quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey is recognized. mr. menendez: mr. president, what is the business before the senate? the presiding officer: we're in

a quorum call. mr. menendez: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session on the motion to proceed on the motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on executive calendar number 501 as agreed to, the motion to reconsider is agreed to. there will now be 30 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form. mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i have come to the floor to address and advocate for the nomination of an extraordinary woman, a qualified, talented latina, mari carmen aponte, to be the united states ambassador to el salvador. over two years ago, i first chaired the nomination hearing for ambassador aponte to serve as president obama's ambassador to el salvador, to san salvador. the reality is as a member of

the senate foreign relations committee, i found her to be an exceptional candidate. last november, i chaired yet another hearing for ambassador aponte. then last december, this chamber met to vet on her confirmation. in addition to last year's vote, the foreign relations committee has held a series of meetings to consider her nomination, and frankly i have not seen any nominee forced to go through such an arduous and drawn-out confirmation process as miss aponte. let me talk about her record. mari carmen aponte is a respected american diplomat who had been on the job and served this nation with distinction. during the 15 months that ambassador aponte was sworn in as the u.s. ambassador to el salvador, she impressed the diplomatic establishment with her professionalism and won the respect of parties both on the right and the left in el salvador. she has won the respect of

civilian and military forces. she has won the respect of public and private sectors. she has won everyone's support and fostered a strong u.s.-salvadoran bilateral relationship that culminated with president obama announcing el salvador as one of only four countries in the world and the only country in latin america chosen to participate in the partnership for growth initiative. most importantly, ambassador aponte has been an advocate for american national security and democratic values. ambassador aponte as a result of her advocacy, el salvador is again a key ally in central america. its troops were the only ones from a latin american company fighting alongside american troops in both iraq and afghanistan, and as a result of her negotiating skills, the united states and el salvador will open a new jointly funded

electronic monitoring center that will be an invaluable tool in fighting transnational crime. before that period of time in which he had a recess appointment, ambassador aponte had been the executive director of the puerto rican federal affairs administration in 2001. she had served as a director at the national council of larassa, the puerto rican legal defense and education fund. she presided over the hispanic bar association of the district of columbia and the hispanic national bar association. mr. president, this is a record of success. it's a record of honor. it's a record of diplomatic and political distinction. it's a record of a dedicated, qualified, experienced and engaged american diplomat, a 15-month record that brought our nations together. what more could we ask, what

more should we ask? finally, i will simply say that the statements that have been used by some against ambassador aponte i believe are baseless. as someone who personally reviewed her record, as vun who personally looked at all -- someone who personally looked at all of the files, i believe there is absolutely nothing to prevent ambassador aponte by being -- from being confirmed by the senate. and it is my hope with having had the whole history of her tremendous service and all the issue vetted that today the senate will take a vote that will confirm an incredibly qualified person who has a long history of tremendous service to the hispanic community in this country, to our nation and who did an exceptional job in the 15 months that she was appointed by

president obama during a recess appointment as the ambassador to el salvador. she served the national interest and security of the united states very well, and we have had an incredible period of time in which we have had no ambassador confirmed there. that sends the wrong message to a country that is willing to embrace its relationship with the united states in central america, in the midst of other countries that are not as friendly to the united states. we need to confirm an ambassador, send her there, have her continue the work she was doing. with that, madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that any time that -- in which there is a qum call be equally -- there is a quorum call be equally divided against both sides. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: with that, madam president, i observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent to speak in what remaining time there is. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: madam president, we're about to vote on what i hope will be a positive vote to send a message to the people of el salvador that we appreciate their positive engagement with the united states at a time in which many central and latin american countries have taken a different view. this is a country that has engaged with us on the whole issue of narcotics trafficking, has sent their sons and daughters to fight alongside with us and have shown a qilg wilgness to engage in democracy and the rule of law. we have an incredibly qualified american of latina descent,

mari aponte, she has served with disirption for 15 minutes. i atsunami tsunami the absence of voices to the contrary in the chamber speak volumes to the process we've had and the opportunity that we are about to engage in. so it is my hope that we will see a strong bipartisan vote on behalf of ambassador aponte, send her back to el salvador, getting back to work for the united states and our collective interests. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. and with that i observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk

will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. all time has expired. under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned nors senators in

aaccordance with rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of mari carmen aponte to be ambassador of the united states of america to the republic of el salvador. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question upon reconsideration is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of mari carmen aponte of the district of columbia to be ambassador of the united states of america to the republic of el salvador shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? seeing none, on this vote, the yeas are 62, the nays are 37. 3/5 of the senators duly chosen

and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion upon reconsideration is agreed to. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask that the remarks i am going to give in just a minute appear prior to the vote having been taken on this matter. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i'm really happy that the senate was able to confirm the nomination of aponte, mari aponte to be ambassador to el salvador. she has been waiting in the aisle too long. i'm so glad that she was able to -- she will be able to renew her old job. she was really an exemplary nominee of whom the puerto rican community and the hispanics in general can feel proud. she is an excellent ambassador. president obama recess appointed her as an acting ambassador to el salvador in 2010, and she served with distinction. that's why she was confirmed today. during her time as acting ambassador, miss aponte was an outspoken advocate for american values and democracy and a

staunch supporter of the united states private enterprise. she persuaded the government of el salvador to deploy troops to afghanistan. el salvador is the first and only latin american country to send military forces to join our nato deployment. that says it all. she reached an agreement with the salvador an government to open a new electronic monitoring center to fight transnational crime. she has already improved her -- proved her strengths and qualifications on the job. that's what she has already done. she has the support of the congressional hispanic caucus and countless of latino organizations around the country. they are very, very proud of her as they should be. i'm proud of her. the obama administration did a lot of heavy lifting to get her confirmed. white house staff worked diligently to round up every vote possible. secretary clinton called senators this week, democrats and republicans, to advocate

for aponte's anonymous. i commend senator menendez for his leadership on this issue. it's high time the united states has a senate confirmed ambassador to el salvador, our ally. i want to express my appreciation to my republican colleagues who dropped their unwarranted opposition and helped us confirm this well-qualified nominee. i'm sorry for her and the country that el salvador has been without someone doing the advocacy for our country within el salvador. that won't happen anymore, she will be able to go to work tomorrow. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: madam president, in a moment i want to put a unanimous consent request and before i do, i'd like to say what it's on so that people

understand the time and the effort that's gone into getting legislation passed, and i'm referring now to a -- 3268. madam president, when john glenn retired from this body that left me as kind of the last active commercial pilot. consequently i end up getting a lot more of the -- oh, the complaints and problems within the f.a.a. and the way cases, accusations are made and enforcement actions are taken. and i've gone to bat for a lot of these people when i've felt there is really a fairness problem. and it wasn't until i had an experience, a personal experience that i realized the depth of the problem. it's very hard for people in this room to understand if you have been as i have been a private pilot, a commercial

pilot, a flight instructor for 55 years, what it would mean to have that license taken away from you if that were merely at the whims of some enforcement officer in the field. i think all of us know whether it's -- i was mayor of tulsa, now and then we had police officers who couldn't handle the authority. this happens all the time. certainly it happens and we hear a lot about it with enforcement actions brought about by the f.a.a. so what happened to me and i'll share that with you, i think it's very important, i have probably more hours than most of the airline pilots have and i'm still very active in aviation. i was flying down to the southern part of texas. the furthest south part of texas, way down by brownsville. it's cameron county airport. it's papa india lima is the

identifier for it. with several passengers with me, i was going by the controllers and this is what you don't have to do but i always do for safety purposes. and i went through the corpus christi approach control and he handed me off to the valley approach control. i was going into a field that was uncontrolled. so the only control is the valley approach control. and they're watching on a screen and they have all the information they need to direct you and authorize you to do things. and they are looking for traffic and you're squawking so they know exactly where we are, how high we are and all these things were happening. again, you don't have to do that. and and on this day in october, a year ago october, i didn't have to do it but i did it anymore. well, as i approached the windows always out -- the wind is always out of the south down there and the runway is 1-3, that coordinates with 130

degrees. and i'd have to go back and listen again to the voice recorder, about a two or three-mile final to run way 13, the controller said twin cessna, you are cleared to land, runway 13. when you do this, you dirty up your plane so you can land. this happens to be a pretty sophisticated twin-engine plane, you let the flaps down and gears down and all that stuff. you get to the point beyond which you can't go around. when i came in to make a landing, i saw -- i didn't see an x on the runway because it wasn't prominent but nonetheless there was one there but there were some workers on the far east side of the runway. now, this was a 8,000 or 9,000-foot run way, i only need 2,000 feet so i went over the workers and landed. immediately they say they got upset that i landed. and a lot of people because i'm a member of the united states

senate, they started calling "the new york times" and "the washington post" and all -- they just had a wonderful time with this. and so i started looking at it and talking to the people who do the enforcement action, and i have to say that they were good but they were responding to a lot of hysterical people who quite frankly didn't like me. and so they came with an enforcement action against me which merely was to to go around the pattern with a -- with a -- a dpriemplet flight instructor and so i did this with one, i'm also a flight instructor and i had given him his license, as a matter of fact. so i went through this procedure and everything was fine. however, the problem was this: i was denied access to the information that they were going to use against me. and when i told them that i was cleared to land by a controller, it took me, a united states senator, four months to get the voice

recording to prove that i was right. secondly, there's a thing called notice to airmen. notams are supposed to have be published, and you look through your resources, as i always do, to see if there are notams on the runways. when i go on weekends, i'll normally fly -- oh, gosh i'll be at five or six different towns but i look up the notams. i had done that. none at cameron county airport, we checked afterwards, we never could find any, no one says there were notams now. number one, was cleared to land, and no notams that were published. what they could have done is take my license away. and it doesn't mean much to people listening right now because you're not pilots. but it means a lot to the

