We also recognize this is a long-term unemployed population that is different in some respects than previous episodes of unemployment. There are indications and suggestions that they are older on average. They are also facing a situation where the economy has been very difficult for many years.

Many of them are homeowners who can't sell their house because of the market so they can't move to an area where there is work. Many of them, particularly if they are middle-aged, have responsibilities to mothers and fathers who may have health issues, and children they have to support. The overall situation is that these individuals are facing a very difficult challenge.

There is a very thoughtful paper by the former chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, Alan Krueger, and his colleagues. They described the difficulty of these unemployed Americans in this economy, particularly for the long-term unemployed.

We have seen periods of significant unemployment. I can recall the 1980s, when unemployment hit 10 percent, but normally there is a relatively fast response once the right fiscal and monetary policies are put in place. Some of that was because of the mobility of the American people back then, contrasted to people who are now tied to their home because they can't sell it, and some of it is due to the relative age of the unemployed back then where the mobility was not as much of a factor as it is today.

We are trying to help these people who have, in many cases, worked for decades and now for the first time find themselves in a very difficult situation.

If you look overall, there are 10.4 million Americans who are out of work but are looking for that job--for that fair shot--so they have a chance to move on and be a part of the American economy. Extending emergency unemployment benefits to these 2.7 million people is just one part of the efforts we have to undertake. No one should be under the impression that this is a solution. No. This is just a response to the incredible need of these very worthwhile Americans who are looking for work.

I do note that this aid is very targeted. I cannot repeat it enough. There is this sort of notion out there that this is sort of a giveaway to people who are undeserving. Well, the benefits are targeted to people who meet very specific criteria and, most importantly, they have to have an adequate work history to be eligible for unemployment insurance in the first place. They have to be workers. We are trying to help workers. They have to have lost their job through no fault of their own--they were laid off. It is not as though they didn't like their job and left, or had problems in the workplace and were not fitting in. These are people who want to work, and they were told they cannot work any longer. They were downsized, they were outsourced--all the 10K euphemisms for saying, ``We don't need you anymore.'' Well, they are important people who want to work, and they have to actively look for work in order to qualify for benefits. This is not an open- ended benefit to individuals who have no end in sight. They are either going to find a job or exhaust these benefits.

One of the reforms we did in 2012, frankly, was to shrink the period of time. Previous to 2012, there were 73 weeks of emergency extended benefits. We shrunk that down to 47 weeks. So this notion that this is an unending, indefinite, long-term benefit to people who don't earn it is completely incorrect.

This program has been in effect for a very long time. Indeed, some form of it has been put in place since 2008 when George W. Bush was the President, when we first started seeing the signs of increasing unemployment. This was in conjunction with the near collapse of many financial institutions, in 2007 and 2008. The housing market was literally coming off the tracks. The consequences for the American economy at that time were probably the most severe since the Great Depression. One of the ways we have been dealing with these issues began with President Bush, and continuing now with President Obama, is emergency unemployment compensation benefits for Americans.

I think we have to look at and be conscious of all of the facts and data. We are also at a point where we have to recognize there are two programs. There is a State program, which covers the first 26 weeks, and then there is the emergency Federal unemployment benefits program.

This emergency program, in some respects, is becoming much more critical, because what we find now is that the long-term unemployed are probably twice the number you would typically associate with an economy such as ours at the present moment. We have unemployment rates that range from the high--unfortunately Rhode Island is at 9 percent--to the very low. There are some States because of the commodities-- particularly energy commodities--that virtually have no unemployment.

At this point we should not see the kind of long-term unemployed we are seeing. The Federal program--not the State program, which is the first 26 weeks--is going to help these people

who are particularly struggling. It is a targeted program--very much targeted--but it has an outsized impact. Not only are the workers who are receiving this very modest weekly stipend of roughly $300 a week able to pay for essentials, but it has a very positive effect on our overall economy.

All of my colleagues are here today saying, listen, not only do we have to help these people, but more importantly, we have to grow this economy. Well, by the way, the legislation we are proposing does both. These emergency benefits have been repeatedly analyzed by economists, and they have been determined to provide a significantly greater bang for the buck than many other programs being talked about today on the floor that are being suggested as alternatives or complements to what we are talking about. That is why the Congressional Budget Office, in a very modest and conservative analysis, projected that if we fail to extend these emergency benefits through 2014-- through the whole year--it would cost our economy 200,000 jobs. So those people who are opposing these benefits are basically saying we are not interested in at least part of these 200,000 jobs.

It is not, as they often say, rocket science. What happens to this money is it goes to a family who desperately needs it immediately to repair the car, to buy groceries, to take care of the necessities of life. So this money is not going to be put aside for a rainy day. It is not going to be exported overseas for a venture some place. It is going to be used locally in the economy--at the grocery store, at the service station, at the dry cleaners, and to pay for the cell phone so a person can stay in touch to see if they get that job and if they are offered a job. That effect of immediately putting money in the economy immediately generates more economic activity. It is the fact that at the local coffee shop a person will come in and get a cup of coffee and maybe be able to afford something else too. That goes to the ability of that local coffee shop to keep some more people on to work the counters. It has a cumulative effect.

The economists have measured it, and it is much more than the dollars we are putting into it. It has a multiplier effect. So what we are doing is not only providing the necessary support for these deserving families; we are providing an injection of economic activity into our economy--precisely what all of my colleagues are saying we have to do. Let's do it. We can do it. We are very close. On a bipartisan basis, we are hopefully hours away, I hope, from getting this done, and then sending it over to the House.

Then, we need to ask our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol to consider not only the bipartisan nature of this bill but also the fact that it not only provides economic stimulus, but it also is fiscally responsible. We have paid for these efforts. That was insisted upon, and we have certainly acceded to that request by so many of our colleagues.

Now, with respect to reforms of the temporary program, and even the permanent State program, as I said before, we made significant reforms in 2012. I was a member of the conference committee, at the request of the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee to participate, particularly in the deliberations about the unemployment insurance compensation program. These 2012 reforms go a long way to make the system better. Can we make more improvements? Of course. Can we shift to a related but an important topic, which is job training, through the Workforce Investment Act? Yes, we can, and we should. But we shouldn't hold this legislation hostage to training improvements and to additional reform.

One of the reforms which we worked to enhance in the bill before us today, which was implemented in 2012, is the Reemployment Service and Reemployment Eligibility Assessment, or the RES and REA. I have to thank Senator Collins, particularly. She was insistent that we provide a way to better link up individuals looking for work and the jobs that are available. This is a mechanism that does this. This is an evidence- based reform that has been successful in getting individuals back to work sooner. It also helps to ensure individuals are receiving the proper benefit. It addresses one of the major concerns we received from the House Ways and Means Committee Republicans with respect to overpayments. Essentially, what it does is it requires--there is one assessment in the program right now--a second assessment at a certain period during the extended benefits. So an individual would have to come in and essentially be counseled. They would also verify the person is searching for work, that the benefits are appropriate, and also give the kind of counseling and assistance and help that is shown by evidence to be effective in linking job seekers to jobs. We are very committed to this improvement. This is one of the improvements we put into the legislation. We have provided the funding for State agencies to take care of it.

So this is something we think is going to be a direct beneficial solution to a legitimate issue raised by so many. How do we connect those who are unemployed today with the jobs that are out there?

I will say something else, too, about this. There has been some suggestion that there are a lot of overpayments in the system and that people are really getting more than they should. Well RESs and REAs play an important program integrity role, not just providing counsel to the individual. They also have to ensure that the people are, in fact, actively seeking work. This legislation is saying these individuals have to physically come to the State agency, not just at the first tier, when they start it, but at the third tier--that is the way we break it up--several weeks into the process of emergency unemployment benefits. Doing that--their physical presence in the office, talking to a counselor--helps the system be more legitimate, and it helps the accountability because the individual State counselor will be able to check on how faithful they are to the program and how consistent their benefits are. That double check is part of the legislation which I think will be effective and efficient. We want both effectiveness and efficiency. As I indicated before, it is fully paid for, so it is not an additional burden to States.

In the 2012 reforms, we also included my work-sharing initiative. This is critical. I have heard from so many companies in Rhode Island that before the 2012 legislation, there were a few States--Rhode Island was one--that were actually doing something very creative. They said that instead of laying a person off totally, if you keep the person employed for a certain number of days and provide their benefits, we will pay for the one or two days they don't work. It is a partial payment. That has been able to allow companies to really keep their core group of workers together. Instead of throwing someone out and saying they are sorry, as well as losing their expertise and losing their skills, they have been able to keep their operation moving. It is a smart way of doing it. It has been very successful in Rhode Island, and it is now a national option. That is because of an initiative from 2012 that was a good reform and a smart, efficient way to use the taxpayers' dollars.

