Al Franken

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I am glad the DOJ is going forward in pursuing this case, but as I said it is not enough. It is backward- looking and addresses past harms. My concern is that the conduct continues to this day. The credit raters are still influenced by the relationships with the banks because that is who pays them. It is a clear conflict of interest, and we need to prioritize actions that will prevent another meltdown in the future. The Dodd-Frank provision I wrote with Senator Wicker, if implemented in full, would root out the conflicts of interest from the issuer pays model. The amendment we offered and the Senate passed directed the SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, to create an independent self- regulatory organization that would select which agency--one with the adequate capacity and expertise--would provide the initial credit rating of each structured financial product. The assignments would not be based just on the agency's capacity and expertise but also, after time, on its track record. Our approach would incentivize and reward excellence. The current pay-for-play model--with its inherent conflict of interest--would be replaced by a pay-for performance model. This improved market finally allows smaller rating agencies to break the Big Three's oligopoly. The oligopoly is clear. The SEC estimates that as of December 31, 2011, approximately 91 percent of the credit ratings for structured finance products were issued by the three largest credit rating agencies--Fitch, Moody's, and S&P--each of which was implicated in the PSI investigation. The other five agencies doing structured finance make up the remaining 9 percent. The current oligopoly does not incentivize accuracy. However, if we move to a system based on merit, the smaller credit rating agencies would be better able to participate and serve as a check against inflated ratings, thereby helping to prevent another meltdown. In our proposed model, the independent board would be comprised mainly of investor types--managers of university endowments and pension funds--who have the greatest stake in the reliability of credit ratings, as well as representatives from the credit rating agencies, the banking industries, and academics who have studied this issue. Our amendment passed the Senate with a large majority, including 11 Republican votes. This is not a progressive or conservative idea, it is a commonsense idea. The final version of Dodd-Frank modified the amendment and, to be frank, put more decisionmaking authority in the hands of the SEC as to how to respond to the problem of conflicts of interest in the credit rating agency industry. The final version directed the SEC to study the proposals that Senator Wicker and I made, along with other alternatives, and then decide how to act. The SEC released its study in December. The study acknowledged the conflicts of interest in the credit rating industry and reviewed our proposal and many of the alternatives. They laid out the pros and cons of each proposal without reaching a definitive conclusion on which route to pursue. The study also proposed holding a roundtable discussion to further examine reform opportunities. This SEC convened this roundtable on May 14, and both Senator Wicker and I had the opportunity to present opening remarks. Bloomberg News had a good article on the roundtable on March 14, including several key quotes that I am going to use in my remarks. The roundtable provided a rigorous examination of our proposal and of the alternatives. One executive who was from a smaller rating agency endorsed the concept of a rotating assignment system to help break up the current oligopoly. Jules Kroll, the CEO of Kroll Bonding Credit Agency, said of the Big Three: ``They're selling themselves out, just as they did before.'' The Big Three were also represented at the roundtable. An S&P representative argued against meaningful reform by suggesting that ``a government assignment system could create uncertainty, could slow down markets, and disrupt capital flows at a time when we could least afford it.'' He didn't mention puffery. Unsurprisingly, I disagree with his characterization and would indeed suggest that what we can least afford is to maintain the status quo. An alternative proposal, the continuation of the 17g-5 proposal, was met with more than a little skepticism. The 17g-5 Program seeks to encourage unpaid, unsolicited ratings by requiring the sharing of data on which ratings are based. The theory is, unsolicited ratings will keep paid ratings honest. Joseph Petro of Morningstar Credit Ratings said using the unsolicited rating program ``is not the best use of resources as we're trying to build out our ratings platform.'' SEC Commissioner Troy Paredes made a strong point when he noted that negative, unsolicited ratings by a firm ``may not be the best way to get business in an issuer-pays setting.'' By the time the report was written, the 17g-5 Program had produced only one or two ratings. I have said all along that I believe the proposal of Senator Wicker and myself is a good one and the right one, and I continue to believe that more and more as I have thought about it and looked at it in the years now since we originally wrote the legislation. But I have also said I am open to any other meaningful proposals, and I will support any proposal the SEC recommends that addresses the conflicts of interest in a meaningful way. But the Roundtable made very clear once again that reform is necessary and that the status quo is inadequate to protect American investors, workers, and homeowners in the years ahead. Dealbreaker.com, a satirical blog that covers Wall Street, ran a post on the day of the SEC Roundtable with this title: ``The SEC Will Keep Talking About Credit Rating Agencies Until Everyone Stops Paying Attention.'' That is one approach Wall Street regulators can choose to take and it would be completely unacceptable. To do that would be to fail the American people. Senator Wicker and I have worked with the SEC continuously over the past 3 years, and I will continue to pursue this issue until the SEC fulfills its directive to address the conflicts of interest in the credit rating industry. I am obligated to my constituents and to the American public to make sure that satirical headline does not become reality. I look forward to working with the SEC on the next steps toward a proposed rule on credit rating reform. I yield the floor, and I note the presence of both of my esteemed colleagues from Hawaii, including the one presiding, and Senator Hirono, who is about, I believe, to ask for the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation that I am introducing called the Community College to Career Fund Act. This legislation is aimed at closing what is called the skills gap--the gap between the skills that businesses need to fill open positions, and the skills that workers have. Closing the skills gap will mean more Americans get jobs and businesses get the workforce they need. It is key to the future prosperity and economic competitiveness of our Nation. When I travel around Minnesota and talk to employers, the single biggest thing they tell me they need is a workforce capable of handling the jobs of the 21st century. Finding qualified employees is particularly a problem for our manufacturers. Recent surveys in Minnesota show that \1/3\ to \1/2\ of manufacturers have job openings that they can't fill. They want to hire people, but they can't, because they can't find employees with the skills they need. Meanwhile, unemployment continues to be far too high. With so many Americans still looking for jobs, and employers seeking to fill open positions, this is a problem that we have to solve. Minnesota and many other States are working to address this problem by bringing businesses and community colleges together. There is a lot we can learn from these efforts, and my legislation supports and builds on what has been working in Minnesota. Take, for example, Hennepin Technical College in Minnesota. Local manufacturers have joined with Hennepin Tech to form the M-Powered Program, which trains students in manufacturing skills so they can fill open jobs. When I met with them recently, they told me that 93 percent of the program's nearly 300 graduates have permanent jobs. That is a program that's working. In Alexandria, MN, businesses and community colleges have been working together for years and offer another powerful example of success. Douglas County is like the Silicon Valley of packaging machines, and businesses there work with Alexandria Technical and Community College, which is ranked one of the best in the country. The manufacturers have donated machinery to train the students so that they can gain the skills needed for jobs at those businesses. When they graduate, students get snapped up by one of the companies. In fact, at the height of the recession in 2009-2010, Douglas County's unemployment rate was a good 3 points lower than the rest of the