400,000 members of the aopa who are watching us right now, and to the 175,000 pilots, general aviation pilots with the eaa, experimental aircraft association who are watching us right now. they know that they could at the whims of one bureaucrat could lose their license. so anyway, i came back and drafted legislation and i have to say this was way back in a year ago now, july 6 of 2011, introduced a bill with 25 cosponsors that would correct -- do three things very simply. number one, it would let the accused have access to all relevant evidence within 30 days prior to a decision to proceed with an enforcement action. number two, it would allow

the -- the accused to go have access to the federal courts, as it is right now, the national transportation safety board, it goes to them, they rubber stamp whatever the f.a.a. does in fiscal year 10 there were 61 appeals and of that only five were reversed. of the 24 petitions in 2010, seeking review for emergency determinations, only one, only one was granted. and 23 were denied. it's a rubber stamp. ask any pilot that you can find and they'll tell you that's what it is. and so this way they would have access to the federal court system. it's not going to happen because i can assure you that inspector in the field, enforcement officer in the field is not going to put his reputation on the line to -- to knowing that someone is going to be looking and a sense of fairness. the district court doesn't have to know anything about piloting an airplane. it's just a fairness issue and

in my case they would have looked at this and said wait a minute you were cleared to land by the f.a.a., no notams published, what did you do wrong? i didn't do anything be wrong. that is where they come in. and it would make sure that flight service station communications are available to all airmen. they're supposed to be but if it took me four months and i'm a united states senator to get a voice recording to show i was cleared to land, what about somebody who is not a united states senator? what about somebody who would be intimidated to the point that would lose his license? the second thing this does, it forces the notice, the notice to airmen, to be put in a place where they are visible, a central location, and the third thing it does, there is a problem. if you talk to the aircraft owners and pilots association, of all the problems that they get called to their attention, 23% of -- 28% of all the requests for assistance received

by them relate to the medical certification process. in other words, someone might lose his medical and take and find he's direct crected any kind of physical problem and want to get it back and they get it back. however if he happens to live in a different town and there are hundreds of these doctors that do this, there's no uniformity between it. it sets up a process or helps facilitate setting up a process by having general aviation, having the f.a.a., having the ntsb, having everyone who is relevant and interested in this to look at -- look at and coordinate the medical certification process. that's essentially it, madam president. i'm prepared to go into a lot of detail. i know that i now have 66 cosponsors in this body. i could have had a lot more, we quid after we got two-thirds, i think everyone knows that's normally what do you. and i do know that we may have

one objection to this unanimous consent request. but i'm going to make it now as if in legislative session i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 422 s. 3268, that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. rockefeller: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: reserving the right to object. first of all, i know this bill is very important to the senator who is offering it and i understand that and i respect the senator and he's a good senator. but this -- this really, my objection is not based so much on what he said but it's based

on the whole concept of public safety. this is about public safety. we should not have to worry that potentially unqualified pilots are in the air. we have so many tens of thousands of airplanes in the air every hour of every day. this bill would create a process which would be new that could result in the federal government being unable to pursue enforcement actions because of limited resources. it's a fact of life these days. f.a.a. has to cut way back. or having to address other mandated priorities which are perhaps more important than this one. and that could very well mean that the f.a.a. and the ntsb, the national transportation safety board, which are ultimately responsible for making decisions about whether pilots who have violated aviation regulations could be barred from taking actions to prevent unsafe pilots from continuing to fly. that's heavy water.

that could have serious safety consequences. according to the f.a.a. in some cases which would typically warrant revocation of a pilot's license, some unqualified pilots would be able to avoid losing their certificates by avoiding f.a.a. prosecution of the matter before the in the sb. this bill -- in the sb. this will -- ntsb. this would stand the enforcement structure on its head and as a result i do object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: let me respond. this has no way -- in no way anything to do with safety. the first ash traitdor is -- arbitrator is the f.a.a. when we have a chance to almost all the senators in this body, we've talked about safety, we had a hearing at oshkosh about the safety.

the air traffic controllers support me in this. they're the ones concerned with safety. i would just say i don't agree with that argument but i respect the senator from west virginia. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: madam president, i too object, along with senator rockefeller. let me say that i have been on the national transportation safety board, and i know well the kinds of cases that are pilots license revocations and the ntsb process for appeals of those. and i understand senator inhofe 's explanation for what happened with him that is in somewhat of a disagreement with some of the reporting of that incident. and i think -- i certainly

understand the senator from oklahoma's longtime record of being a pilot, and i respect that very much. but i'm afraid that what he's not taking into consideration is most certainly a safety issue. we have tasked the f.a.a. with air safety, and we have given them the responsibility for revoking pilots' licenses when there is a need to do that in their opinion, whether it be for violation of landing on a runway that had an "x" which pilots know means that runway cannot be used at that time. as happened with senator inhofe's case, he is saying that he had a clearance, but the "x" was there, and the f.a.a. cited him for that and did not revoke

his pilot's license at all. but yet he's coming forward with a bill that not only addresses some of his legitimate concerns, which i agree with, but also goes beyond that to say that when the f.a.a., with its expertise and its mission that is given to it by congress to provide for safety and revokes a private pilot's license or commercial pilot's license or aviation mechanic's license that they would then not have to go through the appellate process with the national transportation safety board, which is the appellate authority, which also has the expertise and the experience to know when a revocation would be questionable or if the f.a.a. was right. they have the pilots, they have

the expertise to make those decisions. and they then, after the ntsb appeal have the right to go to federal court if they so choose. what senator inhofe's bill does is take away the ntsb portion of the appeals process. now let me say that i have offered to senator inhofe, because he knew that i objected to this bill, to do everything in his bill that he has addressed. the openness, the requirement that an enforcement action that the f.a.a. would grant the pilot all the relevant evidence in 30 days prior to a decision, that it would clarify the statutory deference as it relates to ntsb. ntsb is not a rubber stamp at

all. i think they have been fair with their expertise. f.a.a. has the responsibility for aviation safety. requiring the f.a.a. to undertake a notice to airmen improvement program, i think is certainly legitimate. making flight service station communications available to all airmen is a legitimate piece of this legislation. what i object to and have asked senator inhofe to let us work together to do is not to bypass ntsb, but to let the appellate process go forward and then at the end, if there is still a feeling of unfairness on the part of the pilot, that they would have access to the federal courts. they can do that now. so i think that senator inhofe

insisting on bypassing ntsb is holding up the good parts of his bill because it is very important, in my opinion, that we keep the kper tease for the safety -- expertise for the safety in the skies where it is in the f.a.a., the in the it be and then the federal courts if rights are violated. in 2011, the ntsb had 350 appeals cases for administrative law judges, and the number was similar in 2011. cases are typically disposed of in 90 to 120 days, so there's not a long lag time in which the pilot doesn't have the access to his or her license. the ntsb held 62 appeals hearings in 2011 and 36 cases

went to the full board. the breakdown of the cases was private pilots, 48%. mechanics -- airline mechanics or aviation mechanics 13%. commercial pilots 6%. air carriers 8%. and medical was 25%. now madam president, i -- senator rockefeller and i, as the relevant chairman and ranking on the commerce committee, have agreed to have a hearing on senator inhofe's bill so that this could be fully vetted. and most certainly i have on many occasions offered to work with senator inhofe to get the notification requirements, the openness requirements, every part of his bill that would require reforms of the process for fairness to the pilots, i would agree with and work to help him pass.