With respect to work search generally, the 2012 reforms for the first time created a uniform standard for both the State-based program and the temporary emergency program to ensure that States require that in order to be eligible, individuals need to be ``able, available, and actively seek[ing] work.'' We also passed a reform to better recover improper payments by requiring States to offset their current State benefits in order to recover overpayments owed to other States and the Federal Government. So program integrity, program efficiency, and program effectiveness were significantly embodied in the 2012 amendments.

We are looking at a program that just 2 years ago has been significantly reformed--in fact, as I said, according to the chairman of the Republican Ways and Means Committee, historically reformed. So this program is one that we can support and we should support.

Back in 2012 we also provided up to 10 demonstration projects in States that could be granted waivers on their State-based unemployment insurance program if they could come up with proposals that would improve the effectiveness of their reemployment efforts. This was an opportunity to give the States flexibility, to test out new ideas. Some of the new ideas my colleagues have shared with me--we

should do this or that--the States--at least 10 States--have that opportunity to apply today to do that. I don't think we need to reinvent that opportunity in this legislation since it is on an emergency, short-term basis. That authority sunsets at the end of 2015. But it is very telling, because since 2012, 10 States have had the option, but no States have taken up these proposals. So many of the good ideas my colleagues have suggested haven't passed muster at the State level. One would think if they were that compelling, if they were that efficient, that affordable, that one State, at least, would have taken the option, out of 10 available, to try these proposals.

The 2012 reforms also allowed States to drug screen and test individuals if they were terminated from prior employment for drug use or if they were applying for work for which passing a drug test was a standard eligibility requirement. I mention this because we have persistently heard proposals--particularly from the other side of the Capitol--oh, we have a drug test proposal, et cetera. Guess what. States already have the option to do that now. So it is not a reason to stop today and say we have to fix this problem.

I think this whole issue of drug testing, though, deserves a further comment. It is somewhat of a presumption that people who are applying for these benefits somehow are more susceptible to drug dependency, and that is not accurate. In fact, reflecting back to my previous comments, there are so many people now, particularly the longer term unemployed, who are middle-aged colleagues or slightly younger than I am, who have spent 20 or 35 years working, et cetera. They are not the typical person who one would suspect of that. But when we looked at data from the TANF realm--there were related arguments for testing in TANF--it turns out that individuals who are tested in these TANF programs, which is a welfare program, actually show an average of slightly less drug usage than the average American. So this whole drug issue has to be disabused. But, for the record, there are in the 2012 reforms, opportunities for States if they feel so compelled to exercise some of these options.

So the record demonstrates clearly that we have made extensive reforms. Additionally, as I said, in this legislation, we are requiring a second assessment process which I think is going to be very efficient and very effective.

This raises the final point. We have tried to keep this very simple. Even so, the State administrators came forward with a letter saying: This is going to be very difficult for us. The letter was refuted point by point by the Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez. Secretary Perez was the former director of these programs for the State of Maryland. He knows better than anyone what it takes to make these programs work. He has committed that the Department of Labor not only will--but can--be sure that these programs, as we have written them today, will be fully and effectively implemented.

So I hope my colleagues really come together. I thank my colleagues who already have joined together to get this legislation moving. Time is literally ticking. This is a 5-month bill. This is not a long-term, indefinite bill. The clock is ticking, so that every day more benefits are retroactive than prospective. We want to give people the chance. They have worked for it all of their lives--many of them--and now, in many cases, this is the first time they have really struggled.

With that, I yield the floor because I see my colleague, the Senator from Kansas.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, and not elaborating much further than the comments I already made, but in order to get this bipartisan emergency legislation completed which will affect 2.7 million Americans, I would respectfully object to my colleague's amendment.

Mr. President, reserving my right to object, the underlying measure is a bipartisan response to an emergency in terms of extending unemployment for 5 months--a temporary extension. Given the emergency nature of the underlying legislation, I object.

Mr. President, reserving my right to object, once again, given the emergency nature of this bipartisan legislation to address the plight of over 2 million Americans desperately looking for work, I object and hope we can press on with the passing of the underlying legislation.

Mr. President, reserving my right to object, once again, the underlying legislation is designed to help 2.7 million Americans who need the support. It is a bipartisan agreement. There is a time and place to debate all these issues, but I think the time and place now is to move forward and vote on the underlying agreement.

Therefore, I respectfully object.

Madam President, yesterday President Obama held an event at the White House to talk about his health care law. The President said:

The debate over repealing this law is over--the Affordable

Care Act is here to stay.

That is what President Obama said yesterday. Of course, last October President Obama said his health care law was ``the law of the land.'' Then he went ahead and changed or delayed the law more than 20 times after that--on his own, without coming to Congress. If it is the law of the land, how does he get to change the law of the land 20 times?

Back on March 6, President Obama said the Democrats' health care law is ``working the way it should.'' Well, if the law is working the way it should, why do people in Wyoming keep telling me how bad the law is for them personally?

Just the other day I heard from a woman in Rawlins, WY. She wrote:

My husband has been self-employed at a small truck driving

company servicing the oil and gas fields in [Wyoming] for

over 13 years. We have always purchased individual healthcare

coverage for our family of five. We currently pay $906.87 for

that coverage.

She said:

The lowest priced ACA Bronze plan will increase our premium

to $1359 per month, an increase of $452 per month--an amount

we cannot currently absorb. This is not affordable. Why is

[President] Obama doing this to us?

That is a good question. Why are Democrats here in Washington doing this to families such as this woman's family in Wyoming? Why does President Obama think his law is working the way it should?

Well, the Senate Democratic majority leader, Senator Reid, said here on the floor of the Senate back on February 26 that the law is going great. The majority leader said, ``Despite all the good news, there's plenty of horror stories being told.'' He went on to say: ``All are untrue, but they're being told all over America.''

``All are untrue,'' he said here on the floor.

The majority leader added that all of the stories were ``made up from whole cloth, lies distorted by the Republicans to grab headlines or make political advertisements.''

Why does Senator Reid think this woman in Rawlins, WY, is making up a story out of whole cloth?

Remember, the President also said that if you like your insurance, you can keep it. He said that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. He said people's health care costs were going to be $2,500 lower by now. So the President has said a lot of things that turned out not to be accurate. Now the President says his health care law is here to stay.

Given the President's history, I think it is fair to get a second opinion. As a doctor who has practiced medicine for 25 years, taking care of families in Wyoming, I come to the floor to tell you that I bring my medical experience, along with my colleague's experience, Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma. He and I have put together a report that looks at some of the promises Democrats have made about the law and some of the things Republicans have said about it. The report is called ``Prognosis.'' It came out April 2014 and is available today on Senator Coburn's Web site at www.coburn.senate.gov or on my site at www.barrasso.senate.gov. What we have done is come out with a report going through three different previous reports that, as doctors, we have put out watching the health care law as it has been developing. Each of the reports--one called ``Bad Medicine,'' one called ``Grim Diagnosis,'' and one called ``Warning: Side Effects''--was released between 2010 and 2012. We grade ourselves now on how the predictions we have made over the last 4 years have turned out.

In the first prediction we made--report No. 1, ``Bad Medicine''--we warned that millions of Americans could lose their health insurance plans.

The headlines all across the country show that over 5 million Americans did, in fact, get letters that they lost their health insurance plan--health insurance which they liked, which worked for them, something they chose and they lost because the President said it wasn't good enough. He said he knew more about what they needed for themselves and their families than they did. So we predicted 4 years ago that millions would lose their health insurance plans, and millions did.

We warned that the law's new mandates would increase health costs and obviously increase the cost of insurance. That original diagnosis is confirmed as well.

Like the letter I just read from the family in Rawlins, WY, families all across Wyoming and all across the country are seeing incredible increases in the cost of their insurance. They are paying more, and in their opinion they are getting worse insurance--the President said better; I say worse--because they are having to pay for a lot of things that they don't need, don't want, and will never use. Yet the President says he knows better than they do about what kind of insurance they need and what is best for them and their families. They are also being faced with higher copays, higher deductibles, and higher out-of-pocket costs.

We warned additionally that short-term fixes threaten seniors' long- term access to care.

That is actually exactly what happened. The health care law took $500 billion out of the Medicare Program--a program to take care of our seniors--not to strengthen Medicare, not to help our seniors, but to start a whole new government program for other people. For those 14 million Americans on Medicare Advantage, a program for which there are advantages--preventive care, coordinated care, things one would want-- well, that has been dramatically hurt by the President's decision to take money away from the very popular Medicare Advantage plan.