State. There is the Right Skills Now program, which is a partnership between the Manufacturing Institute, ACT, the National Institute of Metalworking Skills and the President's Job council. This program started as a pilot program in Minnesota, and has since expanded to Nevada and Michigan. I visited the program at South Central College in Faribault, MN, and held a roundtable with participating businesses. I asked each of them how many jobs they were ready to hire for, and between them, there were 40 or 50 jobs that needed to be filled. There were only 17 students in the first term that this program was offered, and the numbers are obviously in those students' favor to find a job. There are many other examples of this approach working in Minnesota, as well as across the country. It is happening in Rochester, Brainerd, and Duluth, Minnesota. The Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee of the HELP Committee held a hearing last year where we heard about four great examples of these partnerships from all over the country. This approach is putting Americans back to work and helping businesses grow nationwide, and we need to support those efforts. That is exactly what my bill would do. It would create a Community College to Career Fund, which would offer competitive grants for partnerships between businesses and community colleges aimed at closing the skills gap. The partnerships would compete by demonstrating how they would fill in-demand jobs. This bill rewards what works, giving flexibility for the partnerships to determine the strategy that best fits their needs, including apprenticeships, paid internships, partnerships with high schools, or updating training equipment. My bill also leverages private investments, rewarding those partnerships that bring outside resources to the table. I hear all the time from businesses that are desperate to hire people, if only they could find the right talent. This is a tremendous opportunity to get Americans back to work by helping them get the skills that they need. The Community College to Career Fund Act would seize that opportunity, allow our businesses to grow and expand, and position our workforce, and our country, for prosperity into the future. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation that I am introducing called the Community College to Career Fund Act. This legislation is aimed at closing what is called the skills gap--the gap between the skills that businesses need to fill open positions, and the skills that workers have. Closing the skills gap will mean more Americans get jobs and businesses get the workforce they need. It is key to the future prosperity and economic competitiveness of our Nation. When I travel around Minnesota and talk to employers, the single biggest thing they tell me they need is a workforce capable of handling the jobs of the 21st century. Finding qualified employees is particularly a problem for our manufacturers. Recent surveys in Minnesota show that \1/3\ to \1/2\ of manufacturers have job openings that they can't fill. They want to hire people, but they can't, because they can't find employees with the skills they need. Meanwhile, unemployment continues to be far too high. With so many Americans still looking for jobs, and employers seeking to fill open positions, this is a problem that we have to solve. Minnesota and many other States are working to address this problem by bringing businesses and community colleges together. There is a lot we can learn from these efforts, and my legislation supports and builds on what has been working in Minnesota. Take, for example, Hennepin Technical College in Minnesota. Local manufacturers have joined with Hennepin Tech to form the M-Powered Program, which trains students in manufacturing skills so they can fill open jobs. When I met with them recently, they told me that 93 percent of the program's nearly 300 graduates have permanent jobs. That is a program that's working. In Alexandria, MN, businesses and community colleges have been working together for years and offer another powerful example of success. Douglas County is like the Silicon Valley of packaging machines, and businesses there work with Alexandria Technical and Community College, which is ranked one of the best in the country. The manufacturers have donated machinery to train the students so that they can gain the skills needed for jobs at those businesses. When they graduate, students get snapped up by one of the companies. In fact, at the height of the recession in 2009-2010, Douglas County's unemployment rate was a good 3 points lower than the rest of the State. There is the Right Skills Now program, which is a partnership between the Manufacturing Institute, ACT, the National Institute of Metalworking Skills and the President's Job council. This program started as a pilot program in Minnesota, and has since expanded to Nevada and Michigan. I visited the program at South Central College in Faribault, MN, and held a roundtable with participating businesses. I asked each of them how many jobs they were ready to hire for, and between them, there were 40 or 50 jobs that needed to be filled. There were only 17 students in the first term that this program was offered, and the numbers are obviously in those students' favor to find a job. There are many other examples of this approach working in Minnesota, as well as across the country. It is happening in Rochester, Brainerd, and Duluth, Minnesota. The Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee of the HELP Committee held a hearing last year where we heard about four great examples of these partnerships from all over the country. This approach is putting Americans back to work and helping businesses grow nationwide, and we need to support those efforts. That is exactly what my bill would do. It would create a Community College to Career Fund, which would offer competitive grants for partnerships between businesses and community colleges aimed at closing the skills gap. The partnerships would compete by demonstrating how they would fill in-demand jobs. This bill rewards what works, giving flexibility for the partnerships to determine the strategy that best fits their needs, including apprenticeships, paid internships, partnerships with high schools, or updating training equipment. My bill also leverages private investments, rewarding those partnerships that bring outside resources to the table. I hear all the time from businesses that are desperate to hire people, if only they could find the right talent. This is a tremendous opportunity to get Americans back to work by helping them get the skills that they need. The Community College to Career Fund Act would seize that opportunity, allow our businesses to grow and expand, and position our workforce, and our country, for prosperity into the future. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the immigration reform bill that we are going to vote on soon. I want to bring a Minnesota perspective to this debate. I want to talk about how this bill will help Minnesota businesses and agriculture while also helping and protecting Minnesota workers. I also want to talk about how this bill will help Minnesota families and communities. Minnesota was admitted to the Union in 1858. For the first 30 years after Minnesota's founding, no fewer than one-third of Minnesotans were immigrants born abroad. Our State did not suffer from that--it thrived. Our fields were first tilled by Swedish immigrants. Their crops filled 2 million acres. Our iron mines in the north depended on Finnish labor. Norwegians were critical to our logging industry, while the Danes, who came to Minnesota after the Civil War, made our State a leader in dairy farming. Today, immigrants are about 7 percent of Minnesota's population. Most of them come from Asia, and Latin America, and Africa, rather than Europe. But the contributions of immigrants to Minnesota's economy and to our communities are no less important. I am going to vote for this bill because of what it will do for Minnesota's economy. This is clearest when it comes to Minnesota's agricultural industry, particularly our dairy farms. Minnesota is the Nation's sixth largest dairy producer. Five percent of our nation's cows are in our State. But for years, I have been meeting with dairy farmers and they told me they can't get the workforce they need. They can't find enough American workers--and the Nation's agricultural guestworker program is open only to seasonal workers. Unfortunately, you can't milk cows seasonally. If you did, they would just get cranky, the cows. For years, I have been calling for an immigration bill to fix this problem by opening our guestworker program to dairy farmers. This bill does just that. This bill will not just help agriculture. A lot of industry in Minnesota is in the high tech and medical sectors--companies like 3M and Medtronic. Unfortunately, our visa system works against these companies because, while the University of Minnesota is minting new Ph.D.'s in STEM fields, our system