but taking out the ntsb and going directly to federal courts i think is not necessary, and i think it will rurt aviation safety. now i also believe that a different extraneous issue is that our federal courts are pretty clogged already and the federal courts do not have pilots licenses on their staff clerkship rolls to a great extent. maybe they happen to be, but they don't have the familiarity with the requirements of f.a.a. and the issues that f.a.a. looks at. so -- and they do have access to federal courts in the end, anyway. but the ntsb part i think is important so that the

experienced pilots in the ntsb have the appellate authority as they do now to decipher what happened with the f.a.a. and determine if fairness was given to the pilot. but also to help determine if that pilot's revocation would endanger aviation safety, which is not a role for the federal courts. so, senator rockefeller and i do object. i hold my hand out to senator inhofe to work with him on the notification and fairness issues in his bill, which i support. i just don't think bypassing the expertise and adding another burden to the federal courts, where they do not have the expertise is in anyone's best

interest in this country. and i'm happy to work with anyone interested in this issue and hope that we can resolve it. mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: madam president, i think it would be redundant of me to go back and repeat what i said before, but the senator from texas talked about the "x" on the runway. i have made it very clear that by the time you can see the "x" on the runway when you're cleared to land and you have a sophisticated plane with full passengers, you can't -- there is a point beyond which you can't go in terms of after your plane is dirtied up making a go-round. obviously it wasn't necessary anyway because i had 7000 feet of empty feet to go around. that's not the point. that's not the point because that's not the issue. i recognize, and i respect

senator hutchison and the fact that she was on the ntsb, and i know that that obviously is meaningful to her. and certainly senator rockefeller. what we're dealing with here is we have a committee -- and i have a lot of respect for the committee. senator rockefeller is the chairman. senator hutchison is the ranking member and this committee is the committee of jurisdiction. what did i do? i introduce this had bill a year ago. i talked about that. we had 25 cosponsors at that time. we had endorsements from all over the country. we had the national air traffic controllers came in. we sent out dear colleague's and talked to people. we sent a letter to the committee, the congress committee that senator hutchison was on at that time requesting a hearing. madam president, we had 32 cosponsors signing that letter requesting a hearing, some of which are the on the commerce

committee. nothing happened. september 20, as the months go by, we've made more and more requests. we've talked about this. and every time they say we're going to be doing this. you finally get to the point where you have to go ahead and get it done. and that's why we have a rule 14. and i'm not a parliamentarian. i don't know exactly how things work. i remember i had experience with they when -- with this when i started here. when something is bogged up -- it might have been business daily. as the greatest-single reform in the history of the united states house of representatives. and addressed this same thing. it was a way of bottling up bills in committees so they could never have hearings, to never be able to get on the floor for a vote. that discharge petition reform became a reality. and now the light is shining and

everything is great, but when you have been trying and trying to get a hearing before a committee for a year and you have 66 cosponsors, you have to resort to whatever is out there available to you for a remedy. that remedy happens to be rule 14. rule 14 will allow me to do this. in the event they continue, two people are holding the bill up. that's senator rockefeller and senator hutchison. in the event that they continue to do that, i will have no choice but to file cloture and to go ahead and get a vote on this bill, recognizing it takes a supermajority when you file cloture. i would do that. i have a lot of things, i guess, i didn't think we would get into this. one is the -- give me the article from the aopa. that's by john youtis.

i have an article which i will find here in a minute and we'll submit this for the record. i think it's very important. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: it goes into details documentary cases where they have been unable to get fairness through this system. how many cases would ultimately go to the district court? i think very few: idea that that's going to be an opportunity for a pilot to take what he's accused of to the district court to see it in a sense of fairness, it has nothing to do with how many pilots are sitting on that district court. it's a sense of fairness. that's what they deal with. in the district court system these people don't have expertise in all these areas. but in my case, if they looked at that and said if the f.a.a. looked at that, there's nothing wrong. he didn't do anything wrong. it finally gets to the point.

i've been very patiented. i've wait add year, a whole -- i've waited a year, a whole year for this. finally i've come to the point where i've given up. i decided we're going to have to do it this way. it's clearly the will of the senate to pass this legislation. with that, i do have some things i want to put into the record. i have, first of all, the sequence of events, the request that we made of the commerce committee to hear this legislation. i have a, an article that was in "pilots" magazine by john youtis who is considered to be the single foremost legal authority in these areas. if the print were a little larger, i would read some of this. it talks about the decisions the current ntsb causes us to question its fairness and impartiality in pilot appeals. he talks about the notices that

have gone out and the probz they have had with this -- and the problems they have had with this. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: with the 400,000 pilots interested in this -- actually well over that -- just those who are involved in this pro set right now, they have had documentary cases where the fairness is not there. that's all that we're asking, just to be treated fair, like every other citizen in the united states. i yield the floor. ms.-- mrs. hutchison: mr. president, on the point of the hearing, senator rockefeller and i have agreed certainly with senator inhofe to hold a hearing, which we notified senator inhofe that we would. i would expect it to be next month for the hearing schedule. i just hope that w -- and i just hope that we can pass a good part of his bill,

which i'd like to work with him on. but i think that the motivation here should be safety and assuring safety, and i know the personal conflict that senator inhofe has with what happened to him, and i'm sympathetic, but i don't think that passing legislation that could hurt the aviation safety community is the right approach to meet the objections that senator inhofe has. i would love to have a hearing and have all of the witnesses that he would put forward, and let's get the objective look at what this would do to taking the expertise and the mission from f.a.a. and allow it to be

bypassed at ntsb level and go to federal courts, where there is not the experience and the aviation safety mission that is, i think, well-protected today. so i hope that we can work together on this, and i understand his frustration, but i don't think this is the right solution for what happened to him with one incident. thank you, mr. president. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: first of all, i'm not aware that i was offered a hearing. but let me just make sure i have in the record a letter, september 15 of 2011 -- that was, what, nine months ago -- signed by 32 members of this senate, including the occupier of the chair right now, the senator from west virginia. and i don't think anyone is going to say that we haven't done everything we could to go through the process, the committee process, to get a

hearing. i just flat gave up. and that's why we have this rule. and so i will be looking forward to taking the next steps, and i know there are a lot of people out there that want to have this type of justice afforded the pilots of the united states of america, the same as every other citizen enjoys. with -- i appreciate the patience of the committee because i know we have other business. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection, it will be placed in the record. mr. inhofe: these three ultimate dos in the record? -- these three documents in the record? the presiding officer: yes. the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: i rise to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to discuss a terrible shortcoming in our discrimination laws in legislation which i introduced and i encourage you to sign

ofnlt the boston herald reported that a veteran of iraq in afghanistan had been forced to file suit in boston because a political activist landlord discouraged him him from renting because of his military background claiming the situation would be -- quote -- "uncomfortable." this brave veteran brought his fight to the press and to the courts of massachusetts, where state law makes it illegal to discriminate against veterans who are seeking housing. now, in massachusetts that is in fact the law -- it is illegal. when i read this, i was angry, as i know you would be angry if it happened in your state. that this could happen today is just mind-boggling. so my staff and you started working to see what we could do to right this wrong. and see if it was something that was systemic throughout the country. we started digging into this issue and found when it comes to housing, it is apparently not illegal under federal law to discriminate against a veteran or member of our armed forces on the basis of their brave service to our nation.

back when i was a state senator and state representative in massachusetts at the statehouse, we took action, as i referenced, to ensure that our veterans are protected, whether it is a welcome home bonus, ors first and second-time soldiers that have served, educational benefits, i can go on and on. i think mass does it better -- k massachusetts does it better than any other state in the country. it came as a surprise that other states have similar protections. the size of our armed forces actually shrinking dramatically. now is clearly the time to fix the problem. i know and i know you as well, mr. president, do not want to hear about more stores like this one because i recognize how important that issue is for you. mr. president, no one puts on the uniform of our nation and who serves should be faced with

discrimination. there's no one who should ever face that discrimination when you are they're trying to put a roof over their head. the idea that anyone would deny a home to someone who has put their life on the line for our freedom is unmen. it should be undemocratted by -- it shoulden condemned by every member of this body. we must go back to 1968 to understand. i was nine years old. one of my preye predecessors, sr edward brook, a great legislator from my home state of massachusetts, a gentleman with whom i still peek with, offered the original fair housing act which was signed into law but then-president johnson. that civil rights legislation broke new ground by banning housing discrimination on the basis of race, coul or, religion, or national origin. another great senator from massachusetts, senator ted kennedy, joined senator brook in urging the bipartisan passage of that very important piece of

legislation. then in 1974, closer to you, senator bill brock of tennessee amended the act to prevent howlingsing discrimination on the basis of gender. then in 1988, senator kennedy extended the act's protections to those americans with disabilities and families with children. both of these expansions, mr. president, received broad, bipartisan support and were actually signed into law. and as senator brooks said 44 years ago, fair house something not a political issue except as we make it one by the nature of our debate. it is purely and simply a matter of equal justice for all americans. well-said by senator brook those 44 years ago. fair housing has a bipartisan history and today we have a chance to do it again. we can do it by protecting two additional groups from housing discrimination. by ending housing discrimination against service members and vernths act, senate 3283, is

needed anded it needed right now. it amends the fair housing act to protect veterans and service members from house being discrimination and by passing this bill right away, the senate can say affirmatively and immediately that veterans and service members deserve the same rights to housing as anyone else. this is a no-brainer. the commander in cheech of the veterans of -- the comearngdz $commander in chief of the veterans of foreign awars has endorsed my bill. senator browns work to protect service members and veterans from house being discrimination is very positive. it is unconscionable that members of our military and veterans should fear not being able to rent or buy a home because of their status as a veteran. this bill would correct the issue." by passing this right away, we can once again say to those veterans and service members that they have our pride and respect. we need the action right now.