We warned that patients with preexisting conditions would still face care restrictions.

I listened to the President's speech. I read editorials written by colleagues on the other side of the aisle as recently as last week that said people with preexisting conditions are all being protected. That is not true. We know of patients who because of their condition have had to leave the State in which they live to get specialty care in other States. And when they lost their insurance and bought insurance through the plans of their State, their children with cystic fibrosis seeking specialty care in Boston are excluded from doing that under the plan because the insurance was bought in the State in which they live and the insurance they got did not cover any out-of-State physicians. So children have been hurt by the President's health care law, and we can identify those young victims of the President's health care law.

We warned that the individual mandate would fail with the IRS as an enforcer.

The IRS even admits they don't have a whole mechanism put together to make sure the mandate to fine Americans for not buying a government- approved product would be collected by the IRS.

We warned that new IRS taxes would harm small businesses.

That initial diagnosis is now confirmed. Small businesses are impacted all across the country by additional expenses and costs, making it much harder for them to provide insurance to their workers. Many looking at this are saying that it might be cheaper to pay the fine than to do what we would like to do and have done in the past, which is provide insurance that worked for those employers and their employees but perhaps doesn't meet the President's recommendations of what many people say is much more insurance than they will ever need, want, use, or can afford.

The second report we came out with a number of years ago is called ``Grim Diagnosis.'' In that, we went through a number of concerns we had about the health care law after the initial report ``Bad Medicine.''

``Grim Diagnosis'' provided warnings that the employer mandate would lower incomes and result in hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost.

We are still watching that one very carefully because we do know that with the employer mandate, there have been stories of businesses with 50 employees saying: We are going to have to get below 50. We are not going to hire more people. We have to get below that number.

The President is working to maybe make that a higher number, but no matter where that number line is drawn, people are finding that from a business standpoint, there are advantages to being below a certain number of employees and then not having to comply with the expensive mandates of the law.

We warned that the law included a risky insurance scheme that would cost taxpayers dearly.

That original diagnosis is confirmed as well with something called the CLASS Act. Folks who looked at it carefully on both sides of the aisle called it a Ponzi scheme--a Ponzi scheme--that would never work, could not be afforded. They said it was something Bernie Madoff would even be proud of. Yet the Democrats forced it into the health care law in spite of warnings against it.

Our final report was called ``Warning: Side Effects,'' released in 2012. We started talking about the side effects of the health care law. We warned that the law includes hundreds of billions of dollars of tax hikes.

Well, that has been confirmed. All one has to do is look at the list of new taxes brought on by the health care law. It goes on and on with one new tax after another. These are taxes on real people that get passed on to others if they are applied to a business, totaling

$1 trillion in gross tax increases over the next 10 years, from 2013 to 2022.

We warned that the new insurance cooperatives would waste taxpayer dollars.

That is exactly what this report confirms. It goes State by State, where we see significant wasting of money, as reported in the Washington Post and in USA TODAY.

We warned that the medical device tax would stifle innovation.

That original diagnosis has been confirmed as well. We see the medical device tax, which, when we talked about it as part of a budget amendment, there was bipartisan support for repealing it. Why aren't we voting to repeal it when it matters, when we could actually get this repealed? The Senate majority leader continues to block a vote on that.

So I come to the floor, the day after the President held his ``mission accomplished'' speech at the White House, to say that the prognosis for this health care law continues to be grim, the points we have made throughout continue to be true, and the people all across the country are experiencing it day-to-day.

They are experiencing it in their lives. They are experiencing it when they try to continue health insurance that works for their family. They are paying more out of pocket. Their premiums are higher. They may not be able to keep the doctor they had and liked. They may not be able to go to the hospital they had gone to previously.

It is interesting that in the State of New Hampshire where there are 28 hospitals, 10 of them are excluded--10 of the 28 hospitals in the State of New Hampshire are excluded--from the insurance being offered on that State's exchange to be sold in that State. Even the doctor who is the chief of staff of one of those hospitals--well, her insurance does not permit her to go to the very hospital where she is the chief of staff. Is this what the Democrats had in mind when they passed this health care law, people paying more in premiums, people losing their doctors, not having access to the hospitals in their community, higher copays, higher deductibles? That is what the American people are facing.

It is time for the President of the United States to acknowledge the pain that his health care law has caused people across the country. I know he watches the polls, and the polls continue to show that for every one person who says they may have been helped by the health care law there are more than two people who say they have been harmed.

People knew we needed health care reform in this country, and they knew the reason. People knew what they wanted. They wanted the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs.

This health care law has failed to deliver to the American people what they wanted, what they asked for, and instead is trying to deal day-to-day with something the Democrats in this Senate and in the House shoved down the throats of the American people.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

I note the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with a number of my colleagues for up to 45 minutes.

Mr. President, before I start, I noted that the Senator from Connecticut came to the floor in an attempt to debunk a letter from one of my constituents to me, a family from Rawlins, WY, whom I talked about earlier on the floor.

It seems the Senator is making the same argument the majority leader Senator Reid has made time and time again that these letters are made up. That is what seems to be the case. Is that what the Senator from Connecticut is saying? These are letters, these are emails, these are news articles that are out there coming from our constituents and coming from our home States.

This was all supposed to be about affordable care. Care and affordability were the keystones of this entire piece of legislation.

So I heard the Senator from California talking about people being denied care. It is happening now because of the health care law-- because of the health care law people are being denied care.

Let me reference where my colleague from Connecticut comes from. The State of Connecticut, the Hartford Courant, a major newspaper in the State of Connecticut, has a report that came out March 17 of this year, just a couple of weeks ago: ``Connecticut Is Less Competitive After Federal Health Care Reform.''

I heard the Senator from California saying there are people who have been helped, and I believe that, but for every one person who has been helped, I believe many have been harmed as a result of the law.

Let me tell you what our friends from the Hartford Courant wrote:

The individual health insurance market is less competitive

in Connecticut since the implementation of the Affordable

Care Act, sometimes called Obamacare, the Kaiser Family

Foundation said in a report released Monday.

Of the seven States to release enrollment data by insurer,

Connecticut and Washington had fewer options--

Fewer options, not more options, as the President of the United States has claimed--fewer options. The article continues--

for people buying health plans on the individual market,

according to Kaiser foundation, a non-profit health policy

research organization.

California and New York, the largest States in the study,

each has a more competitive insurance market today compared

to 2012, Kaiser found.

But Connecticut, the State where my colleague had questioned where the woman from Wyoming comes from, is less competitive. The article continues:

In 2012, Connecticut's individual health-insurance market

was more evenly distributed among a number of insurers.

They list Aetna, WellPoint/Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, UnitedHealth Group, EmblemHealth/ConnectiCare. It says:

Connecticut has fewer insurer options available on Access

Health CT, its public health exchange, which was created by

the Affordable Care Act.

As of February 18, two insurers dominated 97 percent of

health plans sold through Access Health CT.

There is a ``less competitive exchange market and'' let me point out ``higher than average premiums.''

If that is what my colleague from Connecticut wants to say is a success, let him have it, but he has no right, in my opinion, to come and say that a woman who wrote to me is either not smart enough to know how to figure out how much of her premiums she is being asked to pay and what her premiums were prior to her losing insurance because of the health care law.

Then the Senator from California came to the floor to say: Well, people aren't losing the care they had.

NBC Connecticut, again where our colleague is from, says: ``Some Connecticut doctors said they will not accept certain health insurance plans offered on the state health exchange.'' The story goes on to say: ``It broke my heart,'' losing the doctor she had been to before whom she trusts and has faith in but because of the health care law is losing that care.

I come to the floor to just point out that Republicans have better ideas. Republicans have ideas about ways to help work to lower the cost of care so patients can get the care they need from a doctor they want at lower cost, not the situation we see across the country, where many individuals believe and truly feel harmed as a result of the President's health care law.

With that, in response to what my colleagues from Connecticut and California have just said, we are here today to talk about jobs, the economy, getting people back to work. As a doctor, I will tell you long-term unemployment, how it affects someone's life, how it affects, I believe, their identity, their self-worth, their dignity, and the way they think about themselves, and so it is much more important that we get Americans back to work.

I am on the floor with a number of my colleagues. The Senator from South Dakota is on the floor, and he knows as well as anyone the impact unemployment has in rural America, in the Western United States and how when jobs go away it makes it much harder for other jobs to come. I would ask that he share some of those thoughts with us right now.

I thank my colleague, and I appreciate the comments of my colleague Senator Blunt, who has been a leader and champion on the issue of getting people back to work.

