Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, there was an opportunity this session to work together in a bipartisan way to provide certainty around the Tax Code for families and farmers and businesses, at least for 2014 and 2015. There may still be a small window of opportunity to get things done. I certainly support doing that, if we can. But I want to speak to the importance of having some certainty, at least through the end of 2015, as it relates to our tax policy for investing, for the economy, and for homeowners to make decisions. Back in April, thanks to the leadership of Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Hatch, those of us on the Senate Finance Committee worked together closely and passed the EXPIRE Act, a bipartisan bill that would renew tax provisions for 2014 and 2015 so that again people could plan, businesses, and farmers, at least through that 2-year period. It would give businesses and families across the country the certainty they desperately need. Unbelievably, back at the time when we brought it to the floor, after a bipartisan effort, Republicans in the Senate filibustered it and we could not move it forward. So we have been trying to get this 2-year bill done as the first year has been ticking away. We are now at the end of the first year of the tax bill, and, unfortunately, instead of having a 2-year bill, we now have a bill from the House that contains what we call tax extenders--extending tax policy for the economy, from research and development to homeowners to depreciation for investments and jobs. We have something that is only extended to the end of this year. As our chairman has said, it is a 3-week bill. By the time we get done, it will probably be a 2-week bill. We need to do more. The chairman, ranking member, and many of us are still trying to do everything we can to get the House to agree to something with more certainty than 2 or 3 weeks. I think it is an embarrassment for the Congress that we are not able to come together and pass the EXPIRE Act to be able to give more certainty. There is a glimmer of hope though on a piece of tax reform I wish to mention. Frankly, there is disagreement on this on our side of the aisle, and I respectfully disagree with those in the White House on this as well. But there is a bill I hope will move on the suspension calendar in the House around charitable giving. I can't imagine at this time of year of charitable giving, as we come up to the end of the year and people are making decisions about where to place their dollars, what kinds of causes and so on, that we couldn't come together on a bipartisan bill to deal with donations to food banks and conservation easements that protect our land for the future, that make sure we are not plowing up our land and putting more CO2 into the air right at the time we are trying to deal with climate issues--land protection, forestry protection for the future; dealing with investments in our research institutions, dealing with investments in important areas near and dear to my heart--such as the city of Detroit, where our foundations are playing such a critical role in making the investments, whether it is in transportation infrastructure, whether it is job training, whether it is rebuilding the neighborhoods to be able to turn Detroit around. I believe we are going to be able to do that. I know we are going to be able to do that. But a major reason has been the foundations--the Kresge Foundation, the Keller Foundation. There are so many that have been there. So we have an opportunity prior to going into a larger debate on tax reform to actually take a piece of this, which normally would be, on its substance, very bipartisan, and actually be able to get that done. I am hopeful we will be able to do that before the end of the year because of the important provisions in it. I go back to though the broader tax bill being sent as a 1-year renewal from the House of Representatives and, as I said, at most is a 3-week bill. By the time it is done, it may end up being a 2-week bill at this point in time. I can't believe people honestly, with a straight face, are calling this tax policy to be able to do this. There are homeowners who lost their job during the recession and can no longer afford their mortgage payments. They have had their homes foreclosed on or maybe they have been able to do a short sale with their mortgage lender or the bank. For the past year--11 months and 10 days--these families have had no way to know whether we were going to renew the mortgage forgiveness tax relief bill, which I was proud to author as a bipartisan bill back in 2007, which we have continued to renew because we still have families struggling from the recession in terms of their loan. If we can renew this bill, it will spare families from having to pay income tax on the difference between their mortgage and the value of their home. So if in fact they get loan forgiveness or can work something out with the bank--and if in fact $20,000 is forgiven on the mortgage or $30,000 or $40,000--they don't end up paying taxes on that as income, which is what will happen if we don't get something done. But we are looking at the fact that these folks, going into 2015, at a time when they are trying to decide what to do on their homes-- whether they can keep their mortgage--will be right back in the same situation of not knowing whether they are going to owe thousands of dollars' worth of tax going into next year. We are seeing a lot of folks trying to keep their homes who had to cut corners in every which way--parents stopped paying toward their kids' college fund or they put off buying new clothes or they canceled vacations or plans to visit their relatives while they are trying to figure out how to keep a roof over their head. Obviously there are many things that need to be done to support families, but one piece of tax policy that has given them some ability to plan has been this mortgage tax forgiveness bill. What we are saying is: OK. For 2 weeks you can know that you can refinance with the bank--not next year. We kept you hanging for all of 2014, but for 2 weeks or 3 weeks we will give you some certainty. So next year more families are going to be stuck with the same wrenching decisions they have this year if we can't at least get a 2- year bill. When we look at other areas where folks will be left hanging, we have a very important area of the economy creating jobs every day in wind energy. There is a huge supply chain--as the Presiding Officer knows, as someone who cares deeply about manufacturing--from the making of turbines to the installation in the field, to the operations, to the maintenance, all of these are connected to American jobs, good-paying jobs. In fact, one of the big turbines has 8,000 parts in it. Somebody is making those parts. I would suggest to everyone that we can make every one of those in Michigan. I am sure we can make them in other places as well, although we would love to make them in Michigan. But what the industry doesn't know is whether the production tax credit which they depend on will be renewed for more than 3 weeks at the end of the year. In fact, what the House did say is: You have 3 weeks to make business decisions about hiring new people, growing your business, building more parts for the winter. You have 3 weeks. Go get them--in 3 weeks. So they can't make business decisions, and they are going to have to cut. In the meantime, that means layoffs, similar to the 30,000 workers who were laid off when Congress waited to the very last minute in 2012; 30,000 people were laid off when the same thing happened in 2012 when the production tax credit renewed at the last minute. Even if this bill passes, extending the production tax credit this week through the end of the year may be too late for 30,000 people, right before the holidays. Merry Christmas. Thirty thousand people not being able to have their job extended, people who could help us lead the world in clean energy production, who could help us develop energy here to be less dependent on foreign oil, but because we don't have the fortitude to extend this even after we had a bipartisan bill--the EXPIRE Act-- come out of the Finance Committee last spring, they are looking at job losses. So 30,000 families are putting holiday gifts on their credit card