sends many of our top foreign graduates right back to their home countries. Thanks to the work of my fellow Minnesota senator, Senator Klobuchar, this bill will make it easier for Minnesota companies to recruit and hire top minds, regardless of where they come from. I am also proud that this bill includes two amendments that I wrote that will protect small businesses. A major component of this bill is to create a mandatory electronic employment verification system called E-Verify. But small businesses in Minnesota were initially concerned about how E-Verify would affect them. My first amendment creates a special office within the Department of Homeland Security whose sole job will be to give workers and small businesses quick, in-person assistance if E-Verify does not work the way it should. My other amendment will keep pressure on DHS to lower E- Verify error rates that, in the past, have caused major headaches for small businesses and employees alike. While this bill will help our businesses, it also has solid protections for American workers. In negotiations, the AFL-CIO demanded that before an American employer can hire a foreign guestworker, that employer has to aggressively advertise for and recruit American workers. If a business breaks these rules, it can get kicked out of the guestworker program. If the protections in this bill prove insufficient, I will fight to improve them. But for now, I think protections negotiated by the AFL- CIO are adequate for moving forward. So this bill will protect workers today. But it will also help them for decades down the line by bolstering our Nation's safety net. Our changing demographics have put a strain on our Social Security system. More young workers paying into the Social Security system will help ease that, and that is precisely what this bill will provide: Census figures show that 48 percent of immigrants in the U.S. are between the ages of 20 to 44; for native-born workers, that figure is about 31 percent. Finally, this bill will help our economy by helping our Nation's bottom line. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, immigration reform will decrease our deficit by $175 billion over the next decade, and an additional $700 billion over the following decade. That's $875 billion dollars--close to a trillion dollars in deficit reduction. This bill will be a boon to Minnesota's economy, and to our Nation's economy too. But this bill is not just about economics. It is also about our values. It is about living up to the promise engraved on the base of the Statue of Liberty: Give me your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Send these, the homeless, the tempest-tost [sic] to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door. Minnesota played a special part in that promise. For decades, Minnesota has welcomed more refugees and asylees than almost any other State. We have welcomed the Hmong and Somalis and so many others because it is the right thing to do. In the same way, a big part of this bill is about doing the right thing and helping the least of our brothers and sisters. Last October I traveled to Northfield, MN, where I visited a program for Latino high school students called the ``TORCH'' program--that stands for Tackling Obstacles and Raising College Hopes. This is an amazing program that has more than doubled the high school graduation rate for Latino students. During my visit I met many undocumented students who were brought here by their parents as young children--and who were thus undocumented through no fault of their own. For years, these kids watched their classmates apply to college and plan for their careers, but they knew that was not for them--because they could not work legally or serve in our military. Then, last June, the President took executive action to protect these kids from deportations and let them work legally. Their teachers told me what an enormous difference it made for these kids. For the first time, they could see they had a future--they could go to college or join the military. And that was just because an executive order that did not have the force of a statute. With this bill, thanks to the inclusion of the DREAM Act, authored by Senator Durbin, their hope for the future will be a certainty. Good for those kids. And you know what, good for us, because those kids are going to work wonders. I am especially proud of a bill I wrote that also helps children and that is included in the larger bill we are debating, and that is the HELP Separated Children Act. My bill was inspired by what happened in Worthington, MN in December 2006, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement carried out enforcement actions in 6 States and arrested hundreds of unauthorized immigrants. Tragically, those raids also left many children--most of them citizens--without their parents and with no way to find them. One 2nd grader in Worthington came home from school to find his 2-year-old brother alone and his parents gone. For the next week, he cared for his brother while his grandmother drove from Texas to meet them. Over the past 2 years, more than 200,000 parents of citizen children were deported. These children are often abandoned at home or at school and can go for months without speaking with or visiting their parents. My HELP Separated Children Act will lay down basic humanitarian protections for children in immigration enforcement. It will make sure that parents and children can stay in contact, and will make sure that parents can participate in court proceedings relating to their children. My bill was co-sponsored by Senators Grassley, Coons, Cornyn, Hirono, Cruz, Feinstein, Leahy and Blumenthal. Of the 200 or so amendments that we debated in the Judiciary Committee, this was the only one that was passed on a unanimous 18 to 0 vote. I am also proud that the bill includes amendments I proposed to help victims of domestic violence, as well as young children who are themselves involved in immigration proceedings. We have a rare opportunity before us. We have a chance to vote on a bipartisan bill written by a bipartisan group and supported by both the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce. The bill will help our economy, secure our border, and give millions of undocumented people a tough but fair path to get right with the law. And on top of all of this, this bill will save the American people hundreds of billions of dollars. I am proud to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Before I close, I want to take a moment to congratulate the members of the Gang of Eight--Senators Schumer, McCain, Durbin, Graham, Menendez, Rubio, Bennet and Flake. This bill is an example of the Senate at its best. It speaks not just to the ability of the Senators in the Gang--but also to their courage. I would also like to recognize Chairman Leahy for managing this markup and this debate so expertly. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consented that my law clerk, Rachel Homer, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on S. 744.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I rise today to talk about college affordability and student loan interest rates. But before I do that, I would like to take a moment to comment on the historic decision this morning by the Supreme Court. I have been married to my wife Franni for 37 years. It is the best thing that ever happened to me, and I have long believed that every loving couple should be seen as equal under the eyes of the law. So I have been fighting for years, along with others, to overturn the so- called Defense of Marriage Act. I am very happy today that the Court did so in part this morning. Today all Minnesota couples will be treated equally under Federal law, and this will make a real difference for those families. We still have work to do. I think Americans should have the freedom to marry the person of their choosing regardless of the State in which they live. So we still have work to do, but today is a happy day. Student Loan Interest Rates OK. Back to college affordability and student loan interest rates. The interest rate on the Stafford subsidized loan is set to double on July 1. Along with a number of my colleagues, I am fighting to prevent that from happening and to reach an agreement to protect students and make college more affordable for them and for their families. Not long ago I had a group of student leaders from MnSCU--the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities--come to my office in DC to discuss college affordability. Now, remember, these are members of the student government of many of Minnesota's public colleges and universities. They are the student leaders. There were about 20. I asked them: How many of you work while you are going to school, while you are in college? Every one of them put up their hand. I said: OK. How many of you work at least 20 hours a week? Most of them. How many of you work 30 hours a week while you are going to school? More than I expected. Then I asked them: How many of you work