We heard the Senator from Rhode Island saying there are people out there desperately looking for work. What we are doing is bringing to the floor amendments to this piece of legislation that will actually get people back to work nearly immediately.

So I rise today to discuss how Congress can actually help the people who are unemployed get back to work. We have been debating all week whether the Senate should extend unemployment insurance to the long- term unemployed. And whether or not one supports extending unemployment insurance, we can all agree and should all agree that job creation should really be the top priority. This, to me, is where the unemployment insurance bill, as currently written, falls short. That is why I, along with a number of my colleagues, have filed amendments that would help create nearly 100,000 jobs.

Our amendment would do two things, and President Obama has failed to do them. The amendment I am here with Senator Hoeven to discuss would permit--approve the Keystone XL Pipeline as well as liquefied natural gas exports to our allies and strategic partners.

The Keystone XL Pipeline has been pending for over 5\1/2\ years--over 5\1/2\ years. During that time the Obama administration has conducted five separate environmental reviews of this project--five environmental reviews in the last 5\1/2\ years.

Despite this scrutiny, President Obama continues to delay approving the Keystone XL Pipeline even though its construction would support over 42,000 jobs. That 42,000 jobs number is not my number. This is the jobs estimate from President Obama's own State Department.

The Keystone XL Pipeline has broad bipartisan support throughout the country. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 65 percent of Americans support the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Labor unions such as the plumbers and pipefitters, building and construction trades, international labor, and the union of operating engineers, among others, have all called on the President of the United States to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. Just over 1 year ago, 62 Members of the Senate voted in favor of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

If the Senate is going to extend unemployment insurance, it should also help Americans get back to work. We should adopt this amendment which approves the Keystone XL Pipeline.

The other part of the amendment deals with approving LNG exports-- liquefied natural gas--to our allies and strategic partners. Before getting into the specifics of that, I ask my colleague and friend from North Dakota, Senator Hoeven--who has worked closely with supporters of the Keystone XL Pipeline, a man who was Governor of the State of North Dakota during the early discussions--to express his thoughts on why we think this is important to the economy, to help those people who are unemployed, and help getting Americans back to work.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friend and colleague from North Dakota, a State in which he served as a Governor, a business leader in the community, and knows the State very well and knows the importance of energy--not just to his State's economy but to the economy of the country and the importance for people who want work, who want jobs.

I think bringing together the issues of the Keystone XL Pipeline as well as the exportation of liquefied natural gas is what will help get Americans back to work.

Since September of 2010, the Obama administration approved only seven applications to export liquefied natural gas. The administration is sitting on 24 pending applications. Thirteen of those applications have been pending for more than 1 year. Some of these applications have been pending for more than 2 years. To put this in context: The United States has approved less than half of the LNG export capacity that Canada has approved. To me, this administration's delay is unacceptable and the excuses have run out.

I take a look at this from the standpoint of what is happening globally as well. Ukraine imports about 60 percent to 70 percent of its natural gas from Russia. Nine of our NATO allies import 40 percent or more of their natural gas from Russia. Four of our NATO allies import 100 percent of their natural gas from Russia.

LNG exports would help our strategic partners and allies free themselves from Russian energy. This is why our NATO allies are calling on Congress to expedite--expedite--LNG exports.

LNG exports will give our allies an alternative supply of natural gas and enable them to resist Russia's intimidation. LNG exports will also help create jobs right here at home.

In February, The Economist explained that LNG exports ``would generate tanker loads of cash'' for the United States.

More recently, Nera Economic Consulting suggested that LNG exports could help reduce the unemployment rolls by as many as 45,000 over the next few years. This is extraordinary. LNG exports would not only create new jobs but would employ Americans who cannot find work today.

LNG exports would help as many as 45,000 Americans find work. President Obama through his actions has made it very clear that jobs are not his priority. He seems to be more interested in inventing new delays and new excuses than in actually creating new jobs. That is why the Senate must act today and here in this place. That is why the Senate should approve the Keystone XL Pipeline and LNG exports and that is why we should adopt the amendment that Senator Hoeven has offered.

So, Mr. President, I come to the floor today to say Republicans have now tried to offer 9 amendments we believe would get this economy growing again, amendments we believe would actually create jobs and put people back to work.

Now, to inform my colleagues of what I am about to do, I am going to move to table the pending Reid amendment No. 2878, which for everyone's information is an amendment which merely changes the date of enactment. So Senators voting not to table this amendment would rather change the date than vote on amendments that would help put people back to work.

In order for my colleagues to be able to offer amendments, I move to table the pending Reid amendment No. 2878, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Reserving the right to object, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for coming to the floor today to talk about, in fact, an important issue.

Before I respond to him directly, I did want to comment he is right, there were 43 Members of the Senate who voted against what is regarded as the most comprehensive veterans legislation to have been introduced in several decades, legislation that was supported by virtually every veterans organization in the country, including the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, Vietnam Veterans of America, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Gold Star Wives, and dozens and dozens of other veterans organizations.

If I might point out that while my colleague from Louisiana is, of course, right that there were 43 Senators who voted no, he neglected to mention that there were 56 Senators who voted yes. There was one Senator who was absent on that day who would have voted yes.

We are now at the stage where we have 57 Senators, which I would suggest to my colleague from Louisiana is significantly more than 43 percent, it is 57 percent.

If we could have the cooperation--and I hope we can maybe make some progress right here, now, from my colleague from Louisiana who has shown interest in veterans issues--do you know what, we can do something that millions and millions of veterans and their families want us to do.

If my colleague from Louisiana would allow me, I would like to quote from what the Disabled American Veterans, the DAV, has to say about this legislation--which, unfortunately my colleague from Louisiana voted against. He was one of the 43 who voted against it.

DAV says:

This massive omnibus bill, unprecedented in our modern

experience, would create, expand, advance, and extend a

number of VA benefits, services and programs that are

important to the DAV and to our members. For example,

responding to a call from DAV as a leading veterans

organization, it would create a comprehensive family

caregiver support program for all generations of severely

wounded, injured and ill veterans. Also, the bill would

authorize advance appropriations for VA's mandatory funding

accounts to ensure that in any government shutdown

environment in the future, veterans benefits payments would

not be delayed or put in jeopardy. This measure would also

provide additional financial support to survivors of

servicemembers who die in the line of duty, as well as

expanded access for them to GI Bill educational benefits. A

two-plus year stalemate in VA's authority to lease facilities

for health care treatment and other purposes would be solved

by this bill . . .

--which, of course, is what the Senator from Louisiana is referring to. Then they continue:

. . . These are but a few of the myriad provisions of this

bill that would improve the lives, health, and prospects of

veterans--especially the wounded, injured and ill--and their

loved ones.

That is the DAV. I ask my colleague from Louisiana--you are raising an important issue, and I agree with you. But what I cannot do is take this issue over here, separate it, and that issue over here, because tomorrow there will be somebody else coming and saying: You know, Senator Sanders, I want you to move forward on this. Then the next day somebody else comes forward and says: I want to move forward on that.

We have a comprehensive piece of legislation, supported by millions of veterans, and supported by 57 Members of the Senate. I ask my colleague from Louisiana--who is concerned about veterans' issues--work with us, support us, give us the three Republican votes we need. We had 55, 54 Members of the Democratic Caucus. We only had two Republican votes. Help me get three more votes. You will get these facilities in Louisiana, we will get these facilities all over the country, but we will also address many of the major crises facing the veterans community.

With that, Madam President, I would object to my colleague's proposal.

First, I would tell you that--two things in terms of Senator Landrieu. She has, in fact, spoken to me on numerous occasions about her concerns about this issue but, more importantly, she has shown a willingness to stand for all veterans in this country, and she voted for the legislation supported by the American Legion, the DAV, and the Vietnam Veterans of America and virtually every veterans organization. So I thank Senator Landrieu very much for her support for comprehensive legislation that would benefit millions and millions of Americans.

Essentially, what the Senator from Louisiana is saying is let's work together. I agree with him, let us work together. I have 57 votes for this piece of legislation. Right now, I ask my friend from Louisiana, work with us. What are your objections at a time when we have given huge tax breaks to billionaires and millionaires, and when one out of four corporations in this country doesn't pay a nickel in Federal income taxes. Does my colleague from Louisiana think that in this country we should not take care of the men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend this country?

