Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2013

I come to the floor to speak about a real opportunity that we have this week in this Congress and in this Senate to come together in a bipartisan way to adopt measures that will actually create jobs and help grow our economy.

This week we are considering tax extenders, a package of bills that can do a lot of good for the middle class, our economy, and our Nation. Together, various proposals in the tax extenders would spur investment in manufacturing, clean energy, and innovation, make it easier for families to afford a home or to send their children to college, open career pathways for veterans, and bring investments in jobs to communities in need. They recently passed by a voice vote out of the Finance Committee in the Senate, sending an important signal that we can come together, Democrats and Republicans, to move our economy forward.

I mentioned innovation and manufacturing in particular as two of the policies this broader package helps promote. I would like to discuss two important bipartisan policies in this package, bills that have been rolled into the extenders package that can do a lot of good for startups and for innovative small manufacturers and for firms that invest heavily in the research and development that is needed to yield groundbreaking discoveries and steadily grow manufacturing employment in the United States.

R&D, research and development, is the cornerstone of any competitive company, and I would suggest country. In the 21st century for us to have and sustain an innovative economy, it is certainly the cornerstone of our Nation's future. That is why, for a number of years, bipartisan majorities in Congress have supported the R&D tax credit so innovative companies are incentivized to keep investing in critically needed R&D, in new ideas, and in new products, but there has long been a problem with the structure of the R&D credit. It doesn't reach early stage startup companies, those that are most innovative and those that have the greatest promise to grow.

As the GAO has reported, over half of the current R&D credit goes to firms making over $1 billion. Although they are important as well, it has become clear we are missing an opportunity to incentivize the most innovative, smallest startup companies, especially in manufacturing, an industry that I know invests a huge amount in R&D but has had a challenging environment competitively and globally in the past decade because the R&D credit is a credit and not a tax--and is a credit only if you have a tax liability, only if your company is profitable. A preprofitable company can't access it.

If you are a small business that pays AMT, while there are many credits you could claim, the R&D isn't one of them, even though it is so important to our commitment. This leaves out firms at the early stage, where they are facing the highest risk of failure but who are also the kind of technology-focused, early stage, high-growth, high- potential businesses that have generated more net jobs than any other area of our economy in this century.

These firms, that are sometimes called gazelle firms, are young innovative businesses with the potential to explode in size and create hundreds or thousands of jobs. Think of Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak in a California garage starting what would become Apple or think of Rick Birkmeyer or Ray Yin in Delaware, my home State.

Rick Birkmeyer is an entrepreneur who has started a number of successful biotech companies in the Delaware region. He is someone with a reputation as a leader in his field. Even so, raising capital for a new startup venture is always a challenge. Rick today is the founder of CD Diagnostics, a leader in biomarker research and biochemical

test development that makes tests to tell if a joint is infected or merely irritated. These tests would help orthopedic surgeons determine if surgery is needed and avoid a great deal of expensive and sometimes unnecessary exploratory procedures. The company is only a few years old and began with one employee. Today they have 82 and believe they will have well over 170 in just 2 more years.

Exponential hockey stick-like growth such as this is great, but if he and his company were able to use the R&D credit before they reach profitability, they would be able to hire more people, grow more quickly by investing in equipment, and get products to market faster.

Another young Delaware company that would benefit from the tax credit is ANP of Newark, DE. I sat next to its CEO Ray Yin at the Wesley College graduation this weekend, where he gave the keynote address. Ray's company, ANP, began with just one employee--him. Today it is a leader in making nanotherapeutics and in biodefense technology that is affordable, wearable, and easy to use, whether testing against biochemical agents in the war setting or food-borne illnesses or water contamination at home.

Both of these two companies make terrific, compelling, technology- based products, have managed their cash well, and are great examples of how to run a startup. But for each of them they went through a very demanding period from their first capital investment to when they had reliable revenue coming in. That is often called the valley of death or the gap between launch and sustainability. They would be farther along, more mature, and more robust if they had been able to access the R&D credit with their early expenditures.

Over the past few years I have been working diligently with a group of fellow Senators, Republicans and Democrats, to find ways that we could work together to reshape and target a portion of the R&D credit to make it accessible to these sorts of early stage companies.

I want to give particular credit to Republican Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming, who has been tireless and thoughtful. We have not always agreed--we come from quite different political perspectives--but his investment of time and thoughtfulness in crafting the final outcome of the Startup Innovation Credit Act is worthy of thanks and a compliment.

Senator Schumer on the Finance Committee has helped move the R&D credit revision forward into the tax extenders package.

Manufacturing Jobs for America is a broader initiative that more than 26 Senators have participated in that includes more than 33 bills. This bill, the Startup Innovation Credit Act, is one of them, one of many bipartisan bills that can help manufacturers to grow, can help them to invest, and can help them get through a critical, early stage period.

Mr. Pat Roberts, Republican Senator of Kansas, has also worked with me, as well as with Senators Enzi and Schumer, on a revision to the R&D credit that isn't available to firms, mostly small businesses, that pay the AMT, so we changed that as well. Both of these provisions have been adopted into the tax extender package.

I also wanted to mention the first one I referenced, the Startup Innovation Credit Act, was also supported and has been moved forward with contributions by Senators Rubio, Blunt, Stabenow, Moran, and Kaine.

This is a terrific way for us to find a path forward for companies that are still too early in their development to pay employment taxes but to use a fix that allows them to claim the R&D credit against employment taxes when they aren't yet paying income taxes.

This kind of credit has been used before in States such as Iowa, Arizona, New York, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. And they have been game changers--helping new firms to open their doors, to hire more workers, and to keep their doors open. By allowing companies to claim the R&D credit against either the AMT or their payroll tax obligations, we don't pick winners and losers and we don't focus on a specific area of the economy or technology. What we are doing instead is supporting any private sector firm that invests in research and development. It means cash in the pockets of small startup companies, which can make a critical difference, especially when financing and credit are tight.

Together, these bipartisan proposals can do a lot to put more Americans to work today unleashing the innovations that will create the jobs of tomorrow. I believe the Federal role in research and innovation is fundamental. It is also bipartisan.

I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their partnership and collaboration. I specifically thank the chair of the Finance Committee Senator Ron Wyden for his leadership in ensuring that the tax extenders package is available for us to consider now on the floor, that these provisions were included, and for his support for moving forward on these vital job-creating proposals.

Now let's work together in this Chamber to move across the finish line and get the job done so America can get more of our best people to work.

I thank the Chair.

Supporting Law Enforcement

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to recognize the men and women of law enforcement across this Nation in the annual police week ceremonies. From last night's candlelight vigil to tomorrow's wreath- laying ceremony, we here in the Capitol offer our gratitude, our thanks, and our support to the men and women of law enforcement and their families.

I wish to comment for a few moments today on how difficult it was earlier today to be a Member of this body as two different Senators, who are strong supporters of law enforcement, came to this floor in an attempt to move forward important pieces of legislation only to have that effort blocked.

Earlier today Senator Patrick Leahy, the President pro tempore and the chair of the Judiciary Committee, came to the floor to seek unanimous consent to move forward the Federal bulletproof vest partnership reauthorization bill that came out of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland came to the floor to seek unanimous consent to move forward with the bipartisan Blue Alert bill. I am a cosponsor of both bills. Both have very broad support within the law enforcement community, and both are bipartisan bills. Yet, in each case, one Senator--one Senator--objected to our proceeding to consideration of these bills.