not knowing whether they are going to be able to make payments when the bills arrive. Businesses in the wind power industry make investment decisions on what their taxes will be, similar to any other business, 5 years, 10 years, 15 years into the future. There have been, by the way, tax breaks for Big Oil for almost 100 years; the first one in 1916 embedded in the Tax Code, never having to be renewed so long-term business decisions can be made. But for their competitors to create jobs and bring prices down through things such as wind or solar or biofuel, it is a slog every year, every 2 years to try to keep these industries going. Is that fair? It is absolutely not fair. We ought to have the same kind of tax policy. If we are embedding the Tax Code provisions to support oil production, we should be doing the same for wind, the same for solar, the same for biofuels. What Republicans are doing when they force us into a situation where it is only a 3-week extension is they are basically telling Americans businesses: Don't invest. Don't hire people. We don't want competition to bring prices down on gasoline or prices in electricity. We don't want you to do that. We are unwilling to commit to something that will create jobs beyond somebody we have been fighting to protect for almost 100 years. So this is a great concern to me. In the process, Americans deserve better. Our businesses and our innovators deserve better. We go out and say we want new innovation to create new kinds of jobs. That is happening. Then the doors are shut over and over again or it takes forever to pry open the door: You have 3 weeks, the door is open, and then it shuts. Let me talk about another area I am deeply concerned about where people will be hurt if we do not pass the 2-year EXPIRE Act that we put together in the Finance Committee in a bipartisan way; that is, salaried workers such as those at Delphi auto parts manufacturer--which used to be a part of General Motors. During the 2008 rescue of the auto industry, somehow the salaried workers slipped through the cracks in terms of losing portions of their pensions, their health care coverage, and their insurance, and it is not fair. One woman who worked at Delphi for over 30 years lost nearly half her pension and all of her health care coverage, which she needed for her husband who suffers from chronic pain. A manager who worked at a Delphi facility in Michigan was so devoted to the people he supervised that he volunteered to retire rather than lay off some workers. Then 4 months after his retirement, he found out he was losing 40 percent of his pension and all of his health care coverage. Most of what was left out of his pension will go toward paying the cost of his health care, and it was devastating to him and his family. So we have in this extenders bill, this EXPIRE Act, the health coverage tax credit which was created for people such as these people. I am proud to be a coauthor with Senator Brown, who has been a real leader on this for people who have lost their benefits that were supposedly guaranteed to them. It does not restore their pension, but this credit pays 72.5 percent of their health care premiums, making it possible for retirees to afford coverage similar to what they could have earned when they were working. It frankly helps people who can't get help in other ways, who fell through the cracks. The credit expired at the end of 2013, and the bipartisan bill we passed in the spring, in April, renewed that credit. I was very pleased we were able to put this in the bill and thought we were on our way again to help people throughout this year who have been waiting and waiting. Again, when we passed this in April it was filibustered on the floor by the Republicans. Now we are at 3 weeks left before the end of the year and what we get from the House is a bill that is retroactive for 2014, but it does not even include the health coverage tax credit. So even though this is retroactive for 2014, the people involved--the salaried workers who lost pensions who have been getting some help for their health care at least--will not even get that for this year. There are 20,000 Delphi retirees not only in Michigan and Ohio, but Pennsylvania, Indiana, Wisconsin and Illinois, all who are watching right now this process in the Senate and the House to see what will happen, and are reaching out to their House Members and Senate Members--Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Illinois. To renew all the other tax provisions but cancel the HCTC is a cruel trick to play on families and certainly is underscored in terms of the holiday season we are getting into now. It is time for our colleagues across the aisle to stop forcing Americans to play a guessing game about their future taxes or their health care. I regret that the clock has been ticking and running out and left us with no time at this point to get the fairness in the Tax Code that we need. There is still time if we wanted to to pass this EXPIRE Act and send it back to the House, and I am all for it, and I know our chairman, Senator Wyden, has been working night and day with colleagues across the aisle to try to make that happen. If it is too late for this year, if the clock runs out, shamefully, and we return next year with our Republican colleagues in the majority, I would suggest a New Year's resolution to stop doing retroactive extensions--stop doing retroactive extensions when it involves investments that people have to make that they are not going to be able to do retroactively or decisions about health care or decisions about a home. Start getting serious about making long-term economic decisions. I know the Presiding Officer agrees with me on this and has spoken with me frequently on this. Whether it is tax policy, health care policy, infrastructure policy, we need to make long-term decisions and support policies so that businesses can make long-term decisions. Finally, we need to deliver certainty for families, for small businesses, for manufacturers, for those in alternative energy, for all who are working hard to invest in America across this country. Stop doing retroactive extensions, start working seriously on long-term tax policy and deliver certainty for families and businesses across the country. I think there is still time, if we wanted, to at least give the certainty of next year. Shame on the Congress if that does not happen. But I hope that we will at least commit ourselves that this is the last time this is done this way. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today we honor the dedicated public service of my dear friend and colleague, Senator Mark Pryor from Arkansas. For Mark Pryor, public service is a calling--one that goes to the roots of who he is. Mark Pryor is the fifth generation in his family to serve in public office. Beholden to no party, no special interests, Senator Pryor's singular objective in Washington has been to make lives better for the people of the State his family calls home. The sign on his desk says ``Arkansas comes first.'' It was his father's campaign slogan a generation ago, and that's the priority that guided Mark Pryor from the day he arrived in the Senate. When Senator Pryor learned that a widow in Greenwood, AR, was being deprived death benefits because her husband died at home, instead of in combat, Senator Pryor crafted an amendment to change that Pentagon rule, restoring the full death benefit for the widow--and fixing it permanently so it would be available to other surviving spouses. A deeply patriotic man, with a profound respect for those who serve, Senator Pryor is the author of the HIRE At Home Act, which encourages companies to consider military experience for servicemembers reentering the workforce. But he has also fought to bring down the costs of Arkansans' prescriptions and to protect the social safety net. When FEMA demanded back pay for Federal disaster aid it provided to Arkansas, Senator Pryor made sure the rule got changed. And I was honored this past year to partner with Senator Pryor on the Bring Jobs Home Act, to prevent companies from being rewarded for shipping jobs overseas and giving them an incentive to bring those jobs that have left our borders back home again. Of course, Senator Pryor served as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies. So as author of the 2014 Farm Bill, I relied on Senator Pryor as a partner. He introduced the Forest Products Fairness Act, which helps timber farmers in Arkansas and across the Nation qualify for USDA's BioPreferred Program. During an age of partisan strife, Senator Pryor has provided sanctuary for those who seek compromise. I share the sentiment he expressed in his farewell address--it is imperative that we come to work not wearing jerseys of red or blue but ones that have red, white and blue. It saddens me that my dear friend, Senator Pryor, cannot join us in this enterprise, because he has truly been a voice of civility and reason. But I have no doubt he will find new ways to serve the country and the State that he loves. I wish him Godspeed in his future efforts.