no veteran or service member should ever face the indignity of being denied housing solely on the basis of their service. the fair housing act of 1968 and senator kennedy's amendments in 1988 passed with overwhelming support. we should be able to do the same here. i urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor this important piece of legislation and work for its immediate and unanimous passage. it's time to fix this shor shortcoming in our nation's housing laws and it is just quite frankly the right thing to do. i would also like to take this opportunity to wish the united states army a happy 237th birthday. i was honored to go to the cake cutting last night and honor those who have done so much for our great country. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. kerry: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: mr. president, i understand we're -- we can proceed as if in morning business? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: mr. president, i will do so, but i would want to speak with respect to an amendment on the farm bill when we get back to that. i'd like to call my colleagues' attention to the fact that in 2008 the farm bill's conferees inserted a provision that transfers authority of the regulation of catfish but only catfish -- the only particular item singled out to be transferred -- from the food and drug administration to the u.s. department of agriculture. the provision was not debated in either body. that's one much those things that as we all know people have

increasingly got incensed about -- in the public as well as around here in the congress itself. well, because it was transferred over to the u.s. department of arkagriculture, the usda subsequently published a proposal in order to carry out the new mandate that it had been give tongue regulate catfish - - given to regulate catfish. that proposal has remained, and properly so, stalled in the regulatory process -- i say "properly so" because it serves no public interest, it's costly for taxpayers, and it would -- it's duplicative and confrontational with other entities that are even engaged in that kind of oversight and as a result it will invite trade retaliation abroad and put us on a train wreck, if you will, of sort of excessive regulatory

conflict here. senator mccain and i have joined together along with a bipartisan group of our colleagues to offer an amendment -- amendment number 2199 -- to repeal the 2008 catfish language. and if we don't repeal it, usda is going to try to continue to proceed forward in this regulatory train wreck. now, let me give you a little background on this. in february of 2011, the g.a.o. cited the proposed catfish regulatory program, cited it as part of its report on those programs that were at high risk for waste, fraud, and abuse. then in march of 2011, the g.a.o. again called this program duplicative as part of a totally separate record, and then just last month the g.a.o. produced

an extensive and detailed analysis of why this program is not only costly and duplicative but why it would have no food safety benefit. so if it's not going to have any food safety benefit, it's costly, it's duplicative, the obvious question for all of us is, well, why? what's going on here? well, all of us care about jobs in our communities. every state is always vying to find a way to guarantee that the jocks it hajobs it has are prott is creating more jobs. so i understand that. i don't have any animus against any particular senator fighting to do that. in this case a number of catfish producers in the south managed to get protection that takes

care of them but hurts a lot of other folks in other parts of the country. and so it may be good for catfish producers in a few places in the south, but it's bad for consumers in the united states generally -- because it raises costs -- and its very bad for seafood processors and for communities in my state, among others, but in other states of the country. west coast, east coast. there are employers in my state who would like to process and distribute products that come from various other places, including abroad, and they ought to be able to do so in a free market, in an open market that's not protected and chopped up and diced and sliced in order to protect people inappropriately. playing protectionist games with the rules and regulations and agencies is bad public policy,

it's bad economic policy particularly, and it is an invitation, mr. president, to our trading partners to do the same thing, and when they do it, we complain about it. and rightfully. as chairman baucus has pointed out -- the chairman of the finance committee has said, "u.s. agricultural products, including safe, high-quality montana beef, face unscientific trade restrictions in many important markets. if we expect other countries to follow the rules and drop these restrictions, it's critical that we play by the rules and not block imports for arbitrary and unscientific reasons." that is exactly what we are trying to undo with the amendment that senator mccain and i are bringing to the farm bill. the only reason that -- the only reason that this bad idea that

was not yet, that was codified in 2008 has not yet become an active program is that -- get this, mr. president. the bill did not define the word "catfish." so, as a result, for the last four years lawyers, lobbyists, public relations firms, foreign governments, legislators, and multiple cabinet officials have engaged in a definitional debate over what qualifies a fish to be called a catfish, and subsequently fall into this new regime. well, it turns out that whether a fish is or is not a catfish is something that experts can actually debate for hours, believe it or not. it also turns out that it doesn't really matter because according to the g.a.o., the f.d.a. ought to retain jurisdiction over all fish, catfish and noncatfish alike,

and that's the simplest solution. mr. president, i see the majority leader. if i could just ask that my remarks be without interruption. thank you. the presiding officer: without objection. the majority leader. mr. reid: i appreciate my colleague for yielding to me. i yield back all postcloture time on the nomination of mari carmen aponte. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. the question is on the nomination. all in favor say aye. opposed? thies appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the motion to reconsider be considered made, laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate, no further motion be in order to the nomination, any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record and president obama be notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: this will be the last vote today. it appears we will have no vote

tomorrow. but senator stabenow and senator roberts are working very diligently to come up with an agreement on the farm bill. we're going to have a vote monday evening. we haven't decided exactly what that will be. we have a number of different alternatives. but we hope that we can have common sense prevail and kopbl up with an agreement. if for no other reason, to recognize the hard work of the two managers this have bill. it's so important that we get this done. there are issues that we are going to vote on, one of which senator kerry has talked about. there are things, relevant amendments. we have a lot of them. we agreed to vote on those. we're trying to work out the nonrelevant amendments and we're not there yet. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: mr. president, thank you. i would ask the next few comments i make regarding the nomination appear directly after the minority leader. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: i'm grateful we've finally been able to get the

nomination of mari aponte passed. i was not able to be here. i want to thank senator menendez for chairing that for me at that time. i want to thank our colleagues in the senate for finally getting our nominee in place and confirming her to be the ambassador to el salvador. i think it is long overdue. she will do a terrific job, and i'm grateful to colleagues that they finally have in fact confirmed this nomination. mr. president, i will now resume my comments, where i was in the record. and so, as i mentioned, apparently you can debate forever about what kind of fish, and that's exactly what's been going on, whether or not that constitutes. but this is really very simple, mr. president. the g.a.o. put out a report in may of this year, and in the

report, the g.a.o. could not have been more clear. they -- they made it about as simple as they could in their statement saying, "responsibility for inspecting catfish should not be assigned to the usda." simple sentence. g.a.o., as we all know, nonpolitical assessment, a watchdog, if you will, for the actions here in the congress, and in that report they state, "the proposed program essentially mirrors the catfish oversight efforts already underway by the f.d.a. and the national marine fisheries service. furthermore, since f.d.a. introduced new requirements for seafood processing facilities, including catfish facilities, in 1997, no outbreaks of illness of salmonella of catfish have been

reported. consequently, if implemented, the catfish inspection program would likely not enhance the safety of catfish but would duplicate f.d.a. and national marine fisheries inspections at a cost to the taxpayers." so i think that's pretty clear-cut. we need to repeal the 2008 farm bill language related to catfish. we need to let the american consumer decide from all of the sale food -- of the safe food options that exist, let them decide what they want to consume. and, obviously, you know, we have nothing specifically against catfish per se in any part of the country or -- and particularly the jobs. we all want the jobs but they shouldn't come at the expense of another part of the country setting up a duplicative, completely wasteful taxpayer expenditure duplicated program.

mr. president, in addition to that, i just want to say a quick word about another amendment that senator murkowski and i a are -- are sponsoring, and my colleague, senator brown, is also a sponsor of it, and that is to resolve -- to resolve an important inequity that exists in the current law. we need to help provide desperately needed disaster assistance to fishermen in massachusetts and around the nation. it's not just for massachusetts. i hope the managers have let -- of this legislation will let the bipartisan amendment receive a vote during the senate consideration of this legislation. everybody knows that in certain parts of new england, in places like -- states like washington -- i was out in washington last weekend -- and seattle, a huge fishing industry; california, san diego, vervarious parts of the country,

louisiana. we have a lot of fishing around the country. but increasingly, those fishery resources are under pressure, and increasingly there is regulation in order to try to preserve the stocks. and so fishermen who have fished for a livelihood for a lifetime are being restricted in the numbers of days that they can go to sea, restricted in the amount that they can catch, and people have lost homes, they've lost boats, they've -- i mean, just whole lives have been turned topsy-turvy because of conditions beyond their control, whether it's the ecosystem, mother nature -- nobody knows, but it's no different from a drought in the iowa cornfields or in other parts of our count country. it's no different from a disaster that takes place when crops are wiped ou out. these folks are being wiped out. they are the farmers of the sea, the farmers of the ocean, and they farm sustainably.

but they need help. glocester and new bedford are two of the largest fishing ports in our nation in massachusetts, and commercial fishing industry supports about 83,000 jobs, $4.4 billion in revenue, but it's becoming harder and harder for these fishing families and for the smaller boats to be able to survive. these small-boat fishermen particularly are part of the culture of our -- of our state and of our region, and we want to try to preserve that. last fall, the national ocean -- oceanic administration announced the reversal in the most recent gulf of maine cod assessment. within three years of each other, two radically different stock assessments have been issued, one saying the stocks are replenishing, another saying they're disappearing, and the fishermen are whipsawed between

these stock assessments and are told different things. in one, they think they can invest in their boats and in the future; in the next, they're being told, sorry, folks, you're out of luck. well, it shouldn't be that arbitrary and it certainly shouldn't just whack them and abandon them. my sense is that we need to -- noaa is now undertaking a new survey for next year because of the conflict of the surveys. so how are we going to help these people survive inspect next year? how are we going to help them get through those hard times and keep those boats so that if th the -- if the word comes back that they can go back out to the ocean and continue in their livelihood, they're actually able to do that? my amendment simply expands the eligibility for emergency disaster loan program. loan, underscore. not a grant, it's a loan progr program. to include commercial fis fishen and shellfish fishermen. that's all we're asking. it would allow fishermen to be

eligible for a low-interest emergency disaster loan, available through the department of agriculture's farm service agency, and it's my understanding this amendment would have no score. mr. president, fishermen, as we know, many people saw "the perfect storm" they risk their lives to go out and put protein, food on the tables of america. and all you have to do is watch one of the shows, "deadliest catch" to get a sense of what's at stake in this. i believe they are agricultural producers just like other kinds of farmers, and they ought to be treated with the same respect. we have put billions upon billions of dollars, often in grants, in emergency assistance for one reason or another to farmers across the states of the midwest, far west and some in the northeast, where we do have some farming. but usually it's in other parts of the country.