I want to share with those of us here in the Chamber that earlier today, at a hearing in the Judiciary Committee considering again the value and the impact of the Federal bulletproof vest partnership, we had a chance to hear from Officer Ann Carrizales from Texas, who gave riveting, moving testimony about how a bulletproof vest, provided to her by her smalltown department in Texas, saved her life when she was shot at point-blank range in a routine traffic stop very early in the morning. Today her husband would be a widower and her daughter an orphan were it not for this vital Federal-State-local partnership that has provided more than 1 million bulletproof vests over the many years it has enjoyed broad bipartisan support.

With us this morning were two Delaware Capitol police officers, Sergeant Mike Manley and Corporal Steve Rinehart. With them as well was Chief Horsman of the capitol police department. Both of these brave officers were on duty in the lobby of the New Castle County courthouse last year when a gunman entered the chamber and started firing at random. They were both shot, and they both survived because of bulletproof vests provided to them in part through this Federal-State partnership.

We cannot let down the men and women of law enforcement. We should not let partisan politics and ideology in this Chamber prevent us from moving forward in a bipartisan way to deliver the officer-safety investments and improvements that have already cleared the Judiciary Committee, that already have bipartisan support from both sides of the aisle, and allow one individual to continue to hold up these important bills.

It is my call to my colleagues that we work tirelessly together to make sure we overcome this needless obstruction and move forward this week to honor the service and sacrifice of those 268 law enforcement officers whose names have been added to the memorial this year and the hundreds of

thousands of others who even today, even tonight will be on patrol keeping America safe.

I thank the Chair.

With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, today the Senate will begin consideration of the Expiring Provisions Improvement, Reform, and Efficiency Act, otherwise known as the EXPIRE Act. This legislation has, so far, moved forward in a cooperative, bipartisan fashion, and I am hoping that spirit will continue here on the floor.

It seems that the new norm for tax policy around here is conducting this ritual where tax provisions expire, we wait until the following year to decide which ones to extend, and then we finally enact them into law for 1 retroactive year and 1 prospective year.

When that happens, half of the benefit is more of a windfall rather than an incentive. And, needless to say, this process causes great uncertainty when businesses and individuals try to manage their taxes and budgets.

I am not casting blame on anyone for this flawed methodology. Indeed, both parties share responsibility for how the tax extenders process has devolved over the years. I think the American people deserve better.

I share the view of many on both sides of the aisle--including both chairmen of the tax-writing committees--that comprehensive tax reform will be necessary to ensure long-term growth and prosperity in our economy. When it comes to tax policy, that type of reform should be our ultimate goal. Hopefully, if we can reform our Nation's Tax Code, this process of extending certain provisions over and over will come to an end. However, I am not naive.

Fundamental tax reform is unlikely to take place in the immediate future. That being the case, Congress needs to work to address the tax relief provisions that expired last year or will expire by the end of this year, and we need to do so in a timely fashion.

The EXPIRE Act should serve as a starting point for temporarily resolving the expired and expiring tax provisions. The Senate Finance Committee voted to report the EXPIRE Act on April 3, 2014. It passed through the committee by a voice vote. Not every member supported the final bill, but

the committee process was, from the outset, constructive and inclusive and allowed for the full participation of both Democrats and Republicans. I give the distinguished chairman a lot of credit for that.

I have to commend Chairman Wyden, who conducted a fair and open debate on tax extenders during the Finance Committee markup. His approach was a prime example of how the Finance Committee is supposed to operate and, in my view, it should serve as a model for all of the Senate committees in how they should consider legislation in their various jurisdictions.

The process reminds me of a historical analogy with respect to the chairman's home State of Oregon. Everyone knows about the Oregon Trail. Thousands of pioneers started in Independence, MO, and traveled to Independence, OR. They used covered wagons. In fact, the covered wagon is part of Oregon's State seal. The pioneers followed the ruts that previous wagons had cut.

Like those pioneers, the chairman has taken this tax extenders wagon, following the bipartisan, inclusive ruts of the legislative trails charted by previous chairmen of the Finance Committee. I hope we can stay on this trail now that the bill is on the floor.

In the end, of the 55 or so tax extenders considered by the Finance Committee, only two were not extended. Personally, I would have preferred seeing a smaller number of extended provisions, continuing the process we started in 2012 of reducing the number of tax extenders.

But, in the end, the final product represented the consensus views of the committee, and I have been very pleased to work with Chairman Wyden in the process.

As I said during the markup on the EXPIRE Act, as the committee has considered these extenders package, Chairman Wyden and I have worn two hats. We have represented the interests of our respective States and we have also been brokers of the diverse interests of all of the members of the committee. That has meant compromise. Compromise has meant some outcomes that were likely not optimal from at least one of our perspectives.

With the bill coming to the floor, we are wearing a third hat, respecting the interests of our respective caucuses. Needless to say, this can be difficult, but it is what we have to do. When we dive into the list of these expiring tax provisions, we can easily see that this package touches upon many facets of our economy from housing to energy and from startups to larger corporations that are important to so many industries and important in each and every State.

I am glad to see the research and development tax credit, which is so important to businesses in my home State of Utah, included in the bill reported out of the Finance Committee. I know there are other provisions included in this package that are important to other States. My hope is that the floor debate on this extenders package will resemble the debate we had in the Finance Committee. That means a fair and transparent process and an opportunity for Senators to offer amendments.

The Senate is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. Sadly, it is difficult to call it that these days unless one is being sarcastic. I have been pretty sarcastic about it. A number of my colleagues, led of course by our distinguished minority leader, have come to the floor in recent months to talk about the degradation of Senate rules and procedure that has taken place under the current majority. They have done so with good reason.

On bill after bill the process is the same. The majority leader brings a bill to the floor, immediately files cloture, even though there is no desire to filibuster on our side, accuses the Republicans of filibustering, fills the amendment tree, and blocks consideration of any and all amendments.

There is a time to fill the procedural tree, but that is only after full and fair debate and when it has carried on too long and the leader finally decides we have to bring this to a close. But all too often, every time we turn around, the leader has brought the bill to the floor, filed cloture, as though we are filibustering when we are not, and then fills the parliamentary tree so we cannot have amendments.

Of course, those steps are usually preceded by a short-circuited committee process, wherein committee consideration of the bill is either significantly abbreviated or passed entirely. This is not how the Senate is supposed to operate. With this bill we have a chance to do things differently.

As I have mentioned, the EXPIRE Act has already had full and fair consideration in the Finance Committee. The bill was drafted in consultation with all of the members of the committee. I was one who helped make sure that happened. When we held a markup, all Senators were allowed to offer amendments and receive votes on those amendments. Why not continue that process, as we have in the past, on the almighty floor of the Senate.

It is ridiculous the way the minority is being treated, and I think even the majority Senators are being mistreated with the way this outfit is being run right now. While I am satisfied with the way the Finance Committee handled the tax extenders package, the vast majority of Senators do not serve on the Finance Committee. That being the case, most Senators have not had a chance to fully debate these tax provisions or even offer amendments of their own, which they ought to have the right to do.