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today we honor the distinguished career of my dear friend and colleague, Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. As a young man, with all his talents--and coming from a prominent family--there were many things Jay Rockefeller could have done with his life. His choice says more about him than any speech in the Senate ever could: He chose to devote himself to serving others. So he volunteered for the Peace Corps, and then the AmeriCorps VISTA program, which brought him to the small mining town of Emmons, WV. That is where he discovered the purpose that would define his career--and his life. From that day forward, he took a personal stake in the issues that affected West Virginians. That passion became stronger as he climbed the ranks of government, from Secretary of State, to Governor, and finally to U.S. Senator. Through it all, he remained grounded by a sensibility of what was best for the people he met in Emmons--and throughout the Mountain State. He met West Virginians who could not afford basic health care--and so Senator Rockefeller became a champion for reform that made health care a right, not a privilege. He met West Virginians who were hurt in mining accidents, or made ill from the air they breathed, and he fought for reforms that improved their safety. He has always understood that our Nation is best when we have jobs that make the middle class strong, like manufacturing. The coal, steel and chemical industries in West Virginia have all relied on his support. He believed that government should fight for those who were least able to fight for themselves. This compelled him to go to work on behalf of children whose families did not qualify for Medicaid--and yet could not afford private insurance. In 1997, he was a leader in creating the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP, and ever since, those children would not be allowed to slip through the cracks in our health care system. Senator Rockefeller's impulse to speak up for those who did not have a voice led him to seek improvements for the care of foster children, working to expand incentives for parents to adopt so that foster children could have a permanent home. On the other end of the spectrum, he was compelled to fight to keep Medicare strong, so that it had the funding it needed to make good on its promise to our Nation's seniors. He was committed to making sure that all safety net programs stayed true to their founding principles, which is why he has resisted efforts to privatize Social Security and promoted programs that increase seniors' access to affordable prescription drugs. Even as he tackled the tough issues, Senator Rockefeller's charm and sincerity were key to bridging partisan gaps and building consensus necessary to get bills passed. Senator Rockefeller leaves the Senate, after a distinguished career. Fortunately for us, his legacy of compassionate and conscientious service will endure long into the future. I know how hard it is for Senator Rockefeller to leave this Chamber. I hope he knows that it is hard for us to watch him go. I thank Senator Rockefeller, for his tireless service to this country, and for his faithful service to the people of West Virginia.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I was unable to attend today's cloture vote on the nomination of Gerald Pappert to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Had I been present, I would have supported this cloture motion.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I was unable to attend today's cloture votes on the nominations of Noah Mamet to be U.S. Ambassador to Argentina and Colleen Bell to be U.S. Ambassador to Hungary. Had I been able to attend, I would have supported both cloture motions.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you very much, Madam President. There is a lot of talk here in Washington and across our country right now about how to fix a very broken immigration system. The message the American people sent us earlier this month was very clear. I don't think anybody should miss it. They want us to work together, and they want us to get things done for the country and move things forward. They know we can still do big things when we put aside partisan politics and sit down together and work in the best interests of the country. I know that firsthand because of the farm bill. It was not easy. It was complicated. There were regional differences. There were partisan differences. There were differences between the House and the Senate. But we wanted to get it done. We stuck with it, we worked hard, and in the end, a lot of people working together made that happen. So we know how to do that. We know how to do that in the Senate on immigration as well because a whole different group of people across the aisle sat down with very different ideas. How do we strengthen the border? How do we have a system that works for agriculture and business? How do we create a pathway of earning their citizenship in this country? People worked in a very complicated situation, they worked together, and ultimately, after a lot of amendments and slogging it through on the floor, just as we did on the farm bill, we achieved that. We achieved that. We achieved that 510 days ago. So 510 days ago we passed overwhelmingly--I believe it was 68 votes-- a comprehensive immigration reform bill and sent it to the House of Representatives--510 days ago. What has the Republican House of Representatives done with that comprehensive, bipartisan bill that was sent to them 510 days ago? Nothing. A great big zero. They have done nothing. They refused to even have a vote on it. They refused to suggest changes to the bill and work on the opportunity to bring their ideas to the table. They refused to even debate the bill. Why? Amazingly--amazingly--it is because the Speaker and the Republicans and the House know it would pass if they brought it up. And the public looks at that and says: What? Are you crazy? You don't want to bring up a bill because you know it would actually pass on a bipartisan vote? But that is exactly what is happening. In fact, that is how it is supposed to work. There was a tremendous amount of effort by this body and by leaders on both sides of the aisle, who should feel very proud of the work that was done. It was sent to the House of Representatives 510 days ago, and nothing has been done. Zero has been done. So I have a very simple message for Speaker Boehner: Let the House vote. Let the House vote. The time is now. The time is now to solve this problem, and it can be solved today if people want to do that. House Republicans still have an opportunity to show the American people that they can be trusted to do the work that people sent them to do--sent all of us to do. They can do it today. They can do it tomorrow. They can get this done before Thanksgiving. Everyone knows that the bipartisan Senate immigration bill would pass right now with both Democrats and Republicans supporting it if Speaker Boehner would simply let the House vote. As we in the Senate showed over a year ago, people on both sides of the aisle want to fix this broken system that hurts families, workers, businesses, and farmers. I could tell you story after story of crops being left in the field because of a broken immigration system. This is an urgent problem, and the time to act is now. If our Republican colleagues in the House don't want President Obama to use his authority to help fix the broken immigration system--just as every President, by