and we have consistently voted to do that, to help people. we're asking our colleagues here to treat our farmers of the sea with the same respect that others are treated in this country. we simply end an inequity in the law that doesn't provide a legal mechanism for people to be able to do what they would like to do, which is be able to legally help our fishermen with these low-interest loans. and with that, mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, a while ago, we were talking about the unanimous consent request that was objected to by senator hutchison. to bring my pilot's bill of rights by unanimous consent and under actually senate rule 14. during that time, it was the intention of senator begich, mark begich, from alaska to be on the floor with me. he was tied up with constituents, and i didn't feel i wanted to talk about him unless he were down here, but i have visited with him, and i

just want to say to -- because i know right now we have -- i don't know how many but thousands and thousands of pilots that are watching us at this moment to know that mark begich has been my cosponsor of my legislation, and i want to tell you that we would not be able to be here doing what we're doing as far along with 66 cosponsors if he -- if we hadn't had his cooperation. so i really want to thank -- and i thank the junior senator from west virginia, senator manchin, who has been by my side on this legislation all the way through. i just want to make sure that the pilots of america know who does want them to have equal justice under the law and who perhaps does not. so i thank the chair and i yield the floor. mr. manchin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: first of all, i thank senator inhofe for his leadership on this very, very important piece of legislation. i'm proud to be part of that

with you, sir, and for the leadership you have shown for the fellow pilots, and the connection we have not only in parts of west virginia but all over the country as our private aviation. we hope to keep that alive and well. i know your state, mr. president, is the same. we appreciate all your support and we appreciate your leadership, sir. mr. president, i rise today to speak about a very important issue that i believe will truly help each and every one of us, every senator and every congressman from all 50 states accomplish something meaningful when it comes to fighting the prescription drug abuse epidemic that is plaguing communities all over this great nation. mr. president, i have not talked to a person in my state that has not been affected through a person in their immediate family or extended family with prescription drugs overuse. it's something that is epidemic proportion that we have to fight and work together. less than a month ago, i was so proud when the senate came together to unanimously support an amendment i offered with senators mark kirk, our dear friend, kirsten gillibrand,

chuck schumer and jay rockefeller that would make it far more difficult to abuse addictive pain medication by reclassifying drugs containing hydrocodeine as a schedule two substance. moving hydrocodeine to schedule two would mean people would need a prescription to get their pills. traffickers would be subject to increased fines and penalties. as we speak, negotiations are ongoing between the house and the senate on a compromise version of the prescription drug user fee act. the senate version contains my amendment, and the house version does not, so we're fighting as hard as we can to make sure this amendment is included into the final bill. last month, i stood here on the senate floor and shared stories that i heard in communities across west virginia about why this amendment is so urgently

needed. prescription drug abuse is responsible for about 75% of the drug-related deaths in the united states, and 90% in my home state of west virginia. according to the white house office of national drug control policy, prescription drug abuse is the fastest growing drug problem in the united states, and it's claiming the lives of thousands of americans every year. but no statistic can ever illustrate the scope of this problem like hearing the pleas of children who are begging their leaders to do something to get drugs out of their communities. children like those i met in wyoming county, west virginia, last october where more than 120 people have died from drug overdoses in the past seven years, including 41 last year and 12 already this year. mr. president, since that proud moment when the senate mount clemensly passed my hydrocodeine

rescheduling amendment, it has come under fire from groups who seem to think trying to limb the number of hydrocodeine pills making their way into our communities and oftentimes into the wrong hands is a bad idea because it affects their bottom lines. now, i recognize that this amendment does not fit into the business model of selling as many pills as possible, i understand that. but with that being said, i believe we have a responsibility to this great nation and especially to the youth of america. this will affect us for generations to come, sir. to win this war on prescription drugs, it needs to happen now and it is one of the most abused substances -- hydrocodeine is one of the most abused substances we have and most addictive. i don't think i have talked to a person who has not recognized that each and every state has had horrible problems with prescription drug abusive, and

the facts will bear this out. according to an issue reported by the centers for disease control in november, the death toll from overdoses of prescription painkillers has more than tripled in the last decade. the finding shows that more than 40 people die every day from overdoses involving narcotic pain relievers like methodone, o yycodone. these painkillers are responsible for more deaths than heroin and cocaine combined, yet still we are hearing from some folks who just don't believe that rescheduling hydrocodone is a good idea. and i have said to these groups let's work together on a compromise that can address your legitimate concerns. if anyone has a concern with this amendment, just come to me and we'll sit down with you and try to work through it in the most reasonable manner. we have already offered a number of compromises to different groups in an effort to get this

bill passed and signed into law. i want to clarify some of these concerns. we have heard from some with concerns that making hydrocodone a schedule two drug would mean that patients with legitimate need for these medications would face increased hurdles to obtaining them and that those patients would have to visit the doctor more often. to them, i would say the following -- look at what the d.e.a. did in 2007 to reduce burdens facing patients when it comes to refills. they finalized a new rule allowing doctors to provide individual patients with a 90-day supply of any schedule two medication by issuing three separate prescriptions. one for an immediate supply and two additional prescriptions that cannot be filled until certain -- a certain specified date. if they receive a 90-day supply, patients would only need to visit their doctors four times per year. and if they have a chronic ailment, i would think that

those patients would want that type of evaluation anyway. that makes all the sense in the world to me and i know to a lot of americans. if a practitioner is prescribing medication as part of a usual course of professional practice and for a legitimate medical reason, there is no numerical limitation on the quantity they can prescribe. federal law does not limit fizz physicians to providing only a 30-day supply of medication. the amount prescribed and length of treatment is within each doctor's discretion. we have also heard from those who are worried that pharmacies could face increased operating costs caused by new storage requirements as well as increased paperwork, but there is no difference in federal storage requirements between schedule three and schedule two drugs. federal law requires that all controlled substances be stored and securely locked, substantially constructed cabinets. as for more paperwork,

pharmacies are already doing paperwork on their current schedule two drug orders. all this amendment would require is including an additional line on the existing form that specifies how many hydrocodone combination pills they are ordering. the bottom line is we have to recognize that this is a very, very addictive drug. as a schedule three drug, hydrocodone is very available to people who might not use it for the right purposes but for illicit purposes. all we are saying is give us a chance to protect some of the most vulnerable people we have, especially our young people, who are addicted to these prescription drugs. look at all the people who support this amendment, mr. president. the folks who are out there on the front lines trying to keep our society safe and fight the war on drugs so that we can all be in a better society and more protected. we have groups like the fraternal order of police, the national district attorneys association, the national narcotics officers association

coalition, the national troopers coalition, the national american society of addictive medicine, the national association of drug and alcohol interventionists, the west virginia medical be professionals health program, the drug-free america foundation inc, the national coalition against prescription drug abuse and the prevention partnership. these people are on the front lines and they are saying this amendment is needed, and that will help them immensely fight this war on drugs. these are the people who are out there helping us every day in society. we're willing to sit down and work with people if they have legitimate concerns, but if you're concerned -- if your concern is that this amendment interrupts your business plan, i would hope you would rise above your business plan and be an american first. what we are trying to do is good for this country, it's good for each one of our states. now, i know it would be good for the state of west virginia, and, mr. president, the state of vermont. for generations to come that we

will be working hard and we will be protecting them for the quality of life as americans. i'm not trying to put anyone out of business. i'm a businessperson myself, and i appreciate the hard work of businesses all across this country and the risks they take and the dedication they have, but when you have a problem, you've got to fix it, and we have got a problem, sir. and this amendment is not going to solve all of our problems. we recognize that. it's not going to eliminate prescription drug abuse once and for all, but it does give us one more tool to fight the drug abuse problem that we have in this country. and to get this passed, it's going to take the voices of the public. not just the voices in this chamber or across the capitol, but the voice of the public. the voices of people who have seen what it's done to our families, to our children and our communities. we need their voices saying we can't stand by and watch this happen any longer, voices like

those from oceana middle school in my state to wyoming county in the state of west virginia who participated in a letter-writing campaign to their elected leaders asking for help with a drug epidemic. one of of them wrote to me, my town oceana has an issue about drugs. i hope you can do something about it. in 2006, my grandmother died of an overdose. she was the only person i could talk to. drugs make people act in bad ways and if something doesn't happen about them, then our town will be in worse shape. mr. president, i've been there many times. i was there as a young person in college, my roommate was from oceana, one of the most beautiful little cities i ever attended. i came back 40 years later. you wouldn't recognize it. you would not recognize it, what has happened. and these are young, 13, 14 middle school children crying out for help.