full time, work 40 hours a week while you are going to college? A number of them raised their hand. Mind you, these are the student leaders of these schools. So they also spend their time in student government. Working in college is not necessarily a bad thing. Some work can help students better manage their time, become more productive, and help pay for college. I worked during college. It was like 5 hours a week in our dorm kitchen. Evidence shows that when a student starts to work more than 15 hours a week, it becomes harder for the student to maintain good grades at school and to graduate from school on time. Students are working more because college is becoming less and less affordable. They are still taking out more and more student loans and graduating with more and more debt. Minnesota has the unfortunate distinction of being the State with the third highest average debt for students graduating from college, at over $30,000 a student. Whether those student Americans are attending community college or 4-year public or private colleges, it is increasingly difficult for them and their families to afford higher education. Part of what has happened is that State support for higher education has gone down in recent years, shifting more of the burden onto students and their families. According to the latest report from the State Higher Education Executive Officers, public colleges experienced a 9-percent decrease in State funding per student from 2011 to 2012, including in Minnesota. Minnesota public colleges saw a 27-percent decrease in State funding per student from 2007 to 2012. Meanwhile, and partially because of this, the University of Minnesota saw an increase of 65 percent in its average tuition and fees in constant dollars from 2002 to 2012. Our other public 4-year universities saw a 47-percent increase in average tuition and fees. Our public 2-year colleges saw a 39-percent increase in tuition and fees over the same time period. After more than a decade of higher education spending cuts and tuition increases in Minnesota, things have started to turn around this year. The State legislature passed a bill that increased funding for higher education in Minnesota by $250 million, including a tuition freeze at the University of Minnesota and Minnesota's other public colleges and universities for 2 years. That is very good news. While this is a great victory for Minnesota's students and families, it certainly will not solve the college affordability problem in Minnesota. As college has gotten more expensive, our Federal student aid system has not kept up. In 1975, Pell grants--long the cornerstone of our Federal financial aid system--a full Pell grant covered almost 80 percent of the cost of attending a public 4-year college, but now it pays for approximately 33 percent of the cost of a year at a public 4- year college. As students have turned to student loans, more of them are ending up tens of thousands in debt. In Minnesota I have held several college- affordability roundtables and heard from a number of extraordinary students. One of them is Taylor Williams, who was a senior at the University of Minnesota in the spring. He grew up in a low-income family. Taylor was afraid of taking the advanced placement courses because he did not think he could afford the tests. The tests cost too much money. Fortunately, Taylor had a guidance counselor who found funding to help him pay for the tests, and his success in those AP tests helped him start college with 1 year's worth of credit. Taylor, when I talked to him, was also working 30 to 40 hours a week and receiving community scholarships. Yet, in spite of all of this, he is graduating with student debt. Because of stories like Taylor's, I recently introduced the Accelerated Learning Act, a bill to reauthorize an existing Federal program that provides funding to low-income students to help pay for AP and IB--International Baccalaureate--exams. This is a Federal program that has been around for over a decade and has helped students lower the cost of college. I am pleased that this legislation was included in the larger bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that we passed out of the HELP Committee earlier this month. Taylor and countless other students at schools across Minnesota demonstrate tremendous perseverance and grit in getting a college education and cobbling together the resources to pay for it. They are working incredibly hard, and they are still taking on significant amounts of debt--debt that will stay with them for a good portion of their lives. Paying for college should not have to be that hard. In many other countries it is not. In fact, in many other countries, students can go to college for free--for free--or pay extremely low tuition. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, countries where students pay zero tuition for their postsecondary education include the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Iceland, Mexico, Norway, and Sweden. Other countries, such as France, Austria, Switzerland, and Belgium have postsecondary systems where students have to pay tuition of less than $1,500 per year. Because of this it is not a surprise that many of these countries are also surpassing the United States in higher education attainment. Not very long ago the United States ranked first in the world in the percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds with a higher education. According to the latest data from the OECD, the United States is now 14th in that category. This is a trend we need to reverse if the United States is going to remain globally competitive. In an ideal world the United States would provide free or extremely low cost postsecondary education to its citizens, as so many other nations do. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen anytime soon. So we need to take smaller but important steps to help our students pay for college. The interest rate on subsidized Stafford loans is going to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1 unless Congress takes action to prevent that from happening. This interest rate--this is an increase that would affect almost 200,000 students in Minnesota, who would end up paying about $1,000 more for each student loan they take out over the life of that loan. That is above what they are already paying. At a time of record-low interest rates, it makes no sense to let the student loan interest rate double. We should prevent that from happening. Ultimately, we need a long-term fix so that interest rates do not become more unaffordable for students and their families. We also need to make sure that whatever action we take does not make the problem worse. Several of my colleagues have proposed short-term fixes to this interest rate problem. I am proud to support efforts by Senators Jack Reed and Tom Harkin to freeze the interest rate at 3.5 percent while Congress works out a longer term solution. I am also a proud cosponsor of Senator Warren's legislation to tie the student loan interest rate to the rate at which the Federal Reserve lends money to banks. At a time when the Fed is lending money at an interest rate of .75 percent to banks, it makes no sense for students to borrow money from the government at a rate of 6.8 percent a year or even higher. Senator Warren has been an important voice in this debate in the Senate, making the student loan interest rate the focus of her first piece of legislation. We need to get this done. Democratic leaders have been negotiating in good faith on this issue. If we need to pass a short-term extension of the current interest rate to give negotiators more time to produce a solution that works for students and their families, well then that is what we should do. Fixing the student loan interest rate is far from the only issue we have to tackle to make college more affordable for students. I just reintroduced my bipartisan Understanding the True Cost of College Act to standardize financial aid award letters among universities so students can have clear and consistent information about the cost of their education. Students and their families and high school counselors need to have uniform financial aid letters so they can make real comparisons about all the costs before deciding where the student should go to college. That is what my bill makes possible. I also stand ready to work with my colleagues to protect the Pell Grant Program and to support other programs that make college more affordable for students, such as the TRIO and Work-Study Programs. We have a lot to do and a long way to go to make college more affordable for our students. Doing that will help more Americans find jobs to support their families, help more employers find qualified workers for their businesses, and help our economy prosper. This is one of the most critical issues we face as a Congress. Addressing the student loan interest rate is a solid first step we can take toward tackling this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Are we in morning business?