They deserve that opportunity. I expect a number of my colleagues, particularly on the Republican side, have amendments that would improve this bill by helping to grow our economy and to create jobs. I have a number of amendments I would like to offer myself. Over the next few days I will be on the floor to talk about some of them. Let's have a floor debate that is worthy of the Senate. This is not some itty-bitty bill. This is a very important bill. It can set the trend for tax reform that should come in the future.

Let's allow Members of both parties to offer amendments and have votes on those amendments. Let's show the American people that Senators know how to work together to solve problems for American businesses and for our citizens. Too often the Senate devolves into yet another partisan sideshow where politics are placed above progress.

As I said, it does not have to be this way. Once again, I am pleased I have had this opportunity to work with my colleague Chairman Wyden to move the EXPIRE Act forward. He has done a very good job. He deserves a lot of credit for it. He does not deserve having that work stymied because people do not have a chance to offer amendments on the floor of the Senate.

My only hope is, now that the bill is on the floor, the Senate Democratic leadership will follow his example and allow for a full and fair debate of this legislation. To be honest with you, I do not know what they are afraid of. Yes, there may be some amendments that are tough to vote on, but that is part of the process. It is part of what makes the Senate, when it functions right, the great body it can be.

I understand the majority leader wanting to preserve his side in the upcoming election. I think our minority leader wants to preserve his side and maybe add to it in the upcoming election. I understand these are important considerations, but the rights of Senators on both sides are to be considered here and ought to be given not just consideration but given the respect the Senate should give to each and every Member of the Senate.

I have to say I am very disappointed in what is going on around here. I am not the only one. Virtually everybody is. I know some are disappointed on the Democratic side as well.

One of the problems is that a high percentage of the Democratic side, they have never been in the minority. They do not know what it is like to have to fight for everything you can possibly get, but they are going to be there someday, whether it is this election or some election in the future. They are going to realize, for the first time, that you do not break the rules to amend the rules. Those rules are important.

Frankly, they are going to realize this should continue to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. Unfortunately, right now it is not. It is not because of the leadership we have in this body. We have to make those

changes. This is a bill to start on because this is a bill that I think everybody is interested in. It is a very important bill. It is a bill that has been labored on in the Finance Committee for quite a long time.

It has taken years to get to this point. Certainly at markup it made a lot of sense. Do I support everything in this bill? No. There are some things I do not think should be in there. On the other hand, there were some sincere colleagues who felt they should be in there. They were able to prevail. I respect that. We ought to respect both sides. Unfortunately, I think our side is being disrespected the way the Senate is being handled today. It is time to stop it. This is a bill to stop it on. This is the type of bill that both sides have to take great interest in. This is a bill where we can set the tone for tax reform in the future.

I think it is time to wake up around here and start letting the Senate operate as the Senate should operate, as the greatest deliberative body in the world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, first of all, I wish to thank my colleague Senator Warren, who is joining me on the floor. We are here together to talk about a question that could not be more critical to family budgets and to our economy as a whole; that is, what can we do to break down the barriers that women still face in our workforce and make sure women and their families have the fair shot they deserve. This is a question I know Senator Warren cares very deeply about. She has brought an enormous amount of leadership and focus to this debate. I am very appreciative that she is here to speak. So I would yield to her first and then I will finish speaking when she gets done.

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts again for all of her extremely hard and important work to expand economic opportunity and security for women and their families.

She has been an extremely important voice in this debate, and I am delighted she is joining us today.

Yesterday I held a hearing on this topic in the Senate Budget Committee. We invited a working mother, whose name was AnnMarie Duchon, to testify about some of the challenges that she had faced. AnnMarie told us that she loves her job at the University of Massachusetts- Amherst, but since the day that she started, she made a lower salary than her male counterpart who was doing the exact same job. They had the exact same responsibilities. Both of them had taken a pay cut to accept that job, and they both graduated from the same university in the same year.

When AnnMarie found out that he was making more than she was--even though they had the exact same resume, qualifications, and years of graduation--she went in and asked for a raise. She was told that she couldn't have one.

She stayed on that job and continued to work hard. It wasn't until her husband's job was at risk that she started thinking about how much those lost wages meant to her and her family.

She ran the numbers, and she found out that over the years she had missed out on more than $12,000 in wages compared to her male counterpart who was doing the exact same work.

AnnMarie and her husband are first generation college graduates. They have a 5-year-old daughter who is in full-time daycare because both AnnMarie and her husband have to work.

AnnMarie told us yesterday that when she realized her lost income amounted to 1 year's worth of child care or 10 months of payments on their mortgage or student loans, she said that was heartbreaking. AnnMarie was ultimately able to go back and convince her employers--by showing them the math--to give her equal pay.

But as we know, unfortunately, most women are not able to do that and many don't even know that they are

earning an unfair wage. That is a real loss, both for our families and for our economy as a whole.

We heard what $12,000 could have meant for AnnMarie's household budget, but women's contributions in the workforce have also made a huge difference to our overall economic strength.

As working families have felt more and more strained by the rising costs for everything from college tuition to childcare and health care, and an economy in which the gap between those at the top and everyone else seems to be getting wider and wider, women's economic contributions have helped ease the burden.

Economist Heather Boushey, who also testified yesterday at our hearing, found in a recent study that between 1979 and 2012 the U.S. economy grew by almost 11 percent as a result of women joining our labor force. As we think today about ways to support growth in the 21st century, it is absolutely clear our country's economic success and that of our middle-class families go hand-in-hand with women's economic success.

So we have a lot more work to do because despite all the progress we have made and all the glass ceilings that have been broken, women still face barriers that are holding them, their families, and our economy back.

Stories such as AnnMarie's--stories of women who received lower wages for the same exact work as men--are still far too common. Because women are more likely to be the primary caregiver in a family, the lack of paid leave at most jobs means women today experience higher turnover, lost earnings, and are more likely to be passed over for promotions that would help them advance.

In addition, our outdated Tax Code works against married women who choose to go back to work as a second earner because their earnings are counted on top of their spouse's. They can actually be taxed at a higher rate, and that deters some mothers from choosing to re-enter the workforce, especially when you consider the high cost and lack of access to high-quality childcare.

Those kinds of challenges are especially pronounced for women and, in particular, mothers, who are struggling today to make ends meet. We know that two-thirds of minimum wage earners are women. Their jobs are disproportionately unlikely to offer any flexibility when, for example, a child gets sick or needs to be picked up early from school. And their earnings are quickly swallowed by costs associated with work, such as childcare or transportation.

It is also important to note that our outdated policies disproportionately affect women when it comes to their retirement security because, on average, women earn less than men, accumulate less in savings, and receive smaller pensions. Today nearly 3 in 10 women over 65 depend on Social Security for their only income in their later years.

All of my colleagues and I should be alarmed that the average Social Security benefit for women over 65 is just $13,100 per year. Imagine living on that. That is not enough to feel financially secure.

The impact of these barriers is increasingly clear. Over the last decade the share of women in the labor force has actually stalled, even as other countries have continued to see more women choosing to go to work. Experts believe that a major reason for that is that, unlike in many other countries, in the United States we have not updated our policies to reflect our 21st century workforce and help today's two- earner families succeed.

At a time when we need to be doing everything we can to grow our economy and strengthen our middle class, that is not acceptable. Women have to have an equal shot at success. First and foremost, that means we need to end unfair practices that set women back financially.

