Her name was ann marie duchon to come and testify about some of the challenges she had faced. Ann marie told us that she loves her job. She works at the university of massachusettsamherst, but since the day that she started, the day she started she made a lower salary than her male counterpart who is doing the exact same job. They had the same responsibilities and both of them had taken a pay cut to accept that job and they both graduated from the same university in the same year. Well, when ann marie found this out that he was making more than she was, even though they had the exact same resumes and qualifications and year of graduation, she went in and asked for a raise and she was told she couldnt have one. Well, she stayed on at that job and continued to work hard, and it wasnt until her husbands job was at risk that she started thinking about how much those lost wages meant to her and her family. She ran the numbers and she found out that over the years, she had missed out on more than 12,000 in wages compared to her male counterpart who was doing the exact same work. Ann marie and her husband are First Generation College graduates, and they have a 5yearold daughter who was in fulltime daycare because both ann marie and her husband had to work. Ann marie told us yesterday that when she realized her lost income amounted to a years worth of child care or ten months of payments on their mortgage or Student Loans, she said that was heart breaking. Now, ann marie was ultimately able to go back and convince her employers by showing them the math to give her equal pay, but as we know today, unfortunately, most women are not able to do that and many dont even know that they are earning an unfair wage. And, mr. President , that is a real loss, both for our families and for our economy as a whole. We heard what 12,000 could have meant for ann maries household budget, but womens contributions in the work force have also made a huge difference to our Overall Economic strength. As working families have felt more and more strained by the rising costs from everything from College Tuition to child care and health care and an economy in which the gap between those at the top and everyone else seems to be getting wider and wider, womens economic contributions have helped ease the burden. Economist heather bouchet, who also testified yesterday at our hearing, found in a recent study that between 1979 and 2012, the u. S. Economy grew by almost 11 as a result of Women Joining our labor force. So as we think today about ways to support growth in the 21st century, its absolutely clear. Our countrys economic success and that of our middleclass families goes hand in hand with womens economic success. So we have a lot more work to do, because despite all the progress weve made, all the glass ceilings that have been broken, women still face barriers that are holding them and their families and our economy back. Stories like ann maries, stories of women who receive lower wages for the same exact work as men are still far too common, and because women are more likely to be the primary caregiver in a family, the lack of paid leave at most jobs means women experience today Higher Turnover and lost earnings and are more likely to be passed over for promotions that would help them advance. In addition to that, our outdated tax code works against married women who choose to go back to work as a second earner, because their earnings are counted on top of their spouses, they can actually be taxed at a higher rate, and that deters some others from choosing to reenter the work force, especially when you consider the high costs and lack of access to highquality child care. Those kinds of challenges are especially pronounced for women, and in particular mothers who are struggling today to make ends meet. Madam president , we know that twothirds of minimum wage earners are women. Their jobs are disproportionately unlikely to offer any flexibility when, for example, a child gets sick or needs to be picked up early from school, and their earnings are quickly swallowed by costs associated with work like child care or transportation. And its also important to note that our outdated policies disproportionately affect women when it comes to their retirement security, because on average women earn less than men, accumulate less in savings and receive smaller pensions. Today nearly three in ten women over 65 depend on Social Security for their only income later in their years. And i think all of my colleagues and i should be alarmed that the average Social Security benefit for women over 65 is just 13,100 per year. Imagine living on that. That is not enough to feel financially secure. So, madam president , the impact of these barriers is increasingly clear. Over the last decade, the share of women in the labor force has actually stalled. Even as other countries have continued to see more women choosing to go to work. And experts believe that a major reason for that is that unlike many other countries, we here in the United States have not updated our policies to reflect our 21st Century Work Force and help todays twoearner families succeed. At a time when we need to be doing everything we can to grow our economy and strengthen our middle class, that is not acceptable. Women have to have an equal shot at success, and first and foremost, that means we need to end unfair practices that set women back financially. We took a very good step forward with the Affordable Care act which prevents Insurance Companies today from charging women more than men for coverage, which they did before that act, but we need to do more to make sure women are getting equal pay for equal work. And my good friend and colleague, chairwoman mikulski has really led the way on the paycheck fairness