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about Medicare solvency. I know that to many people the words ``Medicare solvency,'' which is the ability of the Medicare program to meet its financial obligations, sounds like an invitation to a nice nap. You and I pay into Medicare every month, and we need to know that the benefits we paid for will be there when we need them, and not just that. I need to know Medicare will be around to cover my daughter and my new grandson when they become eligible. That is what Medicare solvency is about. A couple of weeks ago we got some good news. According to the annual report released by the Medicare board of trustees, Medicare will stay solvent for 2 years longer than previously estimated. There are a lot of things that are contributing to Medicare solvency, but one big thing is health reform. In fact, Medicare will be solvent for a total of 9 years longer than before we passed health reform. Let me say that again. The life of Medicare is 9 years longer today than it was before we passed health reform. HHS Secretary Sebelius said: The Affordable Care Act has helped put Medicare on more stable ground without eliminating a single benefit. The point is that health reform is not just about making our health coverage more comprehensive, it is not just making sure when we get sick we can get the care we need, it is also making Medicare more efficient. It is extending the life of Medicare so that Medicare can keep supporting our parents and will be able to support our kids. How exactly has health reform helped extend the solvency of Medicare? Well, to start with, it stopped Medicare from overpaying private insurers. As you might know, seniors can choose to get their Medicare benefits directly from the Medicare Program or get them through a private insurance program that gets paid by Medicare, which is called Medicare Advantage. Before we passed health reform, we were overpaying these private insurers by about 14 percent. So we reduced what Medicare pays these private insurance companies. In fact, over the next 10 years we are going to reduce these insurance payments by about 14 percent, which CBO scored in 2010 as saving Medicare $136 billion over 10 years. I will note that we were told by some of our colleagues that if we did this, insurance companies were going to leave the market, that we weren't going to have Medicare Advantage anymore. Well, so far, enrollment in Medicare Advantage has gone up by 10 percent, and I am glad about that because Medicare Advantage serves an important purpose for millions of seniors across our country. We are also adjusting reimbursements to hospitals downward. Why and how does that work for hospitals? When you insure 31 million people who previously didn't have insurance, hospitals are no longer on the line for uncompensated care when those 31 million people go into the emergency room. The hospitals aren't left holding the bag for all of those costs. And we didn't just extend the life of Medicare by 9 years; while we were at it, we expanded benefits for Medicare beneficiaries. I go to a lot of senior centers and nursing homes in my home State of Minnesota, and I have to tell you, seniors are very happy about their new benefits. They are very happy about the new free preventive care they get--the wellness checkups and the colonoscopies and the mammograms. They know and we know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Do you know what else we are doing with that money? We are closing the prescription drug doughnut hole--the gap in coverage under Medicare where seniors have to pay the full costs of their prescription drugs in that gap. Seniors are very happy about that. For more than one-third of seniors, Social Security provides more than 90 percent of their income, and for one-quarter of elderly beneficiaries, Social Security is the sole source of their retirement income. So when Medicare stops covering the cost of their prescription drugs in the doughnut hole, that is serious, and sometimes these seniors have to decide between food and heat and medicine. Well, because we have been closing this doughnut hole, many don't have to make that impossible choice anymore. When I was running for the Senate back in 2008, a nurse in Cambridge, MN, told me about a senior being hospitalized. She was being treated by the doctors and nurses so that she would be well enough to leave the hospital, and when she left the hospital, they would make sure to give her the prescriptions she needed. After a few days, this nurse would call the pharmacy and ask: Has Mrs. Johnson come in and filled those prescriptions? The pharmacist would say: No, she hasn't. Why was that? Because she was in the doughnut hole. And guess what. In 10 days or in 2 weeks or whatever, Mrs. Johnson would end up back in the hospital because she couldn't afford her medicine. These readmissions cost our health care system a lot of money. But now, because we are closing the doughnut hole as part of the health care law, these seniors are able to get their medicine. This is improving their health, and it is saving us money. So we have increased benefits and extended the life of Medicare, and that was done as part of health care reform. Many of the provisions of the health care reform law will make our health care system more efficient and will lower costs in the long run. I wish to touch briefly on one I authored that is already keeping costs down for families in Minnesota and across our country. The provision of the health care reform law that I authored is based on a Minnesota law in a way. In 1993 Minnesota wrote a law that insurance companies had to report their medical loss ratio, and that is the piece I wrote into the law. What is the medical loss ratio? Medical loss ratio is the percentage of premiums a health insurer receives that goes to actual health care-- to actual health care, not to administrative costs, not to marketing costs, not to profits, not to CEO salaries, but actual health care. Starting in 1993 Minnesota health insurers had to submit to the commissioner of commerce--the Minnesota Department of Commerce--their medical loss ratio. They had to compute it and submit it. I took that and I put a little wrinkle into it. I wrote something called the 80-20 rule, which says that insurance companies have to spend at least 80 percent of their premiums on actual health care for small group policies and individual policies and 85 percent for large group policies, and if they do not meet that, the health insurer has to rebate the difference. Well, thanks to this provision of the law, last year more than 12 million Americans benefited from $1.1 billion in rebates from insurers that did not meet the 80-20 rule, including 123,000 consumers in Minnesota. In a new report, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that premiums in the individual market would have been $1.9 billion higher last year if it weren't for the medical loss ratio rule and they would have been $856 million higher in 2011. That is more than $2.75 billion in savings over the last 2 years alone. Those savings are in addition to the rebates consumers received. They estimated that insurers would have raised their rates that much more--$2.75 billion more--if they hadn't had to meet the 80-20 rule. This is another important way the health reform law is keeping health care costs down. So the rule I wrote into the law has already saved Americans nearly $4 billion in health care costs. In fact, after going up at three times the rate of inflation for a decade, over each of the last 2 years health care costs have gone up less than 4 percent for the first time in 50 years. That is according to data released by the Department of Health and Human Services. Now, I am not saying we are done, not by any stretch of the imagination. We have more work to do. In fact, one big thing we could do would be to allow Medicare to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical manufacturers on the price of their drugs. The VA does this, and they pay nearly 50 percent less for the top 10 drugs than Medicare does. I have a bill to allow Medicare to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical manufacturers, and I hope to work with my colleagues to bring this proposal to the floor. At the end of the day, my job is about strengthening what works in our country and fixing what doesn't. Medicare works. It works for seniors across the Nation, it works for grandparents from Pipestone to Grand Marais, and I hope to work with my colleagues to protect Medicare benefits for our parents and grandparents, while strengthening the program for our children and grandchildren. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the wise words of my colleague from Missouri, whose State has experienced so much tragedy last year much like the devastation in Oklahoma. On behalf of the State of Minnesota, our hearts and thoughts are with the people of Oklahoma. I would also like to thank Senator Blunt for cosponsoring an amendment in the farm bill which will make it easier for seniors and those with disabilities to receive groceries in their homes that is delivered by volunteers. They pay for it with their SNAP dollars. I am grateful to the whole Senate for adopting the farm bill package by unanimous consent. I am very grateful for that. I am very pleased the Senate has taken up the farm bill, and I hope we can pass this in the Senate and the House so our Nation's farmers have the certainty they need to provide food for the rest of us. There are so many important pieces to this bill which will be great for Minnesota and Wisconsin. For example, it contains provisions to support beginning and young farmers to help them start farming operations. I think the average age of a farmer in Minnesota is about 58. We need young and beginning farmers. The farm bill also contains important conservation measures so farmers can better protect their land. It also contains a comprehensive energy title--that I helped to write--in order to make our agriculture sector and our Nation more energy independent. Above all, the farm bill provides a safety net for farmers, and that safety net is the centerpiece of this bill. The reason it is there is because agriculture is inherently risky. Just last year we witnessed a historic drought which devastated the Nation's corn and soybean crops and forced ranchers to cull their livestock. Agriculture is prone to weather disruption such as drought, flood, hail, pests, disease, and global market forces which can drastically disrupt prices, and that is why the farm bill safety net is so essential and important. The farm bill safety net provides disaster assurance for livestock producers, and it contains crop insurance so farmers have certainty over their planting decisions. It also contains a dairy program to make sure we have a healthy dairy economy in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Vermont, New York, and other States. That is why we have the Sugar Program, to help protect our sugar growers. The program is important to Minnesota's sugar growers and to growers across the Nation. In addition to protecting farmers, these programs enhance the domestic supply of food that is so important to our Nation. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues don't support a strong farm safety net, and they have decided to go after the Sugar Program in the farm bill this year. Let's be clear about one thing: By attacking the Sugar Program, or any other farm safety net, they are helping to send jobs overseas. Ironically, this attack comes just a week after 60 Senators supported a provision to make sure some of the funds used in water infrastructure projects are used to purchase U.S. iron and U.S. steel. Some of the very same Senators who are fighting for a domestic steel industry are now turning their backs on our farmers by pulling the plug on our Sugar Program. I also heard some argue that we should just let the free market work. Madam President, did you know that the government of Mexico is Mexico's biggest producer and exporter of sugar? That is not much of a free market. Brazil, the world's largest sugarcane producer, spends billions of dollars to subsidize its Sugar Program. Let's be clear: Removing the protections we have for our domestic sugar producers will do nothing but kill an American industry and outsource jobs to our competitors. Some have depicted the amendment of Senator Shaheen and Toomey as nothing more than a rollback of U.S. policy to the pre-2008 policy. Let's be clear: The reason Congress modified the U.S. sugar policy in the 2008 farm bill was primarily because the provision in NAFTA, which allows subsidized Mexican sugar unfettered access to U.S. markets, kicked in in 2008. The reason the bill changed in 2008 is because the Sugar Program changed. Let's be clear: Eliminating or weakening the Sugar Program is going to kill rural jobs in America. I urge my colleagues to stand for agriculture and American jobs. I ask that my colleagues oppose the amendment of Senator Shaheen and Senator Toomey. I see the Senator from Illinois is here and about to join us on the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

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

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, on March 19 of this year, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that Minnesota's tribal school districts were making plans to cut the school year short, increase class sizes, and let staff vacancies go unfilled. The White Earth Reservation is planning to consolidate its sixth, seventh, and eighth grades into a single class starting in the fall. This is happening because of the sequester. On April 11, WDAZ, Channel 8 in Grand Forks, reported that special education programs in my State of Minnesota were going to be hit by a $90 million cut. This is particularly painful in the Crookston, MN, school district, where 20 percent of students benefit from special education programming. This is happening because of the sequester. On April 17, Minnesota Public Radio reported that budget cuts were affecting our court system. Across the country, access to public defenders, a constitutionally guaranteed right, is becoming more difficult. This is happening because of the sequester. It is not just happening in Minnesota, it is happening around the country. To take just two examples from the many I could cite from every State in the Nation, on March 13, the AP reported that an Indiana Head Start program was forced to use a random drawing to determine which 36 children would be cut from their program. On March 31, the Portland Press Herald in Maine reported that a local Meals on Wheels program, which had never before turned away a senior in need, was now using a waiting list and reducing the number of meals delivered to existing participants. Then, on April 25, the Senate passed a bill to allow the Department of Transportation to shift funds from one account to another, therefore exempting DOT from the strict across-the-board cuts mandated by the sequester. The funding shift was needed to prevent the furlough of air traffic controllers, which was beginning to cause a significant inconvenience to American travelers and could have had harmful effects on our economy. The House passed the bill the next day and it has now been enacted into law. I am pleased American travelers were spared this inconvenience, but as the reports I just cited from Minnesota and from elsewhere would suggest, there are a lot of people suffering needlessly because of the sequester. A case-by-case approach is not the right way to handle the impacts of the sequester. The sequester, in fact, was designed to affect every government function equally, with just a few exceptions, and the extreme across-the-board nature of these cuts is the very definition of a thoughtless approach to deficit reduction. The sequester was designed to be replaced and that is what we must do. Just as the sequester affects every government function