I am prepared, my staff is prepared, to sit down and hear the Senator's objections. I am not sure what his objections are. He hasn't told me. Is the Senator opposed to an expansion of the caregivers program? Is he? So that 70-year-old women who have been taking care of their husbands who lost their legs in Vietnam get a modest bit of help? Is that an objection the Senator has? Is the Senator objecting to the fact that maybe we provide dental care to some veterans whose teeth are rotting in their mouths? Is the Senator objecting to advance appropriations so we are not in a situation where if we have another government shutdown, disabled vets will not get the checks they need? Is the Senator objecting to the fact that right now we have young veterans who are trying to go to college through the GI bill but can't get in-State tuition? Is the Senator objecting to that? Is the Senator objecting to helping veterans find jobs in an economy where it is very hard to do so?

I am not quite sure what the Senator's objection is. Tell me. Tell me now or sit down with my staff and me, and maybe we can work it out and do something of real significance for the veterans of this country.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 297, S. 1950; that a Sanders substitute amendment, the text of S. 1982, the Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Pay Restoration Act, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I believe at this point--please correct me if I am wrong--that I control the floor; is that correct?

While my friend from Louisiana is still here, let me answer yes in response to his question. Senator Landrieu has asked me, very forcefully, to move forward on this provision on more than one occasion, and my response to Senator Landrieu, who voted for the comprehensive legislation, unlike Senator Vitter, is the same.

Secondly, what the veterans organizations of this country want is for the Congress to recognize the very serious problems facing the veterans community. What I can tell my colleague from Louisiana is that to the best of my knowledge the veterans organizations have been to my colleague's office, and we are trying to get some specific objections as to why he is not supporting this legislation and we have not gotten that.

So I would ask my colleague from Louisiana to come forward and tell me what he disagrees with, which he has not done yet, and I look forward to working with him. I agree we have to work together. I am offering him that opportunity to tell me what he doesn't like. Let's get a piece of legislation the veterans of this country need and want and that we will be proud of.

With that, I believe I have the floor; is that correct?

Madam President, how much time remains?

I will tell my colleague from Louisiana that I don't intend to be addressing this issue.

Madam President, it is not my intention to get involved in Louisiana politics, but just let me say that Senator Landrieu has voted for this legislation, she has been a champion of veterans rights, and I look forward to continuing to work with her on comprehensive legislation that will benefit all of the veterans of Louisiana and those in the other 49 States.

Madam President, I wish to change subjects, if I might, and I wish to touch upon an issue which I believe is far and away the most significant issue facing the American people; that is, a struggle not just to make sure we can preserve and expand the vitally important programs that are life or death to tens of millions of working-class and middle-class families--programs such as Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. The issue we are discussing now is not just whether we must create the millions and millions of jobs that we need. Real unemployment is not 6.8 percent. It is close to 12 percent and youth unemployment is close to 20 percent. We have to create millions of jobs for our young people and for working families around this country.

We have made some progress with the Affordable Care Act, announced just yesterday. About 10 million more Americans will have access to health care who formerly did not, but we have to go further. We have to join the rest of the industrialized world, all of which have stated-- every country has stated--that health care must be a right and not a privilege. When we do that through a Medicare-for-all, single-payer program, we can do it much more cost-effectively and end the absurdity of the United States spending almost twice as much per capita on health care as do the people of any other nation.

All of those issues, and education and climate change, are all enormously important for the future of this Nation. But the issue that is even more important than all of those is whether we can prevent this country from moving to an oligarchic form of society in which virtually all economic and political power rests with a handful of billionaire families.

I know we don't talk about it too much. Most people don't raise that issue. Certainly we don't see it in the corporate media. That is the reality. Right now in America we have, by far, the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on Earth.

What we are looking at is the top 1 percent owns 38 percent of the financial wealth of America. I have very little doubt the overwhelming majority of Americans have no idea what the bottom 60 percent looks like. The top 1 percent owns 38 percent of the wealth of America, and the bottom 60 percent owns all of 2.3 percent. That gap between the very rich and everybody else is growing wider and wider. We have one family--one family--the Walton family, who owns Walmart, that owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of the American people.

In terms of income, the situation is equally bad. In the last number of years since the Wall Street collapse, 95 percent of all new income has gone to the top 1 percent.

So we have an economic situation where the middle class is disappearing, and more people are living in poverty than at any time in the history of the United States. We have 22 percent of our kids living in poverty, the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on Earth. All the while the middle class disappears, more and more people are living in poverty, people on top are doing phenomenally well. Almost all new income goes to the top 1 percent.

It is not just a growing disparity in terms of income and wealth-- that is enormously important--but it is what is happening to the political foundations of America. What we are now seeing as a result of Citizens United--and we are going to see it more as a result of the disastrous Supreme Court decision of today in McCutcheon--will enable the billionaire class to play an even more prominent role in terms of our political process.

The Koch brothers are worth about $80 billion--$80 billion. They are the second wealthiest family in America. Working with other billionaires, such as Sheldon Adelson, the Kochs are prepared to spend an unlimited sum of money to create an America shaped by their rightwing extremist views--and I mean unlimited.

If your income went up, Madam President--and I know our Presiding Officer is not quite there in this status--from $68 billion to $80 billion in 1 year--a $12 billion increase in your wealth--and you believed passionately, as the Koch brothers do, in this rightwing agenda, why would you hesitate in spending $1 billion, $2 billion on the political process? Last year, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney spent a little more than $1 billion for their entire campaigns. These guys can take out their checkbook tomorrow and write that check and it will be one-twelfth of what their increased wealth was in 1 year. It doesn't mean anything to them. It is 50 bucks to you; it is $1 billion to them.

So we have to be very careful that we do not allow this great country, where people fought and died to protect American democracy, become a plutocracy or an oligarchy, and that, frankly, is the direction in which we are moving.

I suspect that many of our fellow Americans saw a spectacle in Las Vegas--and this was not the usual Las Vegas spectacle, with the great shows they have there--this was the Sheldon Adelson spectacle. This is what the spectacle was just last weekend. Sheldon Adelson said to prospective Republican candidates for President: Why don't you come on down to Las Vegas and tell me what you could do for me because I am only worth $20 billion. I am only the largest gambling mogul in the entire world. But $20 billion isn't enough, so I want you to come to Las Vegas and tell me what favors you can give me if you happen to be elected President and, by the way, if you sound the right note--if you kind of do what I like--I may put a few hundred million into your campaign. Maybe if I am feeling good, I will throw $1 billion into your campaign.

The media has dubbed this the Adelson primary. What primaries generally are about are hundreds of thousands of Republicans getting together

and they vote on whom they want their candidate to be in a State-- Democrats do the same--and candidates make an appeal to ordinary people to get votes. Some of us are old-fashioned and we kind of see that as democracy.

I come from a State which proudly has town meetings. I have held hundreds of town meetings in my State. I know it is old-fashioned. I know it is getting out of step, but I actually listen to what people have to say. They walk in the door free, occasionally we actually even serve some lunch, and they don't have to be a billionaire to ask me a question. I answer questions and I talk to people. I understand that is old-fashioned, not the way we do it anymore.

The way we do it now is the Adelson way: walk in the door and I will give you hundreds of millions of dollars or come to a campaign fundraiser, and if you make the largest contributions--tens of thousands of dollars--I will listen to you.

We have to turn this thing around, because if we don't, we are going to end up in a situation where not only the economy of this country is going to be controlled by a handful of billionaires and large multinational corporations, but we are going to be living in a country where the political process is controlled.

Somebody mentioned to me--and I don't know, maybe I will introduce this legislation. We all know what NASCAR is. These guys who drive the racing cars have on their coats they are being sponsored by this or that oil company or this or that tire company. Maybe we should introduce that concept in the Senate. You could have a patch on your jacket that says: I am sponsored by the Koch brothers. Eighty-seven percent of my funding comes from the Koch brothers.

Maybe we will give you a special jacket, and then you have the Adelson guy or this person or that person. But it might tell the American people why we continue as a body to give more tax breaks to billionaires and yet we are having a heck of a tough time raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. It might tell the American people why we do nothing to close corporate loopholes, but we are having a hard time addressing pay equity in America so women get the same wages that men do.

I think when we talk about issues such as campaign finance, a lot of Americans say: Well, yes, it is a problem, but it doesn't really relate to me.

Let me suggest that it absolutely does relate to every man, woman, and child. It is imperative people understand what the agenda is--the Koch brothers, for example. These are people who have been very clear that they want massive cuts in Social Security or the privatization of Social Security. They want massive cuts in Medicare or the voucherization of Medicare, and massive cuts in Medicaid. As some of the largest polluters in America in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, the Koch brothers want to crack down on the ability of the EPA to regulate pollution. These guys want to cut back on funds for education so our kids can afford to go to college.