the way, since President Eisenhower, including Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, has done--all they have to do is simply vote. Just have a vote. Then we don't have to have this back- and-forth about how do we work together on appropriations or how do we get all the work done that desperately needs to be done. Just vote. It is in their hands. We cannot afford to wait another 510 days to begin to address this urgent problem, which is why if the House will not act the President has no choice but to act. But the good news is that we don't have to wait. Americans didn't send us here to talk about impeachment or shutting down the government again. They sent us here to get things done. They sent us here to create opportunities for them to work hard and get in the middle class and stay in the middle class, which is harder and harder to do every day. So I would say to Speaker Boehner: Let the House vote. Let's get the bipartisan immigration bill on the President's desk today. This isn't about the President waving a red flag in front of a bull, by the way-- which is, frankly, a lot of bull--this is about waving the bill in front of the House of Representatives. Yoo-hoo, Mr. Speaker, you have a bill. You have a bill. It passed with 68 votes in the Senate. It will pass in the House of Representatives. It will avoid what you say is going to be a big fight and legal challenges. Just vote. It is that simple. Let's show the American people that we can put aside our differences, that we can work together and do what is best for the country. It is as simple as having a vote. Thank you, Madam President, and I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I was unable to attend last night's cloture votes on the nominations of Randolph Moss to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and Leigh Martin May to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. I was with my family welcoming my new grandson. Had I been able to attend, I would have supported both cloture motions.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I just wanted to go on record to say there are thousands of excuses always on everything for reasons not to do things. We are talking about a very specific bill, a very specific vote that would put money in the pockets of 25 million Americans. We could do that right now. People can have lots of reasons. It reminds me a lot of hearing that my kids have hundreds of excuses about why they cannot do something, whether it is because of somebody else or this, that, and the other. I think the American people just want us to get stuff done. We want to get things done. The motion that Senator Warren put forward is about getting things done. A vast majority--58 Senators--has already said yes, they want to move forward. Yes, they will vote yes. We need to get this piece done to help 25 million people and then move on and work with each other across the aisle to do other work. I greatly regret the objection and indicate that we will be back and back and back until we get the American people the relief they need. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW. Out of respect to my colleague, I realize we are going into the next hour that is controlled by the Republicans. But I did want to take 1 minute to wrap up, if that is acceptable to my colleague.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from New York, who not only is a leader on this issue and so many other issues but is the author of a major tax credit in our Tax Code that allows middle-class families to be able to get help for college. There is not a bigger champion for middle-class families than the senior Senator from New York.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, it is now my great pleasure to yield to the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. I have to say that Senator Shaheen's voice has been strong and clear. She has been one of our strongest advocates as far as what we need to do on student loan debt and also making sure middle-class families have a shot to get ahead. We are very pleased to have the Senator from New Hampshire, and I yield 5 minutes.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I will yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, and as one of the lead sponsors of this bill, I thank Senator Franken for his passion and fight not only for people in Minnesota but for the 25 million people across the country who will benefit from the opportunity to be able to afford to go to college.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New York, who has been so passionate on the broad question of how do we have a fair shot as Americans to get ahead and particularly as it relates to affordability and college loan debt. We are so pleased to have another champion with us from the great State of Maryland. I yield now to Senator Cardin from Maryland.

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. President. I am very pleased to join with a number of colleagues today representing all of those in our conference who are deeply concerned about the mound of debt that students incur when they are doing the right thing. We say: Go to college, work hard, get skills for this new economy, come out so you can be successful. Having done that, too many of them are coming out with mounds of debt--crushing debt--that is stopping them from buying a house, starting a business, and moving forward with their future. There is something that can be done about that, and that is what we are here to talk about and invite our Republican colleagues to join us. There was a filibuster a number of weeks ago against our student loan debt bill, the bank on students bill. We have an opportunity today to come together, rather than seeing a Republican filibuster, to join in a bipartisan way to provide incredibly important relief to millions of not only young people but older people across the country who are still struggling with student loan debt. In every generation there are young Americans from middle-class families who have the grades to go to college but not the financial resources. They take out student loans because they know that before they can get the job they want to be able to get a fair shot at the American dream, they have got to have a degree, and that is what they are taught. That is what we all tell our children. That is what I was told as well. What they are looking for is a degree, not debt. Unfortunately, by the time students graduate, they are in fact saddled in today's world with mounds of debt. To address this problem, Senator Warren, Senator Franken, and I and many Democratic colleagues have joined to introduce the bank on students emergency loan bill. It would allow responsible borrowers to refinance their loans at lower rates, the rates from last year, the lowest possible rates in place. These are rates that are currently only available to new borrowers. We think everyone ought to have an opportunity to do that. In fact, with lower interest rates, we have seen so many people, including many of us, refinancing their homes, taking advantage of lower interest rates, being able to use lower interest rates in other ways. But students have been prohibited--anyone with a student loan has been prohibited from refinancing. That is plain wrong, and our bill addresses that. Passing this bill would help more than 25 million Americans. I cannot think of any one single thing we could do that would immediately help 25 million people, including 1 million hard-working people in the State of Michigan. A mother named Frances from Macomb County outside of Detroit wrote to me on September 6, and she talked about her children. She has two children. Both of them chose jobs that serve the public. One is a teacher and one is a nurse. Because of the loans they took out when they were working hard to get their way through college, their student loan debt now is nearly $100,000--$100,000. In Michigan, 62 percent of college students have debt when they graduate. The average is about $29,000, although I have talked to people with not only the $100,000 debt I just mentioned but young professionals with $185,000 or $200,000 debt if they have gone to graduate school or medical school or law school, and it can be even higher. On the other end of the spectrum, there are some Americans who worked all