We took a very good step forward with the Affordable Care Act, which prevents insurance companies today from charging women more than men for coverage--which they did before that Act. But we need to do more to make sure women are getting equal pay for equal work.

My good friend and colleague Chairman Mikulski has led the way on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would provide women with more tools to fight paycheck discrimination. Giving the millions of women earning the minimum wage a raise--as Senator Warren just talked about--would also go a long way toward that effort. Of course, we have to update our Tax Code so that mothers who are returning to the workforce do not face a marriage penalty.

In addition to expanding the earned income tax credit for childless workers, the 21th Century Worker Tax Cut Act that I introduced would provide a 20-percent deduction on the second earner's income for working families with young children to help them keep more of what they earned.

As we get rid of these discriminatory practices, we should also recognize the challenges that working parents face, and we should put in place a set of policies that help them at work and at home. A big part of that is investing in expanded access to affordable, high- quality childcare. When parents go to work, they deserve to know that their child is safe and thriving while they are at work. There are many steps that this Congress could and should take through our Tax Code and by building on successful programs, such as Head Start, to help give working parents the peace of mind they deserve.

Finally, we need to build on and strengthen Social Security with policies that make it easier for women and their families to build a secure retirement. There is, of course, a lot more that we can do in addition, but I believe any one of those changes would have a real impact.

As the Presiding Officer knows from our Budget Committee hearing yesterday, AnnMarie testified and told us that she hopes when her daughter enters the workforce, pay inequity will be just as much of a relic as the days before the iPhone.

I could not agree more.

Acting to expand economic opportunity for women is the right thing to do. It is part of our ongoing work to uphold our country's most fundamental values. But as our country's recent history shows, it is also an economic necessity--both for our families and for our broader economy.

That is why it is so disappointing to see that when it comes to issues affecting women. Some of our Republican colleagues are laser- focused on turning back the clock. We saw this just yesterday when the senior Senator from South Carolina came to the floor and tried to pass an extreme bill that would severely limit women's reproductive rights.

Women today would much rather see Congress focusing on expanding opportunity and helping working families than on getting in between a woman and her doctor.

Over the next few months, we are going to see Democrats continuing to fight for goals such as achieving pay equity, providing access to affordable childcare, and raising the minimum wage--all of which would move women, families, and our economy forward not backward.

I hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be willing to join us in this very important effort.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, a number of people have asked me to comment about the situation since President Putin has moved aggressively with regard to Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, which has therefore brought about some retaliation of sanctions by the United States against Russia.

We are now hearing comments--a number of troubling statements--coming out of Russia by the Deputy Prime Minister, who has the responsibility for defense and aerospace, regarding the U.S. development of rockets that can again take Americans, on American rockets, to and from the International Space Station. He has made a sarcastic comment, something to the effect of, well, how do the Americans think they are going to get to the space station--on a trampoline? And then most recently a statement having been issued in his name that the Russian rocket company will not sell the very efficient and very energetic Russian rocket engine, the RD-180, to the United States for military purposes.

This is a very complex issue. It affects not only our military access to space, it affects our civilian access to space. I will see if I can dissect this in about 4 minutes, as a number of people have asked me about this. This will be an issue, for example, next week in the markup in the Senate Armed Services Committee of the Armed Services Defense authorization bill.

First, let's go back and see the history. How do we have this relationship with Russia and what is it?

In the midst of the Cold War, when there were the two super powers, the Soviet Union and the United States decided to cooperate in space in the civilian program. In the midst of the Cold War, a Russian Soyuz and an American Apollo spacecraft--Apollo-Soyuz as it is known-- rendezvoused and docked, and the crews lived together in space for 9 days in 1975.

By the way, those two crews led by General Alexsei Leonov of the Soviet Union and Gen. Tom Stafford, U.S. Air Force, NASA astronaut, Apollo 10 that went to the Moon--they are close personal friends and have seen each other over the course of the years many times.

In 1985 I had the privilege as a young Congressman to take a delegation to the Soviet Union on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of Apollo-Soyuz, with our Apollo astronauts joining in Moscow with the Soviet cosmonauts. So there is a long history.

But now fast forward to, I believe, the year 1991 and the complete destruction of the old Soviet Union. All the satellite states went elsewhere. By the way, this was in August and September of 1991, interestingly, after a delegation of American astronauts and Soviet cosmonauts in April of 1991 all joined together out at Star City where they train their cosmonauts, and then we all went in a Soviet military plane out to Kazakhstan to the launch site on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the launch of the first human into space--a Russian, Yuri Gargarin. A few months later, the Soviet Union disintegrated.

So the United States had a choice to make: All of those very bright, very effective Russian scientists in their defense program and in their space program--and often their civilian space program was directly linked to their Soviet military program--where were all those scientists going to go? We didn't want them to go to Iran, North Korea, and China.

So I believe Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat, and Senator Dick Lugar, a Republican, led the effort to put together the Nunn-Lugar bill, which started sending American assistance to try to stop the scientists from fleeing into other hands and especially to corral all of the nuclear weapons the Soviet Union had, and that was done very effectively.

Then when Russia opened its former Soviet closed doors, we found out Russian scientists and engineers had manufactured this exceptionally efficient and powerful engine, kerosene and LOx--liquid oxygen--called the RD-180. As a result, we worked out a deal between American aerospace companies and the Russian company Energomash, where instead of these engines going all across the world, we were going to use them together. So the United States through its rocket manufacturers--I believe Pratt & Whitney--got the license to this and the plans to the engine, but they also had an agreement that they would buy these from the Russian rocket manufacturer.

Today that engine is a staple and necessary engine in our stable of horses to get into space, both military and civilian, because it is the main engines on what we use today, the Atlas V rocket. This is a proven rocket. It has had an unblemished record, and that unblemished record has been something close to, if not over, 100 straight flights without a flaw. It is being planned in the future by Boeing to put a Boeing spacecraft on top of that rocket for humans to go to and from the space station. Another company called Sierra Nevada has created a smaller winged spacecraft also for humans--not unlike the space shuttle but much smaller--that will go on top of the Atlas V. They, along with a third competitor, SpaceX, which has built its own rocket called the Falcon 9, with its spacecraft the Dragon capsule--those three will compete to see if one or all three will deliver humans--American and Russian--to the International Space Station in the future instead of us having to rely, after we shut down the space shuttle, on the only manned, human-tested rocket to get us to and from the space station now, which is the Soyuz, the Russian rocket that launches from Baikonur, Kazakhstan.

If this isn't confusing enough, the Deputy Prime Minister--provoked because the United States has responded to President Putin's aggression--says he is going to stop selling the Energomash rocket to the United States for military purposes.

The question is, Is he going to continue to sell that rocket engine for civilian purposes--which I just outlined in this competition that is coming up--and if this is accurate and it holds, what to do for the United States?

We have several options.

First of all, we have a 2-year supply of these engines on the shelf. If in 2 years we think the Russians are not going to continue to sell this--and, by the way, this is a real jobmaker for Russians and a moneymaker for them. The aerospace industry in Russia wants to continue to sell this engine, but if the politics get in the way and they cut it off, then what is the United States to do? We have to figure that out. Right now there is a study going on in the Department of Defense as to how we would handle it. We have a 2-year supply. One of the options they will look at is stretching that out over time, putting some of those payloads on other rockets. Some of those payloads can go on the very successful Falcon 9, but there are heavier payloads that cannot go on the Falcon 9 that could go on the Atlas V. But if the Atlas V is not flying, they will have to go on a more expensive and heavier lift, Delta IV Heavy. So we see how complicated this gets.