they're afraid to go out on their own streets. this is happening all over america. these students want a better life for their are parents, want a better life for their siblings, want a better life for their friends, they want a better life for their community and they also want a better life for themselves. they're willing to fight and we should be willing to fight for them. that is our job and that's what we were sent here to do. mr. president, i yield the floor and notice the absence of a quorum. i'm sorry. i yield the floor, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: do i have the floor now? the presiding officer: yes. mr. whitehouse: may i speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you very much. i come before the senate today to speak about a number, a number that has a particular significance for us here. that number is 400. why is 400 an important number at this point in our history?

what's important about 400 is that it is the number of parts per million of carbon dioxide that has been measured this spring in the arctic. it's a first. we've never hit 400 before. for 8,000 centuries mankind has inhabited this planet within an atmospheric carbon dioxide range of 190 to hundred parts per million. that's been the range. that's the bandwidth that we've lived within. how long it's is 800,000 years? it's a pretty darn long time.

i don't think there are any artifacts that go more than 200,000 years. if you go 10,000 years, you only see the beginnings of agriculture, people scratching the soil and planting things. so longer than our species has effectively inhabited this earth we've been in this happy bandwidth that has supported our lives, has supported congenial climate for human development, and we are out of it for the first time in that period. 800,000 years. and we're not just a little bit out of it. we didn't go to 302, we didn't go to 350, we've now crossed 400 and we're still going. we are still going. and there is no end in sight. we continue to dump gigatons of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere every single year. we continue to subsidize the

people who do the dumping, and at least in this building, and probably in the board room of exxonmobil and a few other places, we studiously ignore the facts that are right before our faces. right before our faces. here just -- here are a just a few stories from the past week or so. a june 4 story in "the new york times" reported that climate change threatens power output. now, why would a warming climate threaten power output? because warmer waters when they're pumped through power plants don't provide the same cooling capacity. so if you're going to keep the plant from overheating, you have to dial back the power output. and for places like the heavily developed u.s. northeast, we can be pretty close to our margins from time to time, particularly when air

conditioning loads are high in the summer, and on those hot days that increases the risk of power cutbacks or conceivably even power outages. a june 5 story in the "u.s. news & world report" described a recently published article in which several european public health experts write that climate change could alter patterns of food ability, change disease distribution, all in ways that could harm human health. if you want an example of how the changing climate changes the way that things move around on this earth, you have to look no farther than the pine beetle which is decimating our traditional western forests because the winters are no longer cold enough to kill off the larvae. so as the warmth moves ever northward, so do the larvae, and you can fly over mountains and look down and see just brown

wasteland of trees that used to be green pine forest. noaa reported that the lower 48 states just experienced the warmest may on record. the national average temperature for this spring, march through may, was 5.2 degrees above the 1901-2000, the 20th century, long-term average. surpassing the previous warmest spring ever 1910 by two full degrees. some states warm faster than others and rhode island unfortunately pour us is at the top of the list. climate central, a research organization, crunched averages of the daily high and low temperatures from the national climb attic data centers, historical climatology weather stations. over the past 100 years, rhode island has actually warmed the fastest of any state.

this has terrible consequences for us, from shifting our growing season to harming the cold water fish we catch in our warming narragansett bay. personal aside on this, when my wife was doing her graduate research out in narragansett bay she was studying the interaction between winter flounder and a shrimp that lives in the bay called spinosa. the reason that research was important then is because winter flounder was a huge cash crop for our fishermen. it hasn't been that long since she did her graduate research, and winter fiscal house in orderer has fallen off as a cash crop for rhode island fishermen because narragansett bay has warmed. its mean winter water temperature is up nearly four degrees which may not seem like us, to terrestrial,, 61 degrees, 65 degrees, does this really make a difference to us?

no. but for fish for whom this is their ecosystem, that is an ecosystem shift and it has completely demolished the winter flounder fishery, down something like ten times. many people understand that there is a connection between carbon pollution in our atmosphere and these warming temperatures. but it's becoming incontrovertible that these things are happening. the science behind this is rock solid. people say that there are questions about the theory. no. no, there are not. there are questions about some of the complicated modeling that people go through, but the theory has been clear since the time of the american civil war. the scientist john tindal, tyndall, determined that

increasing moisture and increasing carbon dioxide had a blanchggetting effect that kept heat in and trapped heat on our planet. that's been basic textbook science for a century. it's never been controverted. it's a law essentially of science. and yet there are special interests here who try to deny that. set against those special interests is about as unanimous a coalition from science as has ever been assembled. virtually every prestigious scientific and academic institution has stated that climate change is happening and human activities, specifically our reckless release of carbon pollution, are the driving cause of this change. in 2009 there was a very, very clear letter signed by the american association for the advancement of science, the chemical society, the

geophysical union, the institute of biological sciences, the societies of agronomy and plant biologists, the botanical society, the crop science and ecological societies, and on and on. and here is what they said. in words that for scientists are pretty darned hard hitting. observations throughout the world make it clear -- clear is the word they used -- that climate change is occurring and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases eementded by -- emitted by unanimous activities are the primary driver. not observations throughout the world make it likely that climate change is occurring, not rigorous scientific research potentially indicates, not that greenhouse gases might be the primary driver, but that it is clear, that it is demonstrated, and that they are

the primary driver. they go on these conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence and here is the -- you what might call the sockdolager. creafer assertions are insift with the vast body of peer reviewed science. in a nutshell if you're looking at the actual peer reviewed science and not putting your thumb on the scales, contrary assertions -- assertions are inconsistent with that. you're basically making it up. that's a pretty powerful statement. the argument that the jury is still out on climate change is a false and bogus argument. the jury is not out. in fact, the verdict is in. the effects are obvious, they surround us every day, and we

need to take action. i've been here on the floor with senator franken before and we've talked about this, and he makes a wonderful point which is that 97% of the climate scientists agree that this is happening, it's happening because of our carbon pollution, and we need to do something urgent about it. 3% question it. 97-3 is the odds. and we're asked to avoid taking any action, don't worry bit because there's doubt. because there's debate. well, translate that to your real, ordinary human life. not this peculiar political world we're in down here but in your ordinary human life. let's say you have a child. and the child appears to be sick. and you go in to see the doctor, and the doctor says yep, your child is sick, and she's going to need treatment. and you say yeah, the treatment is kind of expensive, might be

unpleasant, might be side effects. tell you what, i'm going to get a second opinion. so you go to another doctor. and the other doctor says the exact same thing, your child is sick, going to need treatment and you say, well, two opinions, that's kind of a lot but let's just be sure here, let's get a third opinion. and that doctor said the same thing, too. what would you think of the parent who did that 100 times, who was told by 97 out of 100 doctors that their child was sick and needed treatment and then said you know what? there's doubt about this. i'm not sure. i'm not going to give my child the treatment that they need. ates -- it's a preprocess truss example, isn't it? it's an absolutely ridiculous point of view for the parent to hold yet that is exactly the point of view that we are being asked to hold as we deny and

delay the steps that we have to take to protect ourselves, to protect our children, to protect our country from the damage that is being done, frankly by ourselves, by the polluting interests that we don't take adequate steps to put on the right track towards a successful and clean energy future. the last thing i'll say is on that exact point, the more we depend on fossil fuels, the more we depend on a diminishing resource that pollutes our country, that as it diminishes forces prices up under the laws of supply and demand, and that in practice and right now forces us to engage with foreign oil producing countries that do not have our best interests at heart and we send our dollars,

hundreds of millions of them into their treasuries so that that money can filter out into organizations that actually wish to do us harm. that's not a great state of affairs. the alternative is a clean energy future where american homes are more efficient, we've replaced windows, added insulation, improved boilers. we've created innumerable jobs through all that work, and we've paid for it with reduced energy costs. it pays for itself sometimes in a year, sometimes in two years, sometimes in five years. but it pays for itself. and it creates work. we're in a battle right now for clean energy technologies. it is an international competition. it is us against china, us against india, us against the european unions. every single one of the other countries gets it, and they are trying to push resources on to their clean energy industries so that they get, they can lap us

in this race. they can go so far ahead of us that we've become the world's biggest global consumer of clean energy, now its biggest manufacturer. we invented the solar cell. 15 years ago we made 40% of all the solar cells in the world. we're down to i think 7% now. the top ten wind turbine countries in the world include one american company. one. and by knocking down the production tax credits, by eliminating the 1603 program, by subsidizing like crazy big oil, people in this building are doing their very best not to help us in the race against foreign competition, but to put weights in the pockets of american companies, to tie their shoelaces together, to interfere with our ability to compete. they don't see it yet as

international competition. they're so tied to the fossil fuel industry, they only see it as competition between fossil fuels and clean energy, and in that battle they want to be with the fossil fuel industry. they don't see the future. they don't see how important these technologies are going to be in batteries, in wind, in clean energy, in all of these areas where we not only can command our energy future by building and creating the power that we use and unhinge ourselves from these foreign dictatorships that run off oil economies, but we can improve the future and the safety of our planet by dialing down the pollution. my state pays a particular price. we are downwind of the midwestern polluters, the big utility companies, the big manufacturing companies, the ones that have built 1,000-foot high smoke stacks for the