their adult lives and are now retired, and in fact they are on Medicare and they are still paying student loan debt. This is wrong. We need to act to change this. The total student loan debt in this country right now is $1.2 trillion. That is more than credit card debt--more than credit card debt, $1.2 trillion. If you put it another way, after every one of the 7.2 billion people--men, women, and children in the world--if everybody in the world donated $165 to pay off America's student loan debt, it still wouldn't be quite enough. This is something with a great sense of urgency to it. This bill needs to pass. We need to pass it now. If this passes, it means parents can save for their children's education, for a home, can start a business, can afford their car, can begin saving for their own retirement instead of just paying off student loan debt. These aren't luxuries, these are basics, basics of the American dream. Everyone in this Chamber can agree that America isn't strong without a vibrant middle class, and, frankly, it is outrageous that we have allowed this situation to go on where the only way to do the right thing, to get the skills needed to get ahead, is to put yourself in such jeopardy with student loan debt. We can do better than that. I strongly urge my colleagues to join us in helping millions of American workers to manage their student loan debt more effectively, saving thousands--tens of thousands--of dollars in interest payments. We can help right now. This is something where we could jump-start the economy, as the Federal Reserve Chairman said--jump-start the economy right now by passing this bill and being able to lower the cost of student loans. It is now my great pleasure to turn to a champion not only on this issue but on the broader question of making sure that every American has a fair shot to make it so that we have a strong middle class in this country. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. Let me stress what I think Senator Cardin said so eloquently. We have the opportunity to vote today on a fair shot for everybody to go to college, so we will ask our colleagues to join us. The rules of the Senate are such that even though we have a majority--because our caucus is all supporting this effort we have a majority to get this done--if there is an objection, we go into filibuster mode, which takes a supermajority. It is the way the rules are. We know we have a majority to pass this bill. If our colleagues don't want to vote for it, that is fine, but what we ought to be doing is having the vote. If somebody wants to stand and say this is not important, it is not a priority to make sure everyone has a fair shot to be able to go to college and not be buried in student loan debt, if they want to say they would rather protect those we are asking to help chip in to pay for this, which are millionaires and billionaires who aren't paying their fair share in taxes right now as middle-class families are asked to do--we are paying for this refinancing by closing a loophole that, as Warren Buffett said, shouldn't be there when he as a billionaire has a lower tax rate than his secretary. So we are saying join us to close that loophole. Take those dollars and help 25 million people--25 million people--be able to cut thousands of dollars off of their payments. For me, I am laser focused on the 1 million people in Michigan this would help. Let me share a few of those stories. Nathan Collison and his wife live in Saginaw. They are young professionals. They have a combined student loan debt of $185,000. They have a 3-year-old little girl. I will never forget Nathan saying to me: When she is ready to go to college, I am still going to be paying off our student loan debt, and I can't afford to put money aside for my little girl to be able to go to college. That is not right. He and his wife both work and right now they are talking about $600 a month on student loan debts. As Nathan pointed out to me, that is a house payment. That is a good house in Saginaw at $600 a month. Yet it is only a fraction of the interest on Nathan's loans, which means his debt is going to keep growing and growing and growing. Just to make his debt stop growing, he would have to be paying $2,200 a month. So if he was going to be paying the full amount and not deferring part of it, it would be $2,200 a month, which is a very nice house in Michigan. He would like the ability to do more than just have a nice house. Nathan and his wife would like to put money aside for their little girl to be able to go to college and to be able to invest in their future. So this legislation wouldn't automatically make Nathan's debt go away, but it would make it a whole lot easier. If we look at $185,000 over a 20-year period, we are talking about tens of thousands--$100,000 in savings. So this is very much about having a vote today, the opportunity to vote. Our colleagues don't have to vote yes. They don't have to vote yes. We are confident we have enough votes to pass this. We just need to get through the procedural hurdle, the objections that trigger a filibuster. That is all we are asking for. I think the 1 million families and the 1 million people in Michigan and their families, the 25 million people across the country who are buried in student loan debt deserve a vote. They deserve a vote today. We also talk about a young woman from Lambertville, MI. She went to my alma mater, Michigan State University. She graduated in 2008 and was on the Dean's list. Of course, 2008 was a disastrous year for the economy, nationally and certainly in Michigan, as we saw what happened to auto manufacturing. It was especially brutal for young people looking for work. Even though she graduated among the top in her class, it ended up taking her 4 years to find a job in her field. Today she is only making slightly more than minimum wage and trying to figure out how in the world she is going to pay off her student loan debt, let alone proceed with her dreams for the future. Last week I heard from a young man who was originally from Union City, MI. He was working in North Carolina when his father was diagnosed with a terminal illness--brain cancer. He came home--as I'm sure his family appreciated--to help care for his father. He was showing the right kind of family values to come home and help care for his dad. During the recession he lost his job in Michigan and was out of work for 2 years, which is why he ended up in North Carolina and ended up in a low-wage job with no benefits. Now he is back trying to figure out how he can help take care of his dad, figure out a job, and not be totally buried in the debt that he already has. His debt has been turned over to a collection agency and, counting the fees, he now owes $90,000 and counting. He tried to do the right thing not only by going to college but for his family. I think about how things have changed over the years--the kind of support we used to give. One of the great American strengths has been creating opportunity for people to be successful. A lot of that opportunity has been in relation to going to college and getting an education. I remember growing up in Clare. When I was going to high school my dad was very ill. We didn't have any money for me to go to school. I worked very hard. I was at the top of my small class of 93 people, and I was in a position to get a tuition and fee scholarship that allowed me to go to college. Somebody somewhere thought at that time it was important for some redheaded freckle-faced kid they did not know had a shot to make it. That has been what is best about America. Now we have tried. We have increased Pell grants, but certainly they need to be increased much more. We have focused on other areas, and we certainly need to do more. What we have seen over time is that more of what students have had to do is take student loans. There have been less opportunities for scholarships and less opportunities for grants. I am very sorry to say my home State has cut K-12 and higher education. On higher education--and more than in most States--it is in the top ten in student-loan debt and certainly not something I am proud to see happen in my home State of Michigan because of what I think have been upside-down values. What we have seen over time is that as the economy is changing, we are telling people