Then the question is, If they are not going to sell these engines for military purposes, can we bank on it that they would sell these engines for NASA civilian purposes? That is a big question mark.

So one of the issues in this DOD study is going to be can we manufacture since we have the plans. We don't know the answer at this point. It is an extremely complicated metallurgy process which they have perfected in all of those years in the old Soviet Union. We would have to start flat-footed, even though we have the plans,

and figure out how to do all the design equipment, all the processing equipment, and then try to get the engines ready--and at some point what would a follow-on engine look like?

That is about the best I can summarize the situation, and we are going to have some major decisions to make, depending on what we see in the DOD study.

First of all, we are going to have to know how we have assured access to space for defense purposes for the national security of this country.

Secondly, we are going to have to have assured access to space for the civilian program so this incredible International Space Station that we have built with 15 nations, including the Russians, who have been a major part--how we are going to keep that operating and get Americans to and from it because the Russians cannot operate the space station by themselves.

In the first place, a lot of the Russian commands to their own modules actually are commands that go through the Johnson Space Center in Texas. Secondly, the Russians depend on all the electricity that is generated on the International Space Station from the American electrical systems. So we are going to have to continue to operate it together. The Deputy Prime Minister implied that; that he would continue to do that through year 2020, but the space station is going to have a life--and should have--well into the decade of the 2030s.

These are the questions we are going to have to answer and they are going to have to be answered in the near future. In part, some of them are going to have to be answered next week as we start to mark up the Defense authorization bill.

I wanted to give the Senate, and all of those in the press who have been asking me, the best of what I could conclude at this point and then we will see what develops. There was the new development, as I mentioned yesterday, where the Deputy Prime Minister said they will not sell the RD-180 to America for military purposes. If that holds, then we have to swing into action pretty quickly.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the unfortunate allegations of mismanagement and neglect that have been leveled against the Phoenix VA health care system.

By now we have all seen the headlines highlighting unsettling allegations that veterans may be dying while awaiting care in Phoenix. These revelations have come to light after whistleblowers in Arizona have suggested that Phoenix VA officials were manipulating appointment requests and waiting lists.

Recent reports suggest that some veterans may have been placed on an unofficial waiting list outside of the VA's official electronic waiting list, which exists to calculate how long a veteran has to wait for care.

The alleged reason for the existence of this secret--or unofficial-- list was to keep officially reported wait times down and to disguise longer actual waiting times. This apparently would help the Phoenix VA save face and reflect more positively on the VA's system as a whole. As a result, as many as 1,400 veterans' actual wait times may have been significantly longer than what was reported by Phoenix VA officials.

Now the VA's inspector general's office has launched an investigation, and senior officials with the Phoenix VA have been placed on administrative leave.

At a recent hearing in the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, after cautioning that there should be no ``rush to judgment,'' a senior VA official indicated that after a preliminary review they found no evidence of a ``secret list.''

Nothing would make me happier than to believe the allegations that were leveled were just as a result of sour grapes from some unhappy current or former employees. But, sadly, similar allegations surrounding delayed care have also surfaced elsewhere in the country.

Just this week, CNN has reported that two VA officials in North Carolina have been placed on administrative leave because of ``inappropriate scheduling.'' CNN also reports that a scheduler at a VA facility in San Antonio suggested there had been some ``cooking [of] the books'' there to hide lengthy wait times.

Will it be any surprise if more VA health care facilities share these issues? We have all heard about the backlog of more than 300,000 claims made by veterans to the Department of Veterans Affairs. This backlog has resulted in a wait time for compensation for disability claims that reportedly averages a dismal 5 months.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in greater numbers of veterans seeking treatment in VA facilities. As more and more servicemembers leave the Armed Forces, these numbers are sure to increase.

Clearly, the VA is having a hard time providing adequate and timely care to veterans. This is and should be a nationwide concern.

While backlogs are one thing, efforts to obscure or hide them is something else entirely, and a disturbing pattern of allegations to that end are coming into focus.

What is alleged to have gone on just in the Phoenix VA system demands an honest, independent, and timely investigation. If these allegations are confirmed, anyone behind an effort to cover up these wait times or interfere with the truth coming out needs to be held accountable. Heads should roll. Veterans and families impacted by any sort of neglect and mismanagement in the Phoenix VA system deserve nothing less.

In addition, an apparent pattern of similar problems around the country would suggest that Congress needs to ensure that its own role in substantive, rigorous, and effective oversight has not been blatantly ignored.

VA Secretary Eric Shinseki will be testifying before the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs later this week to answer questions about the ``state of veterans health care.'' Given what appear to be pervasive failures at a growing number of VA health care facilities, he will have more than a few questions to answer. I look forward to the results from that hearing.

This situation cannot go on. In Phoenix and around Arizona people are concerned. We are receiving a record number of calls to our office from veterans who are concerned who want to tell their story of the care they are receiving or not receiving on a timely basis. This is something we cannot countenance in our oversight responsibilities here in Congress.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Alexander and I be permitted to engage in a colloquy.

We come to the floor today to call attention to the tax extender bill currently being debated before the Senate. Included in this legislation is a provision extending the wind production tax credit, known as the PTC, for 2 additional years. This would be the ninth extension of a supposedly temporary tax credit.

The PTC was first enacted in 1992 to jump-start the nascent wind industry. It was meant to expire in 1999, 15 years ago. But this one- time stimulus has turned into a never-ending tax subsidy that has been extended eight times,

and the prospect for a ninth extension seems likely.

The PTC spends precious tax dollars subsidizing a very mature industry and distorting our energy markets.

My friend from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, and I have been vocal opponents of this Federal subsidy for years. Unfortunately, this credit has survived under the canard that wind power is an infant industry in need of Federal support.

With the PTC's expiration on January 1 of this year, wind producers are once again igniting the rallying cry to continue their taxpayer- funded handout.

I ask my friend from Tennessee, for those taxpayers who may not be familiar with this use of their hard-earned dollars, what is the PTC and why is it so valuable?

I thank the Senator. I don't think there is justification.

The justification that often is given is that we have to give some kind of surety moving ahead, and people won't invest in this industry if they don't know that the subsidy is there.

Again, this has been around since 1992. It was meant to expire in 1999. But it has been extended eight times. If anything is unsure, we are creating that unsurety--or insecurity--when Congress simply goes again and again and renews it.

The Senator from Tennessee had a great column in the Wall Street Journal talking about part of the problem we have when we subsidize this kind of industry and what that does to baseload power--nuclear and coal--in the interim. Does the Senator wish to talk about that?

In that same column, the Senator also talked about the environmental impact. It is often thought that these renewables are all the same in terms of their impact on the environment. But the Senator points out where these need to be built generally, and they are not your typical picturesque windmill somewhere in Holland but something quite different.

He also mentioned what it would take to generate the same amount of power that perhaps eight nuclear powerplants generate, what it would take in terms of these wind units. Does the Senator want to talk a bit about that?

Yes. And I want to point out as well that neither of us is saying there is no place for wind energy.