specific purpose of shoving as much of their pollution as high in the atmosphere as they can so it doesn't rain down on their states, not on missouri, not on ohio, not on pennsylvania. that it rains down on rhode island, on massachusetts, on vermont, on other states. i was here this morning talking about the mercury pool. we have ponds, lakes and reservoirs in rhode island where it is unsafe to eat the fish that you catch because of mercury poisoning. it's unsafe everywhere in rhode island to eat the fish that you catch if you're a child or an expectant mother. but in these ponds nobody can safely eat the fish that you catch because there's so much mercury in them. how did the mercury get there? how did the mercury get there? prosecute pollution. out of the -- from pollution. out of the smoke stacks dumped

down on our state. there is nothing that we can do to prevent it other than to support e.p.a. in these mercury limit rules. so there is a real cost to continuing down this fossil fuel path. my hope state pays it all the time. and when it comes time to reap the whirl wend of storm activity, of sea level rise, coastal states like rhode island will pay a particularly high price. so i'm going to continue to come to the senate floor. this is not a popular topic. the presiding officer, senator sanders of vermont, is eloquent, articulate and a constant ally on these subjects. there is a handful of us who are regular on this subject. but i think for a great many of my colleagues, and particularly for virtually everybody on the other side of the aisle, they'd just as soon wash their hands of it, forget about it, pretend it's not happening and continue to sleepwalk towards disaster.

so i'm going to keep doing this. it's important to my state. i think it's important to our country. and i appreciate the attention of the presiding officer and those who have the attention of the floor. thank you very much. i yield the floor. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

nor senatoa senator: mr. presid? the presiding officer: the senator mississippi. mr. wicker: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: and i ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: thank you, sir. mr. president, i rise today --

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: thank you, sir. mr. president, i rise today to express my serious concern about a matter of national security. it is a matter that is increasingly more visible with the american people. it's a matter that they are more and more concerned about as they hear more. it's an issue that is not going away until it's properly investigated by the executive branch of this government. and that, of course, is the recent news publications that discussed details of counterterrorism plans, programs, and operations of our government. these publication publications o specific counterterrorism military and intelligence activities that are among the most classified and highly sensitive national security operations involving our military and our intelligence

community. the leaks of this information constitute a grave breech of our vital national security interests. the president, in his press conference last friday, attempted to distance him administration from these damaging leaks, stating that "the notion that my white house would purposely release classified national security information is offensive." the matter is certainly offensive. -- and needs tock fully regulated. but i must point out that the president did not explicitly deny that members of his administration were responsible for leaking classified or sensitive information to the media. as a matter of fact, so many of the news reports, quite frankly, point to members of this administration for these

damaging and criminal leaks. any mismanaged ling of classified material -- any mishandling of classified material must be taken with the utmost seriousness. the authors of these publications cite unnamed senior administration officials and president denying aides as their sources. we need to know the names of these senior administration officials. we need to know the names of these presidential aides. and we need to know, quite frankly, if they were engaged in criminal breaches of our espionage and spell generals statutes -- and intelligence statutes. our men and women of the military and our intelligence community officials work under extremely difficult conditions. these leaks have put their lives in danger. these leaks have put their

methods and their ongoing operations at risk. they need to stop, and they need to be investigated. all individuals privy to the white house discussions regarding counterterrorism and intelligence operations hold security clearances at the very highest levels. before being grantinged access to these classified items of information, individuals must undergo a thorough background investigation and receive extensive security training regarding proper procedures for handling classified materials. they are trained as to what they can say and what they ought not to say. they're trained as to are what the law requires and what the law prohibits. it is clear that any potential leak of classified material was not an accidental slip of the

tongue but a deliberate and brazen violation of federal law, and we need to get to the bottom of this. i will also add that we're not talking about an isolated incident, an isolated instance of a leak. as the chair of the senate select committee on intelligence, senator dianne feinstein, rightly observed last witness day, we are talking about what she described as an avalanche of leaks. an avalanche of leaks, mr. president. -- on national security matters that have, in her words, put our nation's security in jeopardy. unquote. to quote the chair of the intelligence committee. to further quote chairwoman feinstein, "a number of those leaks and others in the last

months about drone activities and other activities are frankly against all national security interests." i i apologize. here i'm quoting the chairman of the foreign relations committee, mr. president, senator john kerry. i'll read it again since i have the citation correct. a number of these leaks and others in the last months about drone activities and other activities are frankly all against national security interests, said chairman kerry. he goes on to say "i think they're dangerous, damaging, and whoever is doing that is not acting in the interest of the united states of america." and yet news reports say that these reports come from senior administration officials. we need to find out who these administration officials are and further to quote senator feinstein, who i began quoting earlier, she said "when people

say they don't want to work with the united states because they can't trust us to keep a secret, that's serious. when allies become concerned, when an asset's life is in jeopardy or the asset's family's life is in jeopardy, that's a problem. the point of intelligence is to be able to know what might happen to protect this country" and i could go on and on. i've joined ten of my colleagues in cosponsoring a senate resolution that urges the u.s. attorney general, eric holder, to appoint an independent special counsel to investigate classified information leaks by the administration. and yet instead of a special counsel, the attorney general has merely appointed two justice department attorneys to investigate the leaks. u.s. attorney for the district of columbia, ronald matschen and his counterpart in

maryland, rod rosenstein. although i have no questions about their abilities, the appointment of these two obama administration officials is unacceptable and raises questions as to their independence. a truly independent investigation would almost certainly reveal any breaches of the criminal law concerning classified information essential to national security. a truly independent counsel would have his or her own prosecutorial discretion, and if the administration leaks information, the public has right to know and the public has a right to be outraged. the lives of americans and our friends have already been put at risk. the obama administration cannot be expected to pursue a complete self-investigation of allegations of this magnitude in the midst of an election. they simply cannot be asked to

do this. especially when those responsible could well be members of the administration themselves. attorney general holder is a principal on the president's national security team. members of this team may very well have been the sources of these leaks. members of the attorney general's team. i want to ask this: does the administration really want the truth in this? or is the administration simply looking for cover? what is it about an independent special counsel that frightens this administration? is it the truth that this administration is afraid of? and are americans more likely to get the truth from a truly independent counsel or from u.s. attorneys who will still report directly to the attorney general? the administration's concern about special counsels is

understandable. if an independent counsel investigation reveals proof of leaks for political gain, it will not be pretty and will not sit well with the american people. madam president, this sunday marks the 40th anniversary of the watergate break-in. it started small, but as more and more people began to ask questions and as more and more people began to demand a true investigation, the truth finally was revealed and it brought down a presidency. early on in watergate a member of my political party, a member of president nixon's political party, a former nominee for president, barry goldwater, came forward to the american people and said let's get the truth out. no more coverups. let's get rid of the stink and let's find out what was going on. members of my party should have

heeded the words of barry goldwater at that moment, and perhaps the scandal could -- could have been brought to light and people involved in the subsequent cover-up would not have been asked to do so. barry goldwater was right. members of both political parties would be well advised today to ask this administration to come forward, appoint a truly independent counsel to have a truly independent investigation of these breaches of national security. what i'm talking about today is evidence of criminal disclosures of national intelligence secrets, disclosures that have damaged our national security and continue to damage our national security. this issue is not going away. i urge the attorney general, i

urge my president to ensure confidence in government and to appoint a special counsel to investigate and hold accountable anyone responsible for these flagrant violations of our national security. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: madam president, i rise to challenge the object stin eans -- obstinacy of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to prevent us from doing anything that can help ordinary families in our country get back on their feet and succeed. as a matter of fact, it was very clearly stated by the

majority -- by the minority leader, the republican leader, to tell us that his number-one priority -- imagine that, the leader of the republican party in the united states senate, his number-one priority is to make sure that president obama is a one-term president. and i ask what is that -- what good is that to the people who don't have jobs or the people whose mortgages are about to be floadz or their kids can't get an education no matter how smart they are because it's impossible to afford it. and stated proudly on the floor of this senate that the mission is to destroy the presidency. shame on you. his number-one priority, not to create jobs, preventing another financial crisis, or keeping our children safe and healthy. it's just that cynical goal of

destroying the presidency no matter how much harm, no matter how much pain these actions inflict on our general population. it's a disgrace. and what we've seen, and we've seen what the republicans are willing to do to accomplish this goal. they brought our nation to the brink of default. they shut down the federal aviation administration. they had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to extend the payroll tax cut just to name a few of the most egregious examples. now the republican mission appears to be punishing the american people with longer waits in the courtrooms for judgments to be concluded. there are currently 74 federal

judicial vacancies waiting to be filled. in other words, nearly one in 11 federal judgeships across this country are event -- are vacant. these vacancies are not some abstract problem that only lawyers and academics care about. judicial vacancies denver-day americans -- deny everyday americans our constitutional guarantees and millions of them have had their cases delayed. and at a time when our economy is making a fragile recovery, we cannot afford to have a legal system that makes it more difficult for businesses to get legal judgment certainty about their rights and responsibilities, to move their operations, for instance, to full gear perhaps, but now we've learned that the senate

republicans are committed to making matters even worse. "roll call" reports that at yesterday's weekly luncheon of the conservative steering committee, minority leader mcconnell decided to halt, stop all circuit court confirmations. how can our democracy function when we can't even put judges in the courtroom? the very next nominee in line to be formed the circuit court is a highly qualified nominee from new jersey and we need her on the bench now. magistrate judge patty schwarz has been nominated to serve on the third circuit court of appeals. her nomination was favorably reported by the judiciary committee on march 8 -- march 8, nearly a hundred days ago.