who are going back to school who lost their job: You need to go back and get the education, the tools, and the skills for the jobs that are available in today's economy. We have new opportunities and a new economy, but it means we have to have new skills. We have to have an education, so students are doing that. They are doing the right thing. They are doing what they have been told to do. Then they turn around and their only option is loans. They take a look at the fact that somehow student loans are treated differently than student loan debt. You cannot get the lowest interest rates and refinance if you are in the unfortunate situation of going into bankruptcy and can't discharge those loans in bankruptcy such as you can other kinds of debt. I don't understand how we got into a place where somehow student loan debt is with you forever and ever. We don't have the same ability to allow people to manage that debt as they do other kinds of debt. But that is where we are in this country. There are cuts at the State level and tuition goes up. We then see a situation where more and more people have to turn to student loans. We can do something about that today. There is a lot we can do. I support doing all that will allow us to get us back to right-size the situation in terms of our values and supporting opportunity for education in our country. One thing we can do right now is to have a vote on this bill. We could immediately see change happen. Put more money back into the pockets of folks across our great country who have been doing the right thing and want a fair shot to make it and the opportunity to have some kind of help as they are paying off their student loans. I am so pleased to see our leader and the main author of this legislation join us on the floor. She understands, as we all do, and is someone that has been dedicated to education and higher education her whole life, advocating for an opportunity for people to be successful and have a fair shot. It is my pleasure at this point to turn to the distinguished Senator, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, and support her request as she moves forward this afternoon. I yield for the Senator.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, as the Presiding Officer is well aware, as one of our great leaders on our economic agenda, of what we are calling a fair shot, it is incredibly important in the time we are in session that we have an opportunity to vote again on each of those items and hopefully pass each of the items at the front line of what American families, American people, care about in terms of lifting their standard of living and creating more opportunities. It is great that we have seen the stock market more than double in the past 5, 6 years. It is great that someone who is living off of interest earnings has a better portfolio. That is great. But the person who is getting up every day, going to work, and maybe takes a shower after work, ought to have the same fair shot to get ahead so that this economy is growing--and that is great--but it needs to grow and create opportunity for everyone. We can help with that by having the right support and the right policies, and that is what the fair shot agenda is all about. This afternoon we are going to be voting on a very important piece-- which I frankly can't believe we are even having to talk about in 2014--whether we are going to actually enforce equal pay for equal work laws. When I think about my own family, my daughter, daughter-in-law, and granddaughter at 7 years old--I hope by the time she grows up we are not still going to be talking about this issue. I think about they are working hard every day and the assumption they have is that they will get paid just as their male counterparts are. There are those who have said: Well, this is a distraction. This isn't really an issue. There are some in Michigan who have said: Women don't care about equal pay. What they care about is flexibility. My response is flexibility doesn't buy my groceries. It does not buy my daughter's groceries. It does not put gas in her car. It does not pay her mortgage. The reality is, in America, in 2014, there is absolutely no reason-- zero--that we would not have a 100-percent vote not just on the procedural vote to proceed but on a final bill to make sure enforcement is in place on equal pay--a pretty big deal. An awful lot of women who are the sole breadwinners in their families are counting on us to get this right so they can make sure their kids, who are now going back to school, can have the school clothes they need, they can put the food on the table, they can put the gas in the car to get them to school and get to work, and so on. Another big piece of all this agenda in terms of creating opportunity for people is to make sure you can afford to go to college. That same person who is trying to put food on the table would love to put money aside in a bank account for their kids to go to college and would love to know that, when they are doing the right thing--they are making the grade, they are going to college--they will not be stuck with mounds of debt, buried in debt, because we do not have the right kind of system that provides funding for higher education and access to low-interest loans. So another piece of the fair shot agenda, which is absolutely critical, is to make sure--let's start with ground zero, which is ``at least''--that anybody who has a student loan now will have a chance to refinance it, just like you would a house, at the lowest possible interest rate, which is impossible today. Now, what does that do? We know there is more student loan debt today than credit card debt. Think about that for a minute. There is more student loan debt than credit card debt--$1 trillion. There are mortgage bankers in Michigan saying to me: You have to fix this because I have folks who want to buy a house and they cannot qualify because of their student loan debt. They want to start a small business and they cannot get a loan because of their student loan debt. We also know there are actually people who are on Medicare who are holder than 65 years of age in this country who are still paying off student loan debt. When we talk about opportunity and a basic value of America: Work hard, go to school, have opportunity, it seems to me this flies in the face of that. So another really important piece we want to get to and we want to pass is the ability to allow people, step one, to renegotiate and to refinance their student loans at the lowest possible interest rate from last year, which is 3.86 percent for undergraduate students. So that needs to get done so we are addressing one of the huge burdens and costs on middle-class families. We also know that, unfortunately, we have another agenda item that came about because of the Supreme Court deciding that for women--that for women only--our choices on preventive health care, on birth control--if we are on the job covered by insurance our boss can actually overrule personal decisions about what type of birth control a woman will choose for herself, for her family. So we have a bill called Not My Boss's Business. I think it is pretty clear. It is not your boss's business what decisions you make, and you should be able to have your birth control decisions and what you need covered just like anything else in terms of preventive health care for men are for women. So that is another piece of all of this that needs to get passed to make it clear. This is an economic issue for people. I know in my own family, when I think about my daughter and son and nieces and nephews who are planning their families and making decisions, these are economic issues about health care coverage. We have two other critically important economic issues that are part of what we want to get done before this session ends in September. One is raising the minimum wage. It seems to me pretty basic that if you are working 40 hours or more a week you should not be in poverty, plain and simple. If we are going to reward work, if we are going to expect people to work, then working should pay more than not working. If you are working 40 hours a week, you ought to be making more than the poverty level. It has been way too long for American workers to get a pay raise. So that is an important part of it. Then finally