It is an increasing part of our energy load. In fact, the most new capacity actually went to wind as a percentage of the current output. There is an important place for it. It can and is being done in environmentally sensitive ways around the country. But it is time for the Federal subsidy to end.

The problem is, when we distort the market the way we do--when at times you can actually pay a utility to take your power because that is the only time the wind is blowing, at night, and still make a profit from the Federal subsidy--there is a distortion in the markets we just shouldn't have, and we ought to let capital flow where it is most needed.

So neither of us is saying there is no place for wind energy, but there is no place now or no reason to continue for the ninth time an extension of this Federal subsidy for wind.

I thank the Senator.

Senator Alexander and I are introducing an amendment to the tax extenders bill currently on the floor. This

amendment would simply strike that extension, do away with it completely.

We also have another amendment as to when producers of wind energy claim the subsidy right now, they can claim it now but not have the clock start until they start producing. So if they do not start producing for another 10 years, the end point of that subsidy is a full 20 years from now and taxpayers are on the hook much longer than was anticipated. So this would simply say that the point at which the subsidy begins has to be immediately so we won't go too far in the future.

Those amendments will be introduced tomorrow, and we hope to be able to debate those on the floor with this bill.

I thank the Senator.

I have just one other point. The second amendment, as I mentioned-- and the Senator mentioned that this 2-year extension leads to another 10 years in subsidies. Depending on when they actually start production, it could be another 20 years. So it really distorts our budget process, our appropriations and authorizations and everything else, for a longer period of time than it should.

I thank the Senator for his work and look forward to hopefully seeing these amendments debated.

I yield the floor, unless the Senator has any closing remarks.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Madam President, I come to the floor today, as my colleague from Indiana has, because the same things he is hearing about at home in Indiana--stories from real people and how their lives have been impacted by the health care law--are stories I am hearing at home every weekend in Wyoming.

I think it is astonishing that the majority leader would come to the floor of the Senate and say these stories we are coming to the floor with are made up, he said, out of whole cloth. These are real people in our communities who have been impacted by the health care law in ways that have been very detrimental to their lives, their livelihood. People have had their hours cut. Their take-home pay is less. They are finding they are having to pay a lot more for insurance. A lot of times it is insurance they don't really want or need or will ever use but the President says they have to buy. They have lost policies that have worked well for them.

I got a recent email from a gentleman, a family in Powell, WY, a community in Park County. He writes: Now that ObamaCare has been deemed to be the most successful government program of all time, let me tell you what it has done for retired middle-class Wyoming citizens like myself.

Of course, he said he was not serious when he said ``the most successful government program of all time.'' He probably heard the President talking about it. He probably heard the President of the United States tell Democrats who voted for this health care law to forcefully defend the law and be proud of it. I haven't heard Members who voted for this actually come to the floor to any degree to forcefully defend and be proud of the law because they know the side effects of the law have been devastating--devastating to families, devastating to people and their paychecks, and devastating to health care in this country.

So back to what my constituent from Powell, WY, said: Health care premiums of nearly $2,000 a month.

The President said: Oh, no, premiums will drop by $2,500 a year.

This gentleman said: Health care premiums of nearly $2,000 per month, scheduled to go to at least $2,000 or more per month in July--in parentheses, ``unbelievable.''

He then says: Middle-class citizens like my wife and myself, not qualifying for ObamaCare subsidies, having to consider becoming lawbreakers by forgoing health insurance for ourselves or at least one of us--in parentheses, ``probably myself because I am the healthier of the two''--and paying the fine.

He then said: If we do No. 2 above--about disobeying the law and paying the fine--we will have to look into seeking cheaper care outside the United States, probably Mexico, for serious problems.

Is that what the President of the United States intended, to have people seek care in Mexico because they can't afford the Obama health care law and the mandates and all of the insurance that they don't need, don't want, won't use, and can't afford? It is not what the President promised the American people. He said if they like what they have they can keep it. But, of course, that was deemed the lie of the year.

So I guess that is how the American people view the President of the United States now and can't really consider his comments to be credible. So when he says forcefully defend and be proud of the health care law, I think the American people realize that the President has sold the law to them under false promises and the Democrats are clearly not standing up and defending what they know is hurting their constituents. The President is in his bubble, and he hears only what he wants to hear. But I think Members on the Democratic side of the aisle, who go home and listen to people, know these stories are true, unlike what the majority leader says--that they are just made up.

The gentleman goes on to say: I could look into residence in another State to see if health care insurance is available cheaper. I don't know if it is or not, but I understand that Wyoming has the highest or near highest health insurance premiums.

Then he ends by saying: Is this what Obama and the Federal Government consider fair?

The President goes on TV and says that everybody ought to have a fair shot. Is this what the President of the United States considers fair? Is this what he means by a fair shot? People all across the country are going to be asking themselves that question as they take a look at the impact of this health care law on their own lives, their own families, the ability to keep their doctors. We know many people have lost the doctor they like in the sense that they can't go to that doctor. They know they can't go to the same hospital. We know many were not able to keep the insurance they had. We know many have had hours cut.

In an effort to try to help people who didn't have insurance, I think the President of the United States and Democrats should not have hurt so many individuals across the country, so many people who already had insurance. There may be people who are newly insured, but there are also people who are newly uninsured, and it is because of the President's health care law. Are there side effects? You better believe it. They are harmful. They are costly. Many families have been devastated by the health care law.

I have another letter from a family in Lingle, WY. This is somebody who knows I am a doctor, knows my record of treating patients around Wyoming and working with families all across the State. She said: I know you're interested in the number of people who are uninsured after the rollout of the ACA. She said: My husband and I started investigating the ACA in October. The Presiding Officer will remember they opened the exchanges in October. The President, right before that, said it was going to be easier to use than Amazon and cheaper than your cell phone bill. She said: So we started investigating in October, and we were finally able to establish an account in March.

That is what the American people think about the capability of this government and this administration. You start working on something in October, and you finally establish an account in March because of the incompetence of a bureaucracy and an administration that says one thing, does another, promises something, and delivers something very different.

She said: We found that our premiums would be one-third of our annual income--one-third of our annual income--with a $6,000 copay and a $12,000 deductible.

Those are the numbers--one-third of their annual income, a $6,000 copay, a $12,000 deductible--and the majority leader comes to the floor and says we are making this stuff up. These are letters from our constituents, people who live in our States, people whom we see on weekends when we go home.

She goes on to say: We have been uninsured for 7 years due to the costs, which we are told is due to our age, even though we are in good health. So as of today we are still uninsured.

So they started in October, finally established an account in March, and as of the date this was written in April, they were still uninsured.

She said: We don't have any idea what will happen if one of us gets sick or has an accident. How will we pay the bills?

Then she finishes by saying: Keep fighting for the people of Wyoming. As a doctor, you know what a precarious position we are in.

I wish the President of the United States and the majority leader would realize what a precarious position they have placed the American public in--an American public who knew what they wanted with health care reform. They wanted the care they need, from a doctor they choose, at lower cost. That is not what they got. They got more mandates, more expensive care, higher deductibles, higher copays. Many people had their policies canceled.

We know with the 30-hour work rule communities are cutting the hours of workers so their take-home pay goes down. We are not talking about businesses here, although it is happening in the business world as well. It is also happening in communities--school districts that are saying: Well, we are going to have to cut the hours of substitute teachers, we are going to have

to cut the hours of the school bus drivers, of the coaches, of a number of part-time workers. Why? Because of the health care law.