act which would help provide women with more tools to fight pay discrimination, giving the millions of women earning the minimum wage a raise, as senator warren just talked about, would also go a long ways towards that effort. And, of course weve got to update our tax code so that mothers who are returning to the work force do not face a marriage penalty. In addition to expanding the earned income tax credit for childless workers, the 21st century worker tax cut that i introduced would provide a 20 deduction on the second earners income for working families with Young Children to help them keep more of what they earn. Madam president , as we get rid of these discriminatory practices, we should also recognize the challenges that working parents face and put in place a set of policies that help them at work and at home. A big part of that is investing in expanded access to affordable highquality child care. You know what . When parents go to work, they deserve to know that their child is safe and thriving while theyre working, and there are many steps that this congress could and should take through our tax code and by building on successful programs like head start to help give working parents the peace of mind they deserve. And finally, we need to build on and strengthen Social Security with policies that make it easier for women and their families to build a secure retirement. There is, of course, a lot more that we can do in addition to that, but i believe any one of those changes would have a real impact. Madam president , as you know, you were in our Budget Committee yesterday, ann marie who testified yesterday told us that she hopes when her daughter enters the work force, pay inequity will be just as much of a relic as the days before the iphone and i could not agree more. Acting to expand Economic Opportunity for women is the right thing to do. It is part of our ongoing work to uphold our countrys most fundamental values, but as our countrys recent history shows, its also an economic necessity, both for our families and for our broader economy. Thats why actually its so disappointing to see that when it comes to issues affecting women, some of our republican colleagues are laserfocused on turning back the clock. We saw this just yesterday when the senior senator from South Carolina came to the floor and tried to pass an extreme bill that would severely limit womens reproductive rights. Madam president , i think women today would much rather see Congress Focusing on expanding opportunity and helping working families than getting in between a woman and her doctor. So over the next few months, madam president , i think youre going to continue to see democrats continuing to fight for goals like achieving pay equity, providing access to affordable child care and raising the minimum wage, all of which would move women and families and our economy forward, not backward, and i really hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be willing to join us in this really important effort. Thank you, madam president , and i yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call a senator madam president . The presiding officer the senator from arizona. Mr. Flake i ask unanimous consent that senator alexander and i be the presiding officer the senate is in a quorum. Mr. Flake may i ask unanimous consent to eviscerate the quorum call. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Flake i ask unanimous consent that senator alexander and i be permitted to engage in a colloquy. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Flake madam president , we come to the floor today to call attention to the tax extender bill currently being debated before the senate. Included in this legislation is a provision extending the wind production tax credit known as the p. T. C. For two additional years. This would be the ninth extension of a supposedly temporary tax credit. P. T. C. Was first enacted in 1992 to jumpstart the nations wind industry. It was meant to expire in 1999, 15 years ago, but this onetime stimulus has turned into a neverending tax subsidy that has been extended eight times and the prospect for a ninth extension seems likely. P. T. C. Spends precious tax dollars subsidizing a very mature industry and distorting our energy markets. My friend from tennessee, senator alexander and i have been vocal opponents of this federal subsidy for years, and unfortunately this credit has survived under the canard that wind power is an infant industry in need of federal support, and with the p. T. C. s expiration on january 1 of this year, wind producers are once again igniting the rallying cry to continue their taxpayerfunded handout. I would ask my friend from tennessee for those taxpayers that may not be familiar with this use of their hardearned dollars, what is the p. T. C. And why is it so valuable . Mr. Alexander well, i thank the senator from arizona for his leadership over the years in pointing out the flaws in this proposal. It wastes money. It undercuts reliable electricity like coal and nuclear electricity, and in my view, it destroys the environment in the name of saving the environment. But lets lets say just exactly what were talking about. This is a tax credit. It was first passed in 1992, as the senator from arizona said, to help an infant industry that has been renewed eight times. If youre a wind developer, it pays you 8. 