So if we think the issue of campaign finance does not relate to our lives, we are very mistaken. We are moving toward a situation where people with huge sums of money are going to spend unlimited amounts to elect candidates who reflect an extreme rightwing agenda which will make the wealthiest people in this country even richer while continuing the attacks against the middle class and working families in this country.

I will conclude by saying this--and I mean this quite honestly. As somebody who grew up in a family that didn't have a lot of money and as somebody who represents the great State of Vermont, where people constantly tell me they ask for so little, I have heard veterans say: I don't want to use the VA because another veteran really may need it more. I don't need this program and somebody else may need it more.

I don't understand how people worth $80 billion are spending huge sums of money to become even richer. They are doing it by trying to attack life-and-death programs for the elderly. Why would somebody want to cut Social Security when they are worth $80 billion and have more money than they can dream of for retirement? Why would somebody want to do that when they are worth billions and have the best health care in the world? Why do they want to make massive cuts in Medicare or Medicaid? What motivates somebody with so much money to go to war against working families and the middle class?

I frankly don't understand it. I can only think that this has to do with power--the drive for more and more power, the thrill it must be to tell candidates: Do you want my support? This is what you have to do.

But I think this is just a huge issue that we as a nation have got to address. Too many people have given up their lives fighting for American democracy to see this great Nation be converted into a plutocracy or an oligarchy. We must not allow that to happen.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer my amendment on this bill, No. 2885.

Madam President, let me talk about why I think we should have this and other amendments on this bill.

My friend from Colorado just talked about an amendment that he said he supported last week. Of course, none of us got to support it on the Ukrainian bill because it wasn't allowed to come up, just like on this issue of talking about unemployment extension or the other things that our friends on the other side have announced in a pretty aggressive way that they intend to bring up because they just hope to have a political issue rather than a process that will actually work.

I believe we should have these energy amendments such as the one I am proposing on this bill because getting people back to work and being concerned about people's take-home pay, being concerned about what people get to keep of what they earn is an important part of this whole process.

So the amendment my friend objected to would be an amendment that would make it very difficult--it would establish another hurdle before anyone could have a carbon tax. This amendment is similar to the one I offered during the budget debate this year, and 53 of my colleagues supported it, so a majority of the Members of the Senate are for this but just not the majority it would take in the Senate to get it done.

A carbon tax would force families to pay more at the pump. What is a carbon tax? It is a tax on fuels that have some carbon component, and that means fuels such as gasoline, coal-based electricity, and other fossil fuels. For this component, you would have to pay more at the gas pump, you would have to pay more for your heating, more for your cooling, more for virtually every product we make in America.

The energy bill, the utility bill is a big component of what we make in the country today, and it could be one of our huge advantages in manufacturing and job creation, but we are headed in a direction with our view of energy that is not the most focused on more American energy and that doesn't take advantage of the moment we could be in.

Areas where I live in Missouri, people in the South and Midwest-- frankly, from about the middle of Pennsylvania to the western edge of Wyoming--are heavily dependent on coal for electricity. About 50 percent of all the electricity in that vast majority of the land mass of America is from coal. Eighty-two percent of the electricity produced in Missouri is from coal. There are at least five States that have a higher dependency on coal than we do. If we had a cap-and-trade bill, the estimates are that our bill would have gone up about 40 percent since 2013.

A carbon tax is disproportionately impactful on people who are struggling to get by. If you want to really do things that impact the vulnerable in our society, make the utility bill higher. If you want to really do things that impact the vulnerable in our society who are looking for work, make it harder to put those jobs in the United States of America.

About 40 million U.S. households that currently earn less than $30,000 per year spend almost 20 percent of their income already on energy. Why would we want that percentage to be higher. What you make is not nearly as important as what you are able to use to advance your family. If the utility bill is 30 percent of what you make or 40 percent of what you make instead of 20 percent, obviously the other things you would have done with that money could not have been, done.

These are the households that can least afford to have the new energy-efficient refrigerators. These are the last households to get the better windows, the last houses to get more insulation in the ceiling and the walls, the first houses where people have to think about, What room do we shut off this winter because we cannot use all the rooms in the house in the way we would like to? It would be nice to be able to fill up your tank rather than stand at the gas pump and wonder, Can I possibly afford to put more gas in than that pump has already shown on prices that are already too high.

There are lots of amendments on this bill about energy, none of which, I am told, will be allowed, and I think that is a tragedy.

A 2013 study by the National Association of Manufacturers found that the overall effect of a carbon tax on American jobs would be staggering, with a loss of worker income equivalent to about $13 million and 1.5 million jobs. Why would we want to take that out of our economy when we can not only keep it there, but by enhancing more American energy, we could expand it?

The utility bill is an increasingly important part of job creation. Energy-sensitive industries such as chemicals, auto manufacturing, iron and steel manufacturing, cement, mining, and refining sectors are the hardest hit by a carbon tax, and these sectors would see a big drop in their manufacturing output.

So if we had the kind of debate we ought to have, it would be a debate about how we get people back to work rather than how we continue to extend benefits in a policy that was never intended to have never- ending benefits. This system doesn't work. It doesn't work for people who pay into the system or draw out of the system if we abuse it.

I think we all know this is not the debate we should be having this week, and I would like to see us have a debate on how we could improve the economy while we deal with this so-called immediate need that we are talking about on the floor instead of the things we ought to be talking about.

I wish to talk for a few minutes about the announcements yesterday about how many people have signed up for the President's health care plan. As I said when the Web site wouldn't work, it is not about whether the Web site works. Frankly, it is not even about how many people sign up. This is about whether this is the right direction for us to go as a country. Is this health care more affordable, and will more people be insured, and will the people who are insured be insured with policies they can afford and coverage they want?

The President, of course, and everybody understands the Web site had its problems. I think we would be really remiss if we decided--if making the Web site work was the test of the program or, frankly, making people sign up was the test of the program.

This debate is not over. It shouldn't be over. We need to continue to look for ways to try to make this work better because I certainly continue to hear from Missourians who tell me that the course they are on is hurting their families, hurting their job opportunities.

The law of unintended consequences appears to be the law here that is most likely to be applied, the unintended consequences of people who are going to work part time, the unintended consequences of people who are looking at a job that used to be a full-time job but now the government said: You don't have to provide benefits unless somebody works 30 hours a week. I guess what the government really said was that you have to provide benefits when they do work 30 hours a week. But people immediately look at that and the society adjusts to that government determination. So suddenly people are working 28 and 29 and 20 hours without benefits where they might have been working those same hours before with some level of benefits or might have--more importantly for their families--been working full time before.

We are going to continue to talk about this law and how it serves people. Let me give a couple of quick examples as I conclude this morning.

I had a person in the office this morning who was here for another purpose. He is a radiologist from Cape Girardeau, MO, and he said he received notice that his insurance was going to go up $500 a month for the same coverage until the President made the decision to suspend the law, which is a totally different debate topic, whether the President can do that. But when the President suspended the application of this law, which everybody is supposed to be so excited about, they were able to keep the policy they had for another year, and it was $500 a month less--$6,000 a year less for that family.

Here is some information I got today from Sherry in Shelbyville, MO, who said that her 18-year-old son has had cerebral palsy his whole life. They had a medicine that works that allows him to deal with this. Last year a 3-month supply of this particular medicine went from $125 to $1,086--almost a $1,000 increase. But that may or may not be impacted by what is happening with overall health care policies. What was impacted this year was her family's deductible. Their deductible went from $500 to $5,000. They were paying $500 on a 3-month supply of medicine. A 1-year supply of that medicine cost a little over $4,000. They were paying $500 of that, and now they are paying all of that.

Her view--which would be the view of most working families--is: We had insurance we could afford, we had insurance that met our needs, and now we are paying $3,500 more than we were paying. For almost any family, $300 a month makes a big difference. It particularly makes a difference for families who are struggling and already dealing with a health problem.

Pete from Jackson, MO, receives health care benefits through his employer, but his wife and two children had health insurance through an independent carrier. His wife and children's plan will be dropped November 30 of this year. Their new plan will cost $1,200 per month instead of $530 for similar coverage they have right now.

By the way, these are just a few of the letters from the top of the list. If I had more time, I could certainly read more letters.

I have a letter from Greg who is from St. Joseph. His out-of-pocket expenses went from $2,500 per year to $10,000 per year. He is paying that by going into his 401(k) retirement plan. If anybody thinks Greg and his family are better off from this new change in the law by paying $10,000 out of pocket instead of the $2,500 out of pocket--and he is having to dip into his retirement plan to help pay for his health insurance--I would like to hear from them.