there is a bill that I have introduced that, to me, ought to be a no-brainer. I do not understand; we tried to pass it a couple years ago. It was blocked. And it was blocked again by Republican colleagues a few weeks ago. We need to get this done. It has to do with a part of our Tax Code that allows a company that packs up shop and moves the factory overseas to write off the cost of the move, so the American taxpayers, including workers who just lost their job, would be paying for it. Unfortunately, over the years, we have seen too much of that in Michigan. Now things are coming back. Manufacturing is coming back. We are very happy about that. But we want to send a very strong message that if you pack up shop and decide to move overseas, American taxpayers, the workers and their families, the communities are not going to pay for the move. But if you want to come back, we are more than happy to allow you to write off those costs through the Tax Code, and we will even give you another 20 percent tax credit for those costs on top of it. So it is very simple. The Bring Jobs Home Act simply says: If you want to come back to America, great, we will help you do that. We will help you pay for those costs to come back to America. But if you want to leave the country, you are on your own. So those are the five items that we want to get done before the end of this month that all relate to whether we are going to have opportunity and we are going to focus on the middle class of this country. Too many folks are barely holding on or are not holding on or used to see a path to get to the middle class and cannot anymore. That is not going to work for America. If we do not have people who know they have a fair shot to make it--that they have opportunity, that they see opportunity for their children--if they do not have money in their pocket so they can take care of their family and invest in the future, we are not going to have a strong economy. That is just a fact. So we are glad that Wall Street is doing well. But it is time to focus on Main Street, middle-class Americans. That is what the fair shot agenda is all about, and I hope colleagues will come together and help us get this done. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Kerri Sleeman, as a supervisor, deserved to receive the kind of pay she should receive as a supervisor. One of the things I find outrageous is when we hear folks on the other side of the aisle say equal pay for equal work is nonsense; the bill is nonsense. It is a distraction. In Michigan we have heard people say: Women don't care about equal pay, they want flexibility. Well, flexibility doesn't pay for my groceries. The truth of the matter is women want to have the opportunity to receive equal pay. We are at a point in time where we ought to move forward quickly in passing each one of these issues. As we know, this is about the economy and growing the middle class in this country. We are not going to have a middle class unless everybody has a fair shot to participate and work hard and be successful, and we need to get about the business of making sure that happens. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Madam President. I would ask to speak for up to 10 minutes as if in morning business.

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you. First, I thank the distinguished chair of the Budget Committee for her words and her work on focusing on middle- class families and making sure the economy grows for everyone. I wish to echo and expand upon the very same topics our distinguished chairwoman has been talking about. First, I think it is important to note that we have seen an improvement in the economy. We are seeing a stock market that has doubled since President Obama took office. We have seen deficits going down. We are seeing projections of slowing increases as they relate to health care and Medicare costs. We are seeing more jobs being created. The challenge for us is making sure everyone has an opportunity in that economy. We see an economy that has turned, but yet we see way too many people who are not able to benefit from that economy and who don't have a fair shot to create the opportunities for themselves and their families. So there is more work to be done and that is what the ``fair shot'' agenda is all about. I thank the Presiding Officer for her leadership around this whole question of how to make sure the economy works for everyone, how to make sure we have a middle class in this country--and we will not have a middle class unless everybody has a fair shot to make it. We have put together five issues we have voted on that we will continue to bring up over and over again until they get passed--and certainly there are other issues as well but five that would make a tremendous difference to Americans in terms of creating opportunity. The first one is the minimum wage. If you work, you ought to be receiving more wages than if you were in poverty. Why not be over the poverty line if you are working 40 hours a week. We ought to value work in our economy. Raising the minimum wage is an important piece of that. It is the floor, the foundation that is high enough that your family is not in poverty if you are working 40 hours a week. We raised this issue and we voted on this issue of raising the minimum wage above the poverty line and it was blocked by our Republican colleagues in April. We then came back and looked at the fact that another part of the burden on middle-class families and those aspiring to get into the middle class is the cost of student loans. In fact, it is shocking to know we have more student loan debt than credit card debt in this country. We are seeing that people are able to refinance their homes to lower interest rates and benefit from lower interest rates for a variety of things, but they cannot refinance their student loans. People are locked in, whether it is current students, people recently out of college--we know there is a certain percentage of the trillion dollars in student loans that are paid by people who are retired, actually on Medicare and still paying off student loans. The law currently does not allow them to even just refinance to the low rates that one can get in other parts of the economy. Back in June we put forward a refinancing bill that would help 25 million Americans-- including 1 million in Michigan alone--reduce their student loan debt, put more money in their pocket so they can buy a house, they can raise a family. I know realtors in my State of Michigan and those who are involved in mortgage banking are now deeply concerned about this issue because the debt they have is disqualifying people from buying a home or being able to make other investments, starting a small business or other opportunities for refinancing. So this is a critically important issue. If someone is following the rules of working hard and doing what we all say to do, getting skills so they can compete and be part of the new economy and get a job, but folks find themselves in a situation where all they can do is create crushing debt in all of this and spend years and years and years, oftentimes hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loan debt, this is a concern. This is getting in the way of allowing people to be successful and have a middle class in this country. We have our student loan bill based on students, and it was unfortunately voted down by Republicans in June. Then we go on to an issue we didn't originally have on our agenda until the Supreme Court made what I believe was an outrageous decision that affects women in their personal health care decisions, basically saying that for a woman to get a certain kind of coverage for birth control or contraception, she would have to walk into her boss's office and sit down and explain her personal health care issues and get approval for birth control. I don't know any other part of the health care system that requires a boss to oversee a decision made by an employee. But this was something that was decided as being a legitimate option under a Supreme Court decision called the Hobby Lobby decision. So we put forth legislation to make it clear it is not your boss's business, that women ought to be able to receive coverage for preventive care for women just as men do for their health care decisions. We voted on a