2 cents for every kilowatthour of wind that you produce, which in some cases is about the value of each kilowatthour of electricity. In fact, the subsidy is so great that sometimes in some markets, wind producers can actually give away their electricity and still make a profit, and in some other times, in the middle of the night, say, in chicago, they can actually pay utilities to take their wind power and still make a profit. So thats what the wind production tax credit is. And as the senator says, this is a mature industry. I support jumpstarting certain types of new energy for a limited period of time, but secretary chu, a nobel prizewinning United StatesEnergy Secretary of president obama, said in 2011 in response to my question is it a Mature Technology . Yes, he says, it is a Mature Technology. So i would ask the senator from arizona, what is the justification for spending over the next two years 13 billion taxpayer dollars . It is the most wasteful, conspicuous taxpayer subsidy that i know in washington, d. C. , and it proves Ronald Reagans statement that the only thing in life that is eternal is a Government Program. Mr. Flake i thank the gentleman. I dont think there is justification. The justification that often given for it is we have to give surety given ahead and people wont invest if they dont know that subsidy is there. This has been around since 1992. It was meant to expire in 1999, but its been extended eight times. If anything is unsure, were creating that unsurety, insecurity when congress simply goes again and again and renews it. But the gentleman from tennessee had a great column in the wall street journal talking about part of the problem you have when we subsidize these kinds of industries and what that does to baseload power nuclear, coal in the interim. You want to talk about that for a minute . Mr. Alexander yes. I thank the senator from arizona. The United States uses almost 25 of all the electricity in the world and we need electricity we can rely on. We dont want to flip the switch and have the light not go on. We dont want to go to work and have the generator not working. We use a lot of electricity and that comes from baseload power. That is typically in our country coal, nuclear, and now natural gas to a lesser extent. Wind is intermittent. It was at night. Usually usually it blows at night. It blows only about a third of the time, and you use it or lose it. So using relying on wind power to run a country with, that uses 25 of all the electricity in the world is the Energy Equivalent of going to war in sailboats when Nuclear Ships are available. Baseload power is undercut by this intermittent wind power, when the subsidy is so large that the Wind Developers can in some cases give away give away and in effect pay the utilities to take their wind, making the baseload power that we need to rely on for the long term less valuable, leading to the closing of Nuclear Plants and coal plants. Mr. Flake the gentleman also in that column talked about the environmental impact. Its often thought these renewables are the same in terms of their impact on the environment. But the gentleman points out where these need to be built generally. Theyre not your typical picturesque windmill somewhere in holland. Something quite different. You also mentioned what it would take to generate the same amount of power that perhaps eight Nuclear Power plants generate, what it would take in terms of these wind units. You want to talk a bit about that . Mr. Alexander the senator from arizona is from the west. Im of course from the east. In the eastern United States, Wind Turbines only work well near ridge tops. I live near a ridge top like the Great Smoky Mountain National park. If you ran Wind Turbines from georgia to maine along the appalachian trail, you would only produce about the same amount of electricity that eight Nuclear Power plants would produce and youd still need the Nuclear Power plant or the coal plants or natural gas plant to produce electricity when the wind was not blowing. We dont want to see those 20story towers on top of our ridge tops. You can see the blinking lights from 20 miles. I think they destroy the environment in order to save the environment. There are appropriate places for wind power. There is an appropriate place in the market. I would ask the senator from arizona, isnt it time for wind to take its place . Our marketplace, stand on its own and compete with other forms of electricity for the utility dollar . Mr. Flake yes. I want to point out as well neither of us was saying there is no place for wind energy. Its an increasing part of our energy load. In fact, the most new capacity actually went to wind as a percentage of what the current output. There is an important place for it. It can and is being done in environmentally sensitive ways around the country. But its time for the federal subsidy to end, and the problem is when we distort the market like we do, when at times you can actually pay a utility to take your power because thats the only time wind is blowing at night and still make a profit from the federal subsidy, then theres a distortion in the markets that we just shouldnt have. We ought to let capital flow where its most needed. So neither of us are saying that theres no place for wind, wind energy. But there is no place now, or no reason to continue for the ninth time the extension of this federal subsidy for wind. Mr. Alexander i would say to the senator from arizona, just to be specific about this, the negative pricing, as we call it, the opportunity for Wind Developers to say at 3 00 in the morning in chicago to literally pay the utility to take the wind power, thereby causing the Nuclear Plant or the coal plant to be less useful, is contributing its not the whole reason. It is contributing to the closing of Nuclear Plants. The center for strategic and International Studies has said that because of the low price of natural gas and this subsidy for wind, we might lose as many as 25 of our Nuclear Plants in the next 25 years, in the next 10 years. Nuclear power produces 60 of the carbonfree, sulfurfree, nitrogenfree lech treus tickers pollutionfree elect tryty and a