There are people who had insurance before this new law, and although they have insurance now through the exchange, they just happen to be paying in many cases a lot more and have a deductible that is a lot higher. I think that would be a great debate for us to have on the floor now that we know, as a country, what is at stake.

What do we do to be sure the best health care system in the world works better for everybody? How do we make changes so that those who are outside of the system have a better chance to be a part of that system rather than penalizing everybody who had insurance they thought was working for them?

I yield the floor to my friend from Rhode Island.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be here with my colleagues talking about ways we can get people back to work, regulations that don't make sense, and energy policies that clearly every economist we talk to understands are a key to the future.

I know the Republican leader has joined us on the floor, and I think I will ask him if he has some comments he would like to make, and then we can come back to me at the end of his comments.

Mr. President, Senator Thune, my friend from South Dakota, and I have worked for a long time on the kinds of economic and troublesome regulations he talked about earlier. Nobody appears to be answerable to the people--those who come forward with these regulations. I think he has an amendment on that, and I would afford him the chance to talk about that amendment.

Mr. President, let's talk about this topic a little longer--regulation. Again, in my view--and my friend from South Dakota and I have shared this view for a long time--when the Congress passes laws--and I think it is appropriate that we are not always in the best place to come up with the regulations that put those laws in place--I believe the country has clearly come to a place where nobody is then answerable for regulations that have a significant impact on our economy.

The Senator from Kentucky Mr. Paul and I have cosponsored the REINS Act, which addresses these laws that meet this kind of threshold, and it is a bill that was before the Congress, but we can't get that bill to the floor.

Senator Thune and I have worked for a long time on this kind of proposal that would simply create opportunity.

The emergency nature of the opportunity is really a 5-year emergency now where we have seen job opportunity after job opportunity go away. Part of that is surely because of what were the unintended but clear consequences of the Affordable Care Act, and part of it is rules and regulations that don't make sense to people who are about to take enough of a chance with their creation of opportunity for themselves and somebody else without having any idea that someone answerable to them is eventually going to have to answer for what the Federal Government does. And that is what bringing these regulations to the floor would do.

Nobody is saying Congress should be responsible for implementing every law and the goal of law, but we should be responsible for the impact of that law and should have the final say on rules and regulations that we have essentially started in motion. They should come back here.

If we don't do this on this bill today, we should do this. We should have done this years ago. Many of us in this body, in the Congress, have believed for a long time that this is one of the major impediments to job creation.

Another impediment is bad energy policy. That is why there are so many energy amendments. The amendment I offered where the Congress couldn't have a carbon tax unless it passed a threshold of 60 votes was offered in the budget debate last year, and 53 of my colleagues-- Democrats and Republicans here on the floor--agreed that, yes, we should have a special threshold.

When we talk about a tax that makes gas at the gasoline pump more expensive; that makes diesel fuel that delivers products more expensive; that raises the utility bill of everybody who has some element of fossil fuel in their utilities, and that is virtually everybody; that makes it less likely that people will create manufacturing jobs and those kinds of opportunities here, of course we ought to be talking about those kinds of policies, whether or not it is the carbon tax.

In Ohio, in Missouri, in Wyoming, in the vast middle of the country, our energy comes from fossil fuels. Those are the resources we have. Our focus should be on using those more effectively, not figuring out ways we shouldn't use them at all or figuring out ways to double the utility bill.

That is the EPA's own estimate of their own rule, that the utility bill, they say, will go up 80 percent if the rule is in place. I think that is probably a little optimistic on their part. Eighty percent is almost doubling your current utility bill. Think about where you work or your daughter-in-law works or your son-in-law works or somebody in your family works, doubling the utility bill there and wondering if there will still be a utility there or if that company will decide to go somewhere else. The incredibly capable and competitive American workforce is being held back by utility policies that stop people from making the investments they want to make.

The energy cost of manufacturing, according to the National Association of Manufacturers and others, is a key element now in that final decision to decide where you are going to build something, where you are going to make something, and, most importantly for families, where you are going to create a job that has the kind of take-home pay families need.

When we talk about the Keystone Pipeline, the ability to maximize our use of natural gas, of fracking for oil, we are talking about the great resources we have, and we should use those resources to our benefit. Every other country in the world, when they look at their tableaux of natural resources, the first two words that come to mind in every other country in the world are ``economic opportunity'' or ``economic advantage.'' What does this allow us to do that we couldn't do otherwise? What advantage does this give us over our competitors?

We shouldn't let the first two words that come to mind when we look at our

natural resources be ``environmental hazard.'' What is the worst thing that would happen and what would happen if that happened every day? No. 1, the worst thing to happen is something we should think about but not be overwhelmed by. We should see that that doesn't happen, and if it does happen, what are we immediately prepared to do about it so it does not become an ongoing problem? That is the whole formula it takes on the energy side, on the natural resources side to create opportunity.

The one thing government policies can do, although they can't create jobs, is they can create an environment where people want to create private sector jobs. That is and continues to be the No. 1 priority domestically this Congress should be focused on--what we do to create more private sector jobs. I think energy is a big part of that.

Certainly, my friend from Wyoming Senator Barrasso who has brought us together to talk about this, understands that so well. Energy and regulation policies that make sense are the kinds of policies that help us create the opportunities that hard-working families need and that families who would like to see somebody in their family have that job with great take-home pay are focused on.

I yield for my friend Senator Barrasso.

I thank my colleague from Delaware for his leadership on this issue. He has been indefatigable. He has been very strong on this issue. I think it is one of the most important issues that faces us.

I am not an economist; I am a country lawyer from Maine, but one of the things I know about any economy is you can't build an economy by taking in each other's laundry. Somebody somewhere has to make something, and that is the basis of wealth creation. Somehow in the 1980s, 1990s, and the early part of this century, we sort of lost sight of that and manufacturing took an enormous hit. We lost 32 percent of our manufacturing jobs in the decade from 2000 to 2010. We lost 42,000 factories--not people, 42,000 factories. Manufacturing was literally withering away in this country.

I think a lot of people sort of wrung their hands and said: Oh, well, I guess that is just the way of the world. It is all going to Asia, China, and Mexico. It is going to low-wage countries, and that is just the way it works.

The problem is, as my colleague from Delaware pointed out, Germany has gone in the opposite direction, and their country has the same standard of living, the same labor standards, the same employment cost levels, and yet 20 percent of their economy is based upon manufacturing; whereas, it is only 10 or 11 percent in this country. So that tells me it is not impossible. It tells me there is an opportunity here and that we can't just lay back and say: Well, I guess that is going to go away. Woe is us. That is never the way to seize the future.

Why do it? The Senator from Delaware said it: Better pay. In Maine, in looking at the data, employees in manufacturing on average make twice as much as employees in other areas--twice as much. There is a tremendous difference in pay, and of course a better difference in benefits. There is also a bigger multiplier for manufacturing. Manufacturing creates more jobs down the line and around a manufacturing facility. It is important for national security.

We are in danger of losing our industrial base, which is part of our national security infrastructure. If we can no longer make things-- whether it is destroyers at Bath Iron Works or jet airplanes or uniforms or boots or other things that are necessary to support our national security apparatus--we are in trouble, and that is a danger to our country. That is a national security danger because if we are dependent upon other countries that may or may not be our friends for essential components of our national security infrastructure, that is a very dangerous and risky place to be. That is not often talked about, but the maintenance of manufacturing jobs in the United States is a critical part of our industrial base and a part of our national security strategy.

Manufacturing allows for more exporting. It brings money into our country. Eighty-three percent of the exports from Maine come out of the manufacturing sector, and that is bringing money into our country rather than sending it out to other countries.

Also, I think it is very important to remember that this is a way of dealing with what I think is one of the most serious issues of our time, which is income inequality. It is the widening gap between those at the top and those at the bottom, and what is really a concern is the stagnation, and, in fact, the decline of the American middle class.

Manufacturing was the path into the middle class for our parents and grandparents. The manufacturing resurgence after World War II--by the way, part of that resurgence was based upon the GI bill, probably the greatest economic development program ever fostered by any government anywhere in the world--which helped to create the middle class is in danger. One of the ways to preserve and strengthen the middle class-- and to deal with this problem of income inequality--is more manufacturing and more of those good jobs.

This is the 100th anniversary of one of the most amazing and transformative actions in American corporate history. The year was 1914 when Henry Ford doubled the pay of all of his workers. Everybody was astonished. His competitors were aghast. The advocates of unbridled capitalism said: How can he do this? Henry Ford was a genius in many ways. But one of his insights was he wanted his workers to be able to buy his products, and one of the problems in our economy today is a lack of demand. The people of the middle class don't have enough income to buy the products and it becomes a downward spiral. It is a lack of demand that is truly at the heart of the weakness of the current economy, and it is because people don't have good enough jobs and they are not being paid enough.