bill that would make sure women could make their own basic health decisions in privacy, and that was blocked in July by Republicans, indicating they did not believe women should have the opportunity to make their own health care decisions. Then a bill of mine with Senator Walsh called the Bring Jobs Home Act came before us. It is a very simple premise again. We are a global economy. We want to export our products but not our jobs, and we have tax policy right now that incentivizes those who want to take the jobs overseas. Some of this is craziness in the Tax Code, I believe. One of those very simple policies that has sent a message that it is OK to ship jobs overseas is the fact that if a company closes shop in places such as Michigan or Wisconsin or Ohio or anywhere in the country--we have seen too much of this in Michigan over the last decade--they can actually write off the cost of the move. The employer can say to the employees, you pack up the boxes, and by the way-- through the Tax Code--you will end up paying for the move. The Bring Jobs Home Act says, no, we are not paying, as American taxpayers, for your move if you are moving outside the country with those jobs. If you want to come back, great, you can not only write off those costs, we will give you an extra 20-percent tax credit for the cost on top of it. Very simply put, the Bring Jobs Home Act is for those who want to come home to America. We are all for it. We will support you and help you do that. If you want to leave America, you are on your own. That was blocked by the Republicans in July. As if blocking those four very important, commonsense bills was not outrageous enough, Republicans once again blocked a bill to guarantee women equal pay for equal work. I can't believe we are talking about this in 2014. Everybody says, wait a minute, we have equal pay for equal work. We have a law on the books that is not enforced at this point in time. We have court decisions that do not allow the actual equal pay for equal work statute to truly be enforced in this country, which is why we find ourselves in a situation where nationally women still only receive 77 cents on a dollar. In Michigan, it is 74 cents on a dollar. It is hard to believe that in this day and age--in 2014--42 of our Republican colleagues voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act. I hope we are going to have another chance in the near future to vote on that and again give them an opportunity to support equal pay for equal work. When we look at Michigan, where women are working very hard every day, I find it stunning that they are making only 74 cents on every dollar. They are getting 26 cents less for every dollar that they work. When you go to the grocery store, you don't get a 26-percent reduction. They can't say: Hey, I am paid less. Here is my 26-percent discount. When they go to the gas station, they don't get a 26-percent discount. When they pay their mortgage, they don't get a 26-percent discount. Obviously it doesn't make sense and the numbers don't add up, but it is much more than just about numbers. I remember when Kerri Sleeman from Houghton, MI--up in the Upper Peninsula--came here to testify in the Senate. She was a senior engineer supervising a group of engineers at the company. After the company closed and went bankrupt, she was reviewing the legal documents and found that she, as the engineering supervisor, had, in fact, been paid less than those whom she supervised. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for another minute.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, thank you very much. We have to make things and grow things, and this is about making sure it is in America when we make things and grow things so we have a middle class. But the reality is we have to start in the Tax Code by making it clear we are not going to incentivize moving your jobs overseas. We are not going to incentivize somebody packing up--and, by the way, oftentimes those workers end up having to train their replacement. We have many stories in Michigan where the replacement workers in another country are flown into our country and trained by our people, to take their jobs; and then, to add insult to injury, they pay for the move through the Tax Code. So it is very simple. I am going to turn to Senator Walsh to close off this debate. But we have a very simple message. If you want to bring your jobs home, we are all in. You can write off the cost of that move and we will give you an extra 20-percent tax cut. But if you want to ship your jobs overseas, you are on your own. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Presiding Officer. In a few moments we are going to be voting on a very fundamental principle and a very important bill that is literally about bringing jobs home to America. The question before us is, Are we going to begin to change the incentives in the Tax Code where instead of incentivizing jobs being shipped overseas, we are going to support our companies that are bringing jobs home? This is a no-brainer. I think anybody listening to this debate, anyone across America who is focused in, would say: Why were you not even just having a voice vote and everybody voting yes and then go on to the next tax policy, like inversion, that we need to be dealing with that will keep jobs in America? Unfortunately, we have had to go through a lot of procedures, motions to proceed. We are now having to go through a supermajority vote here to get to the final bill. I hope colleagues will join us in a bipartisan way to vote to get to the final vote on this bill so we can make it very clear we are on the side of American workers and American businesses. Here is what we have seen in the last few years, as shown on this chart. In the last decade we have lost 2.4 million jobs being shipped overseas. Now that, by the way, does not count the ones that are leaving on paper right now, which is a whole other story. That is something we need to be deeply concerned about and speaking out about and calling people out on it. But these are the jobs where they are packing up shop and moving overseas. To add insult to injury, not only does a worker lose their job, the community loses the factory or the business, but we as American taxpayers foot the bill for the move. Now, that is shocking. When you explain to people that is in the Tax Code--yes, when you pack up shop, you do all the moving, you ship your jobs overseas, you can write that off on your taxes and we all pay for it--they probably look at us like we are crazy. And they are right. We have been trying to close this now for the last few years. This is the opportunity in just a few moments to have that vote to get it done. What are we going to be voting on specifically? It is very simple: end the taxpayer subsidies that pay for moving costs of corporations to ship jobs overseas. On the other hand, if you want to bring your jobs home, we will gladly allow you to write off the costs of bringing jobs home. On top of that, we will give an additional 20-percent tax credit for the costs of moving production back to the United States. The good news is we actually have companies, for a variety of reasons, that are moving jobs home. We want to applaud them. There are a lot of reasons for that in a global economy: shipping costs, low natural gas costs that we want to keep low so we have affordable energy and we continue to bring manufacturing back. We have the most productive, skilled workforce in the world. There are a lot of reasons why companies now are bringing jobs home. But a lot of companies are right on the edge. They look at the Tax Code, and they are making decisions about whether they are going to move overseas or stay, whether they are going to bring jobs home. The bill we are voting on--and I want to thank Senator Walsh for his leadership. He has been a passionate advocate in talking about it from a Montana perspective. And the two great M States are involved here--Montana and Michigan. We both understand deeply about the fact that you are not going to have a middle class unless you make things in America.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first I would ask the Presiding Officer if he could notify me after I have spoken for 4 of my 5 minutes.

Ms. STABENOW

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