equally, our response to the sequester should be complete and inclusive, not piecemeal. We must replace the entire sequester with a mix of new revenues and smarter targeted cuts that do not inflict needless pain on those who can least bear it and that do not harm our ongoing fragile economic recovery. There are both moral and economic consequences of allowing the sequester to continue. As Hubert Humphrey said: The moral test of government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadow of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped. If we ignore the effects of sequester cuts on the voiceless and address only the sequester cuts that are the most visible--in the form of longer lines at the airport, for example--we will have failed that moral test. In April I received a letter from a family service worker with Head Start from Onamia, MN. She wrote: The families I work with have no idea what it means to have trillions of dollars cut from the budget. They are trying hard to keep $10 in their pockets or checkbook. . . . These cuts would be particularly catastrophic to the poor children and families we serve. . . . Congress and the Administration need to act quickly to restore fiscal stability and maintain funding for our at-risk children. Our nation's budget simply cannot be balanced on the backs of poor children. Here is a letter I received from a mother in Hoffman, a rural community in West Central Minnesota. She wrote: My heart was saddened today when I learned that due to a sequester, my 4 year old daughter's Head Start program was to end 2 weeks ahead of schedule, that 2 of her amazing teachers will be looking for work come May 30th and her head teacher will be having to take on a 2nd job to compensate for a pay cut she took to continue with the program. Our Head Start program is an amazing program. My daughter has benefited from this program in ways a mother can only dream of and only a classroom environment can provide. The fear that it maybe not be there for her next year sickens me. We may not have the numbers that are looked at when these kinds of decisions are made, but our program is one of a kind with teachers that are so special they deserve awards. My daughter wants them to come to her birthday party. The people making these decisions need to actually go to the class rooms, see what goes on. Visit again and see the difference this program and these women are making in these kids' lives. The decision makers need to see what it is they are choosing to take away from these young people. I will be writing a letter to all of my local reps, and I'm committed to send them letters once a week until my pleas are heard and our government stops taking money and the education that comes with that from our rural school! That is a story from a mother based on her experience with her daughter. Economists agree and studies have demonstrated that high-quality early education programs can produce anywhere from $7 to $16 in benefits for every dollar of Federal investment. The return on investment comes from the long-term savings associated with a quality early childhood education. A child who has a quality early childhood education is less likely to be in special education, less likely to be left back a grade, has better health outcomes, and girls are less likely to get pregnant before they graduate high school. They are more likely to graduate from high school, more likely to graduate from college, more likely to have a better paying job, pay taxes on that job, and much less likely to go to prison. If we care about the long-term sustainability of our debt, we should be putting more money into quality early childhood education, not less, as we are doing because of the sequester. Here is a letter from Columbia Heights, MN: As someone who has worked with seniors my entire career and now volunteers to deliver meals on wheels, I would encourage your support of this program and discourage cuts. This program is one that allows seniors and disabled adults to remain in their home and still receive proper nutrition. For many it is also the only contact they may have with someone during any given day. While providing a service it is also a means to check in on these individuals' well-being. By eliminating or making significant cuts to this program we would be turning our backs on many of our citizens. I am sure every Member of the Senate has received similar letters-- letters begging us to protect funding that assists poor children and the elderly in their communities. It is not just Head Start and Meals on Wheels which suffer as a result of the sequester, it affects so many other critical programs. HUD estimates that sequester cuts could result in 100,000 formerly homeless people, including veterans, being removed from their housing and shelter programs and putting them back at risk for homelessness. The USDA estimated that it will result in 600,000 fewer participants in WIC, the nutrition program for mothers and their children. Replacing the sequester is the right thing to do. The sequester is a perfect example of the moral test of government Hubert Humphrey talked about, and replacing it is the only conceivable response to it we can have as Americans. But apart from failing to protect our most vulnerable, the sequester cuts also do direct harm to our economy and prevent us from making the critical investments in education, infrastructure, and innovation that have always been what has made America great and prosperous. As Secretary Arne Duncan wrote in a letter to Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski about the effects of the sequester: Education is the last place to be reducing our investment as the nation continues to climb out of the recent recession and to prepare all of its citizens to meet the challenges created by global economic competitors in the 21st century. Indeed, I can assure you that our economic competitors are increasing, not decreasing, their investments in education, and we can ill afford to fall behind as a consequence of indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts that would be required by sequestration. Secretary Duncan goes on to explain that the sequester will create particular hardships for recipients of Impact Aid, which includes schools that serve the Native American students and children of military families. In addition to investing in education, we should be building up and repairing our Nation's infrastructure. Cuts to the Economic Development Administration will hinder the ability to leverage private sector resources to support infrastructure projects that spur local job creation--likely resulting in 1,000 fewer jobs created nationwide. The Department of Interior has warned that the sequester will delay high priority dam safety modifications. Finally, America has always been at the cutting edge of global technologies, but the sequester may change that. Cuts to the National Institute of Standards and Technology will force NIST to end its work on the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which helps small manufacturers innovate in their business practices and develop market growth at home and abroad. The Department of Education is the operator of 10 world-class national laboratories that specialize in developing advanced commercial technologies. DOE's Advanced Research Projects Agency, ARPA, has achieved several remarkable breakthroughs in recent years, such as doubling the energy density of lithium batteries, increasing the capacity of high-power transistors, engineering microbes that can turn hydrogen and carbon dioxide into transportation fuel. Sequester cuts are going to slow and curb our Nation's progress toward a 21st century energy sector. Not only does the sequester fail to invest in things that make America great and make America grow, the sequester is also costing the government more money for the same product in the long run. There are certain weapon systems that DOD knows it needs and will purchase in the future; however, because