These are side effects of the law. They are harmful. They are expensive. They have an impact on people's lives to a point that I think the President wants to ignore because the President is hoping people on his side of the aisle will forcefully defend and be proud of a law that there is little to be proud of that really is not able to be defended because the implications of the side effects have been devastating to many, and especially to Americans who have gotten their insurance canceled and find their only choice is more expensive insurance, higher copays, and higher deductibles. But for families all across the country, when a mother finds she cannot take her child to that pediatrician--the one who has known that child since the baby was born--now, because of the health care law, she cannot take her child to that pediatrician, they cannot go to the hospital in their community; they have to drive distances, instead, because of the health care law, which was intended to help people but has ended up hurting, in my opinion, more people than it has helped.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, according to a recent National Federation of Independent Business study, ObamaCare and its tax increases will result in the reduction of up to 285,000 private sector jobs. Let's say they are wrong. Let's say they are exaggerating. After all, the NFIB has not exactly been supportive of ObamaCare. Let's say it is 250,000 or 225,000. Let's say it is 200,000. I think that any piece of legislation that causes one job to be lost is something we should take a second look at, let alone 285,000 jobs.

Even though the administration has moved the goalpost more than 20 times in terms of how Obamacare is enacted, it clearly has hurt far more than it has helped. The majority leader famously said that all the stories that have been stated on this floor have been horror stories that are not true, but these are

real stories. These are people who have contacted my office and talked to me personally. They have written letters and sent emails. They are simply saying: Here is my experience.

Once in a while I come to the floor so I can verbalize the experiences of the people I represent.

Kelly from Fort Wayne, IN, received a letter from her insurance company that said her provider would change her policy due to the Affordable Care Act. Her new policy failed to cover her lifesaving medication, increasing her monthly costs by over 400 percent compared to what she had paid with her previous plan. She said: What am I supposed to do? This medication I have is lifesaving. It is no longer covered by my insurance plan. And the insurance company has indicated that this is the result of the implementation of ObamaCare.

Bruce from Jasper, IN, had to drop his insurance policy and enroll in a new plan that increased his monthly premium by 70 percent. Bruce said: I can't afford this. I am paying a lot of money already. Seventy percent. I thought the President said this won't cost me a penny more, period. I am sure the President regrets using ``period'' because period means final, no discussion, no debate--trust me, you won't have to pay one penny more.

I talked to Bruce in Jasper, and he is paying 70 percent more.

Traveling across Indiana, I hear these stories from Hoosiers over and over, men and women business owners who are reducing hours, laying off hard-working employees, or closing the doors because of this law's costly requirements. Most importantly, they are very seriously considering dropping any employer-offered coverage whatsoever. They are reducing their workforce, if it is possible, to below 29 hours a workweek so they don't have to provide insurance.

At one national chain, they have stated publicly that they have put all of their thousands of employees on 29-hour workweek schedules so they don't have to subject them to the restrictions imposed upon them under the ObamaCare act.

I don't know how many of these stories we have to share before we try to make some reforms, replacements, or find positive solutions to the problems we face. Republicans have met in caucus. We have some alternatives. We would like to have them considered.

This leads me to my second point. It is clear now that we are not going to be allowed to offer any solutions, any reforms, any changes to any legislation as long as we are here in this session of Congress. We have been allowed nine amendments in the last 10 months. The minority in the House of Representatives has been allowed to offer over 125 amendments in the last 10 months.

People are saying: Wait a minute, I thought in the House the majority rules.

They have a Rules Committee. They decide that maybe they will get one amendment or two amendments. Don't expect to be able to offer amendments if you are in the minority in the House of Representatives.

They say: We won the election. We are the majority.

That is how the House works. I served in the House. I served in the minority for 8 years. I am trying to remember if I was ever allowed amendments. Sometimes our caucus was allowed an amendment.

I came to the Senate and people asked: What is the difference?

I said: The difference is night and day. Any Senator can offer any amendment to any bill at any time.

Then Democratic majority leader, George Mitchell, was following a precedent that had lasted for more than 200 years. The greatest deliberative body in the world deliberated. And, yes, we were here late hours in the evenings sometimes when a Member said: Wait a minute, I have one more amendment. That person was allowed to offer that amendment. We spent many nights into the dark hours working through a bill, but the process worked. That was honored by Republican leaders and Democratic leaders. Only now, at this second iteration of mine--it seems like a bad dream, actually--do we have a leader who has basically said: I am not allowing you any amendments. I don't want to force any votes.

That is not what the Senate was designed to be. That is not what it has been traditionally. Yet here we are facing yet another piece of legislation that looks the same as every other piece of legislation we have been faced with this year. The majority leader will use a procedure called filling the tree. The majority leader is using procedures to shut down the minority, to gag us. It is a gag order by the majority leader. He is basically saying: You don't have the privilege under my leadership of representing the people in your State who voted for you to come here to offer their wishes and their desires and amendments to reform a piece of legislation. I am not giving you that opportunity.

That is what the majority leader is saying over and over.

Now, if a Member is in the majority, I suppose he or she can get their changes modified and moved into the bill that the majority leader brings to the floor. But then he turns to the other side and says: You don't count, none of you. All 45 of you, all 45 Republican Senators here, don't count.

This is a Senate run by 55 people under the dictatorship of the current majority leader, who simply has thrown a gag order on any Republican because they are afraid to debate and vote on measures they think might negatively impact them, even though they are many times bipartisan-led amendments--amendments supported by Members on the other side of the aisle.

We said: OK, he is turning down anything we offer, but what if we offered it with the support of a Member from the other side?

He turns that down too, so he shuts down his own Members.

It is beyond my comprehension, having served here before and seen the Senate under the leadership of Democratic leaders who caused this body to function in a way where everybody had a voice. We didn't always win our amendments. We were in the minority. We mostly lost our amendments, but we had a chance to offer them. We had a chance to debate them and to try to persuade Members to join us. Sometimes we were fortunate to persuade those Members. Other times they were bills and amendments fashioned together with Democrats and Republicans, brought to the floor in tandem, voted on, and passed, and they were constructive changes. Today, it is, shut up, sit down, don't offer amendments, I am not giving you anything. It defies the history of this place, the tradition of this place, and it has turned us into the world's least deliberative body, not the most deliberative body. There is no deliberation here.

It appears the only way to change this is for the voters to go to the polls and say: Let's get the Senate back to what it is supposed to be.

Let's get to a place where we are not afraid to stand up and take a stand. Let's not be afraid to consider amendments and to say if it passes, it passes, and if it loses, it loses, but at least Members had the opportunity to state their positions and the opportunity to represent the wishes of the people who sent us here.

We are sitting around here being able to do nothing--nothing--because the majority leader said: You are in the minority. I am running this place. It is a one-man show. I am throwing a gag order over all of you, and we are shutting it down.

Now we are coming to the tax extenders. There are good provisions in the bill, there are mediocre provisions, and there are some that probably shouldn't be in there. But shouldn't this be debated? This impacts our economy and impacts our future. There are many things in the tax extenders bill that is coming before us--including research credits and other things that stimulate the economy--some that I think are good and some things that I think are bad. Shouldn't we have the opportunity to try to support the good or eliminate the bad or at least make an effort at that? Yet once again it hasn't happened yet. The pattern has been laid. The majority leader will say: No, you are not going to have any amendments. We are going to shut this down, and you are going to do it our way.