Henry Ford realized if he paid his workers more--and, by the way, that munificent sum in 1914 was $5 a day, but it was a doubling of what the rate of pay was everywhere else in American society at that time. That was a huge breakthrough intellectually, economically, and socially for this country.

OK. We talked about the losses. There is some good news. In the last 2\1/2\ years we have gained 500,000 jobs. We lost 6 million in that decade, but now we have gained 500,000 back. So something is happening. A lot of different things are happening. The low price of natural gas I think is helping to rejuvenate manufacturing. I know it is in Maine. I think there is more innovation happening around the country. People are realizing--I have talked to manufacturers who have been offshore and have come back because they said the offshore factory was a little cheaper, the labor costs were less, but the hassle factor was higher, and what I have learned is I can control costs, I can control transportation, I can control time limits better if the manufacturing is in the United States.

So what do we do? What do we do if we want to increase manufacturing? We can't wave a wand here in Washington. We can't say, well, go out and create jobs. We have to create an atmosphere where we can create jobs.

When my little girl Molly, who is not so little anymore, was in the third grade, I used to teach her things with pneumonics. I would say the three Xs or the three Ys or whatever. In this case, if she were here and she were still in the third grade, I would say it is the four Ps, Molly. It is the four Ps that are going to make this happen. The first is a plan. Nothing happens without a strategy or a vision or a plan. This bill has a vision of how to link innovation and the American economy and manufacturing in such a way as to create and rejuvenate this sector. A plan--we have to start with a plan or a vision.

The second P is partnerships, and this bill is based on partnerships. Nothing good happens without partnerships. It is based upon linking the academic world with the manufacturing world with government; putting those partnerships together, mostly universities and manufacturing, to create innovation, to create new jobs, to create new ways of building wealth. We don't have to look much further than Silicon Valley in California. That is a perfect example of a natural born innovation hub built around several knowledge factories: Stanford University, University of California, University of San Francisco. Knowledge factories, together with manufacturers, created one of the greatest hotbeds--probably the greatest hotbed--of innovation, creativity, and new wealth creation in the history of this country and perhaps in the history of the world. We want to create these kinds of hubs all over the country, putting together the academic community and the business community to develop the capacity for innovation and creativity.

I should mention--it is not part of this bill, but the other thing I think we have to do a lot of thinking about is the skills gap. I got a call right after my election from a chamber of commerce director in southern Maine and

he said: Senator, we want you to come down and talk about jobs.

I said: Oh, OK. I will. And I was prepared to talk about how to create jobs and add jobs.

He said: No, no, it is not that. The problem is we have 500 jobs and we can't fill them. These are good-paying jobs in manufacturing, and we can't fill them because the people we need aren't available with the skills we need. There is a mismatch.

I believe one of the things we have to do around here is think hard about all the programs--I think there are something like 59 different Federal job training programs--how to integrate them, coordinate them, and focus them on business-ready jobs, not 10-years-ago jobs but the jobs of today. Therefore, I think the coordination and cooperation between business and the job training infrastructure has to be much closer than it is today.

That gets me to S. 1468. I think it is a wonderful idea. One of the best parts of it is that it is bipartisan. This is an idea that is supported--Sherrod Brown and Roy Blunt were the spearheads of it, and then we have people such as Roger Wicker, the Senator from Mississippi, and the Senator from Delaware; we have a good bipartisan group from around the country geographically and across party lines. This is what we have to do. Why is it so important? Because what drives new manufacturing jobs is innovation.

When I was Governor of Maine, somebody gave me a cap and on it it said ``innovate or die.'' Bill Gates once famously said: Every product we make today is going to be obsolete in 5 years. The only question is whether we make it obsolete or someone else does.

Innovation is the heart of this economy. That is why we have to put together the knowledge factories with the production factories--the knowledge factories, the universities, such as the University of Maine, that has the advanced composites lab that has created amazing new ways to deal with composites. One of their creations is the bridge and a backpack. The bridge and a backpack is a composite system which I have seen in action. They are long tubes made of fiberglass. You spread the tubes out, fill them with concrete, mold them into the shape you want, and in about 3 or 4 days you have a bridge, and you put the deck over it. It is a wonderful system. It came out of the University of Maine and now it is being used across the country.

The other piece I like about this is that it isn't a government program. Government is the catalyst, the convener, the pulling together of these hubs, and that is, I think, our function. We shouldn't be doing it. We shouldn't be steering it, but we should be launching it, and that is what this bill is all about. Does it solve all the problems of manufacturing? Of course not. There are dozens of things we have to do in order to support this industry, whether it is tax reform, job training or innovation hubs and more support for R&D. All of those we have to do, but I think this is one of the most important, and we don't have to guess about it. It works in Germany. They have twice the role for manufacturing in their economy as we do. It works. So let's see what we can do here with the same idea.

I compliment the Senator from Delaware and the others who have led this bill, and I am delighted to be able to tag along. I think this is a great idea. It truly can make a difference, and I think we will see that difference in the coming years.

I yield the floor.

I like the Senator's suggestion of a hub in Maine involving composites. Could we write that in the bill? I wouldn't object to that amendment.

I think this is such an important idea, and in my comments I outlined how we get here. We start with a vision or a plan which the bill entails, and we start with partnerships, which is truly the essence of the bill, but there are two more pieces. There are two more Ps. One is perseverance. Any Member of this body knows about perseverance. That is what this place is all about. We have to stick to it. We have to not take no for an answer. We have to listen to our colleagues to find out how they feel about the bill and try to form a consensus and then move this bill through.

Last Friday was the 100th birthday of Ed Muskie of Maine. Ed Muskie was the father of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. Talk about perseverance. He spent 2 years, hundreds of hearings, hundreds of hours of markup and ended up with that bill passing the Senate unanimously-- unanimously. That is a monument to perseverance.

Normally, I would say those are the three Ps: plan, partnership, and perseverance, but I think there is one more, and I am sure my colleague from Delaware agrees with me.

Nothing is going to happen without passion. We have to care about this. The people of America have to care about this. We have to say that this is something we are going to do. We are going to rebuild the manufacturing centers that made this country what it was--a sector that made this country what it was. We are going to have to do it with passion and commitment. I believe this bill is an opportunity to restart that process.

It will, and as I mentioned earlier, it can change us and provide benefits everywhere from higher wages to better national security to a stronger middle class. A plan, a partnership, perseverance, and passion--that is what changes the world.

Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Virginia. I think they were timely and important. I wanted to add one note. The Senator and I were in a hearing yesterday in the Budget Committee with three eminent economists--one was a Noble Prize winner-- talking about income inequality and the status of our economy and where we are going.

But there was one aspect of the Affordable Care Act that came up in a discussion that really has gotten essentially no play whatsoever, no discussion in the press or in the media. I think in the long run it may turn out to be one of the most important aspects of the Affordable Care Act. It came home to me 2 weeks ago. Every Wednesday morning I have a coffee in my office here in the Senate office building for anybody from Maine that happens to be in town, whatever reason they are here, whether they are touring or have business in Washington. They can come in and have some blueberry muffins and some Maine coffee.

I met a couple there. The woman, in talking to us--she was down touring and everything. She said: By the way, thanks for supporting the Affordable Care Act.

I said: Oh, well, that is great. I appreciate that. Why do you say that?

She said: Because I have been in a job for a number of years that I do not like. But I could not leave it because it was how I got my health insurance. My husband does not have health insurance. So I had to stay in the job in order to keep the health insurance. She said: Now under the Affordable Care Act, I have an option to get health insurance at a reasonable price so I can leave this job and start my own business.

After I had this discussion, I did a little research. It turns out there is an economic term for this. It is called job lock. All over the country there are thousands, perhaps even millions, of people who are locked into a job where they are not feeling very appreciated, where they are not really enjoying it, where they are not expressing their productivity and their talents fully because they could not leave their insurance.

Now they can. There is a lot of talk around here about job creators. The job creators are the people that start businesses, the entrepreneurs. Those are the job creators. This is going to lead to an explosion of new businesses, of people who do not have to stay in the job that they are in simply because of their health insurance but have the option to go out and start a business of their own because they can get their health insurance at a reasonable price through the Affordable Care Act.

So there is a lot to discuss about the Affordable Care Act. But this is one of the aspects of it that has been underappreciated. As the years go on, we are going to see a decrease in people uninsured--which we are already starting to see--and we are going to see an increase in small businesses because people no longer have to stay in their jobs simply to maintain their insurance.

I yield the floor.