of sequestration, they have canceled the contract order for the time being. As a result, the manufacturer has shut down that production line and possibly terminated jobs. Restarting that process is expensive, and those costs are ultimately passed on to us, the government--the American people. I urge my colleagues to rethink the current strategy of addressing the sequester crisis by crisis and whatever is on the front page of the news. It ultimately is not equitable. It disadvantages our Nation's most vulnerable and it is harming our economy. In February, CBO's Doug Elmendorf testified that the effects of sequestration would reduce employment by 750,000 jobs this year. That is the opposite direction we need our job numbers to go during our economic recovery. I have not even been able to touch on the risk the defense sequester poses to our military readiness in my remarks here today. The bottom line is we need to address every facet of the sequester together with a mix of new revenues and smarter targeted cuts. We should meet every new, high-visible consequence of the sequester with the same response. It is more evidence that we need to replace the entire sequester. Democrats have put forward a plan to address the most immediate consequences of the sequester with a mix of new revenues and targeted cuts to replace the first year of sequestration, and it garnered a majority in the Senate. But because a majority is not enough to pass legislation in today's Senate when the minority chooses to obstruct, that plan failed to pass. What we have passed in the Senate is a budget that proposes to replace the entire sequester in a balanced way that would also spare the most vulnerable pain and protect our economic recovery and our economic future. That is the kind of approach we need to take. I hope in the days ahead we can begin a dialogue about fixing this problem so kids in Minnesota, Indiana, and in the Presiding Officer's State of Hawaii--kids all around the country--can return to Head Start. We need to help the senior citizens in Maine so they can get off the Meals on Wheels waiting list. We address this issue so that Minnesota's tribal school districts can finish out the school year as scheduled. When we hear about the next highly visible problem the sequester has caused, we should think about all the problems the sequester has caused, and that is what I will be doing. We need to fix the problem in a comprehensive and balanced way. I stand ready to work with my colleagues and achieve that comprehensive and balanced fix for the sequester. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2013, at 10:15 a.m.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2013, at 10 a.m.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2013, at 10:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Border Security: Examining Provisions in the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744).''

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Credit Reports: What Accuracy and Errors Mean for Consumers.''

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Forces be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Committee on the Library be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2013, at 10 a.m.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the legislation that will level the playing field for brick-and-mortar retailers in Minnesota and across our Nation. I join my bipartisan group of friends, including Senators Durbin, Enzi, Heitkamp, and Alexander, in support of the legislation we are debating this week, the Marketplace Fairness Act. It will simply allow States to help their brick-and-mortar retailers, including the mom-and-pop shops on Main Street, stay competitive in a marketplace where online sales have become a fact of life. This legislation is a commonsense measure that brings our sales tax laws into the 21st century. In Minnesota the retail industry includes nearly half a million workers--about one in five jobs in our State--and those retailers need to compete on price and on service every single day. But the current sales tax system makes it impossible for them to compete on an even playing field. Take Michael Norby, who owns Norby's, a department store in downtown Detroit Lakes, MN, whom I met last August. His situation and what I have learned from him explains a lot about why I support this bill. Norby's has been in his family since 1906. Mr. Norby wants to compete with the big guys--with the Amazons and the Overstocks of the world. He said he can compete with anybody just as long as it is on a level playing field. He said: Once you bring those guys onto the same playing field as the rest of us, we will compete with them. But there is a problem. Mr. Norby described what they see in Norby's every day. We have heard it from other Senators. It is called showrooming. The customers come and check out the merchandise, they get help from a sales associate, then they pull out their smart phones and say: I can get this cheaper online. When Norby's has to collect sales tax and the other guys don't, it makes it impossible to compete. Mr. Norby describes this simply as an issue of fairness. And he is right. Brick-and-mortar stores such as his should be able to compete on the same terms as online retailers. That is what this bill does, and that is why Mr. Norby supports the Marketplace Fairness Act. But it is not just about fairness. When Mr. Norby is able to compete on fair terms, he will be able to hire more people. That is what will happen when the Marketplace Fairness Act passes. And what goes for Norby's goes for other businesses around Minnesota. The Marketplace Fairness Act is going to help the local businesses in our communities that provide jobs to our constituents. And when customers shop at local retailers, that money then supports the local community and it stays in that community. The Marketplace Fairness Act will help our States and our communities in another way. State and local budgets have been hit really hard since the great recession. One thing that has meant is that even though the private sector jobs have grown for the past 37 months, the public sector has shed a tremendous number of essential jobs--teachers, firefighters, police officers. That is why so many Governors across this country support efforts of reform, because it is the right thing to do for their States. Republican Governors in Alabama, Arizona, South Dakota, Georgia, South Carolina, Idaho, and many other States support the concept of leveling the playing field for small businesses because it brings much needed revenue to their States without creating a new tax. There is no new tax created here. It is simply going to improve compliance under existing laws. Minnesota has lost an estimated $397 million in revenue in 2011 alone from taxes owed but not collected on remote sales. I am sure that $397 million could do a lot for the people of Minnesota, including hiring back some of those teachers and firefighters and police officers, making improvements in infrastructure, in education, and in so many of the things that create prosperity and that affect the middle class. I have heard from big retailers in Minnesota, such as Best Buy and Target, about how important this issue is, but I have also heard from countless mom-and-pop stores, such as Norby's Department Store. I have spoken with the Minnesota Retailers Association and the Metro Independent Business Alliance. In addition to retailers, I have heard from the League of Minnesota Cities, from mayors across the State, and from our Governor--all who understand what that revenue they are missing can do for our communities. The Marketplace Fairness Act is bipartisan, and it is a commonsense bill. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I heard the Senator from Colorado. My remarks are about 25 minutes. Are the remarks of the Senator from Colorado significantly shorter?

Mr. FRANKEN. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. FRANKEN. I will yield.