Apparently, that is the way the majority leader has decided he is going to run the Senate. He makes all kinds of false excuses as to why he has to do what he does, but none of them hold water. I regret that. I think it has turned this place into a dysfunctional

body, and I think the burden of responsibility for that falls directly on the shoulders of the majority leader.

With that, I yield the floor.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise to talk about the legislation we are considering, the so-called EXPIRE Act, and we want to make sure that as we are focusing on the policy--and I will get to that in a moment--we highlight for emphasis that this was a measure that came out of the Senate Finance Committee in a bipartisan fashion. In fact, it was unanimous coming out of the committee.

We had a good discussion and debate about various tax provisions that we wanted to extend for 2 more years, and because of that there was a great interest in the subject matter. Rarely have we seen the kind of bipartisan support that we have seen in the committee for these tax provisions, and I think that bipartisanship will continue as we move forward with the legislation on the floor.

The bill came out of our committee recently and it does enjoy bipartisan support. I wish to concentrate on the small business provision. As you know, if you went down the list of these extensions of tax provisions generically known as tax extenders, you could cover a huge array of subjects by virtue of the whole bill. I am going to focus for a couple minutes on the small business provisions.

We often hear from small business owners--and I hear it all the time in Pennsylvania and I am sure others hear it in their home States as well--about the lack of certainty. Frequently, business owners say they don't have certainty about where their business will go next because of what Washington has not been getting done. One of the reasons it is so important to get this bill passed in a bipartisan fashion--that alone is a measure of certainty for folks seeing so much partisanship here, but also giving a timeframe of 2 years helps alleviate uncertainty as well.

It is an especially urgent issue when it comes to small business owners. They don't often have the capacity to go out and hire a lot of experts to help them with compliance, to help them understand or deal with on a regular basis tax provisions or substantial changes in health care and public policy. So having a measure of certainty is a significant issue in the life of a small business owner.

All too often we minimize the impact of tax incentives by failing to renew critical provisions in a timely manner. Business owners need that basic certainty, which is why the work we have done on small business issues is particularly significant. I am proud of the work Senator Collins of Maine and I have done to introduce legislation which would allow small businesses to plan for capital investment that is so vital to job creation. This commonsense proposal would introduce certainty to businesses, especially small businesses, increase economic activity and the pace of job creation. A number of the provisions in the bill that I have worked on with Senator Collins are in the EXPIRE Act, the legislation we are dealing with on the floor.

I believe we have to create a favorable environment in order for businesses to make investments that create jobs and grow the economy. Small businesses are vital to our economy. That said, I am not sure we often fully understand how significant an impact small business has on the country, when we consider that small firms comprise more than 98 percent of all employers. Nearly half of the Pennsylvania workforce is on their payroll, to get a sense of the dimensions, reach and scope of small businesses in a State such as Pennsylvania, but of course that is true across the Nation.

Small firms nationally employ just over half of the private sector workforce, according to the Small Business Administration. Small businesses also have led the charge to put America back to work. According to the SBA, small businesses have created 64 percent of the net new jobs over the past 15 years. Again, we sometimes don't fully appreciate the impact of small business. The most recent monthly employment report by the payroll processor ADP showed that small- and medium-sized firms accounted for more than 80 percent of the job growth in January of this year. So a short-term recent number of job creation, small business is accounting for 80 percent of that, but even when we look at a longer period of time, over the past 15 years, small business is creating 64 percent of the net new jobs. So we need to do everything we can in the Senate and the House to invest in strategies that will help small businesses so they can grow and invest.

Unfortunately, many tax provisions affecting small businesses have recently been enacted on an unpredictable and temporary basis. That is an understatement. When we talk about certainty or uncertainty, this is part of what we are talking about. This uncertainty directly and substantially hinders economic growth and job creation. When businesses don't know how their investments will be taxed, they cannot make long- term planning decisions with confidence. You don't have to be a small business owner to understand that it is especially difficult for a small business owner to hire a legion of lawyers, accountants or other professionals to help them. Sometimes a small business owner does everything. You know the old expression ``chief cook and bottle washer.'' They do everything. They don't have the luxury of hiring a compliance team for every issue, and it is especially difficult in this uncertain environment. So this uncertainty about tax policy disproportionately harms these small businesses.

We often say these are the firms that are the backbone of the American economy. Yet they don't have the luxury that larger firms do to have a team of experts around them or a team they can retain. The National Federation of Independent Business says that compliance costs are 67 percent higher for small firms than larger ones. The Small Business Administration claims that tax paperwork is the most expensive paperwork burden on small businesses, at $74 an hour. So they are paying $74 an hour in terms of tax compliance paperwork, and their overall compliance costs are 67 percent higher than large firms.

This legislation includes several provisions intended to immediately reduce the uncertainty about the Tax Code and encourage businesses to grow and invest and hire. These measures have bipartisan support and adopt proposals

from both parties. One measure includes a 15-year straight-line depreciation schedule for restaurant leaseholds and retail improvements. In April last year Senator Cornyn from Texas and I introduced a bill that contains this provision which has bipartisan support. If a restaurant wanted to add a new room with 5 or 10 tables in a service space, that is a pretty big investment. They have to build, grow, and spend a lot of money to do that. There is a depreciation benefit provided to that business which historically has been over the course of 39 years. Recently we shrunk that timeframe down to 15 years. Instead of giving little, tiny slices of depreciation, the benefit is more substantial over the course of 15 years, and the bottom line is we want it to stay at 15 years and not go back to the 39 years. I am not sure what the benefit would be if someone added a couple of tables to their restaurant in 2014 and had to wait 39 years to reap that benefit.

So the legislation Senator Cornyn and I have would maintain that 15- year cost recovery provision and make it permanent. The bill addresses this, albeit for a 2-year timeframe instead of the current year. We know this faster so-called cost recovery is directly reflected in the company's bottom line and frees cash that can be used to expand operations and hire more workers. It stands to reason if you have a greater tax benefit, you have more dollars in your hand, so to speak, and as a restaurant owner you can hire more workers in the near term. So maximizing certainty within the Tax Code is an expressed benefit for these small businesses.

A study from the National Restaurant Association found that uncertainty over depreciation and other tax provisions forced restaurants to forgo improvement projects that would have produced approximately 200,000 jobs nationwide. I would submit that if that number were cut in half it would be a significant number, but their estimate is that in essence we are forgoing 200,000 jobs because of tax uncertainty.

Another provision of the bill that we are debating and discussing would make permanent the maximum allowable deduction under section 179, expensing rules. Section 179 allows taxpayers to deduct certain capital asset purchases in the year they make the purchase. This type of expensing provides an important incentive for businesses to make capital investments. Without it taxpayers would have to depreciate those asset purchases over multiple years, getting a much more short- term benefit because of that tax provision. This maximum allowable deduction under 179 has changed three times in the past 6 years. That is one of the best examples of uncertainty, when things keep changing and the numbers keep changing. One year they can take advantage of one- half million dollars of benefit if they bought new equipment, for example.

What we want to do--I think what is the best policy is to set it at a fairly high level, I would argue one-quarter of a million dollars----

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 more minutes.