they refuse to let us take it up. more than -- for more than three months she's waited patiently for a confirmation vote. she's anxious to get to work and we need her while the republicans in the senate play games with the confirmation process. and now judge schwartz is on the verge of receiving a vote and filling a critical vacancy, the republicans have pulled the rug out to make sure that she doesn't sit there. it's not fair to the judge, to judge schwartz or the people of new jersey, pennsylvania, and delaware who deserve to have a fully staffed federal bench. and it sends a particularly noxious message to the women of this countries -- of this country. if confirmed, patty shwartz would fill a void who would be the -- the second woman, woman ever to represent new jersey on that appeals court.

this obstruction is especially outrageous given this person's record of skill and confidence and admiration that judge schwartz has earned in the legal community. her nomination has received strong bipartisan support in our state. her supporters include republican governor chris christie, and he's a former united states attorney in new jersey, and he says judge patty shwartz has committed her entire professional life to public service, and now is -- and new jersey is better for it. his statement. and if governor christie and i agree on someone, you know she's really got to be good. and we're not the only ones who feel so strongly about patty shwartz's stellar qualifications for the bench.

john lacy, who was a past president of the association of the new jersey federal bar, said that judge schwartz and i -- quote -- "is thoughtful, intelligent, has an extraordinarily high level of common sense." thomas curtain, chairman of the lawyers' advisory committee for the district court of new jersey, i quote him, "every lawyer in the world will tell you she is extraordinarily qualified, a decent person, and an excellent judge." the american bar association clearly agrees. they gave her the high -- their highest rating of unanimously well qualified. a review of judge schwartz's experience shows why she has earned such respect and praise. since 2003, patty shwartz has served as a u.s. magistrate judge in the district of new jersey where she's handled more

than 4,000 civil and criminal cases. she graduated from rutgers university with highest honors, from the university of pennsylvania law school, where she was an editor of the law review, and was named her class' outstanding woman law graduate. as governor christie said, patty shwartz's devoted her entire career to public service, and preventing her from doing so will only hurt american people, people in our -- in our area in pennsylvania and new jersey, delaware. only hurt those people seeking justice and our very system of democracy. madam president, it's often been said justice delayed is justice denied. it's a lesson that people in new jersey and all the country are learning, and it's got to stop.

all americans should be aware of the price that they pay for the obstruction of the republicans on the -- their side of the aisle. when these confirmations are blocked it's not just nominees that suffer. the justice system suffers under the weight of vacancies and the american people suffer longer waits for justices in overburdened courts. it's time for republican politicians to stop blocking votes on these well-qualified nominees and allow the united states senate to confirm them without further delay. and make no mistake, i take very seriously the senate's constitutional duty of advice and consent regarding presidential nominees. i do not believe that the senate should rubber stamp judicial nominees without consideration or deliberation. however, what we see today is an

unprecedented level of instruction in confirming judges. at this point in the term of president george w. bush's presidency, the senate had confirmed 179 judges, 28 more than the 151 of president's nominees who have been confirmed to date. and president obama's nominees have been forced to wait approximately four times as long as president bush's nominees to be confirmed after being favorably reported by the judiciary committee. we didn't -- when we had the numbers favoring our majority, we didn't permit delays like this. we never would use that as a punishment for a presidency that

we disagree with. as a result, the vacancy rate is nearly twice what it was at this point in president bush's first term. these delays and destroy tactics cannot be what our founding fathers had in mind when they gave us the power of advice and consent. i'm the son of immigrants who came to this country, and i got the message often from my parents and my grandparents to come to america, find a better way of life than you had in russia or poland, their birthplace, and i view our justice system as the nation's premier institution. it demonstrates so well what america's about. i am proud that a courthouse in newark, new jersey, bears my

name. it has an inscription that i authored. we spent a lot of time talking about the inscription, what it would look like, and i came up with this. the true measure of a democracy is its dispensation of justice. when people walk in that courtroom, they have to know they have an equal chance at proper decisions like anybody else, and there shouldn't be the discrimination that exists when we don't fill vacancies that are begging to be filled with qualified candidates. all in this chamber know when the dispensation of justice is obstructed and delayed, our democracy suffers. so, madam president, i plead with our republican colleagues

top the obstruction. allow the senate to vote on judge patty schwarz's confirmation without further delay and put off your attempt to discredit president obama's tenure as president. that doesn't fit in here. you want to do it in the political mainstream. you want the wild gestures and those ridiculous claims that they want to destroy president obama's tenure. no, don't do that. don't do that to the american people. be fair, do your job, let's get on with it. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: madam president, we are running out of time. the interest rate on subsidized student loans is set to double

in just over two weeks. this will hit middle-class families hard at a time when they are reeling from the devastating effects of the most severe recession that we have witnessed in our lifetimes. earlier this week, the federal reserve reported additional sobering news. between 2007-2010, median family wealth declined by nearly 40%. median family income declined by nearly 8%, and the share of families with education-related debt rose from 15.2% to 19.2%. certainly, this is no time to increase the interest rate on need-based student loans on the more than 7 million low and moderate income students who rely on them to go to college. what we have seen is a middle class that has been in terms of wealth and income shrinking dramatically.

ironically -- perhaps ironically, but the very, very wealthy have actually seen income and wealth increase. but for the vast majority of americans, they have seen their economic position deteriorate. closely allied with economic opportunity and the idea of making your way in this country is the need, the necessity to go on to higher education. we have been preaching that. that's what our parents told us. go on to college. we couldn't go. when you go on to college, you will be prepared to go into the work force, increase your family income, contribute more to your country, and yet now we see a situation where not only is there a compression in middle-income wealth and income, there is also a staggering amount of student debt, almost a trillion dollars. in fact, i have heard reports suggesting that it's eclipsed credit card debt in terms of what households in america are

holding. and so you have a generation of college students who have graduated, struggling with this debt. the worst thing we could do now is double the interest rat on those who need more loans to finish their school and put even a greater burden on them and their families as they go forward. we need to pass this legislation that will prevent the doubling. we need to do it before july 1. we're also looking at a period of time where interest rates are very, very low. the federal reserve is charging financial institutions somewhere around 1% or less to borrow money. yet we're going to students to say it used to be 3.4%. now it will be 6.8%. that seems not only incongruous but incomprehensible that we would allow this rate to double, particularly in this environment. now, students' families can't absorb this increase. they're stretched too thin already. every statistic, but forget the

statistics. just talk to people back home in new hampshire or rhode island or new jersey, and they'll tell you it's tough. children moving back in with families because they're struggling to find a good job, pay student debt, just get by. this is not the time to double the interest rate on these loans. it's an issue of fairness. it's an issue of the future of this country. it's an issue of avoiding really innumerable personal tragedies. we were just on the phone, a conference call, and a woman called in and said that she is involved with many students who have graduated in the last few years, and they are literally at their wit's end, that they can't pay their debts, they don't have jobs that are -- that will give them the chance to move on, saddled with all their debt. how do they even begin to think of starting a family and buying a home? something that my generation

sort of took for granted about the mid 20's. we have to deal with this issue. this is the first step. now, according to georgetown university center on education and the work force, over 60% of jobs will require some postsecondary education by 2018. we know that no longer is higher education some nice thing to do. it's become a necessity to get jobs that will provide for a family. yet in 2010, only 38.3% of working adults have a two-year or four-year degree. so we know there is a gap already. we have about 40% of people that have postsecondary education, and experts are telling us we'll need 60% by 2018. that's just four years away. and we're proposing making it harder to pay for college? again, it does not make any sense. that's why last january, working with my colleague, joe courtney

from connecticut in the house of representatives, we introduced the student loan affordability act. we saw this coming. we knew we had to prevent this increase. and initially the response from our colleagues on this side was no way. in fact, they voted for two budgets that assume the interest rate would double, therefore giving more resources for tax cuts and other preferences that certainly won't be as effective to help the middle class as giving a youngster a chance to go to college. but we continue to push. with the the president and student organizations across the country, i think we have seen some progress. we have seen a change in rhetoric. governor romney declared he would keep the rates low. no specification on how to do this, no urging to do this, but at least conceptually, there seemed to be agreement on that one point. then the republican leaders followed suit. yes, we have to keep this from

doubling, this interest rate from doubling. but we haven't seen the actions that match these words. they initially made a proposal to keep the interest rates low by going after preventative health care, and that's really a nonstarter. we understand -- i hope we all understand that, one, if we're going to improve the quality of health care in this country, we have to emphasize preventative care. if by the way we're going to bend that proverbial cost curve, we better start doing more prevention than treatment because it's a lot more cost-effective to prevent than treat disease. then they propose another offset that would take resources in low and middle-income families, various programs. saying from one pocket of the middle-income family that need help, take that and give them to them in the education department. that didn't work. they continue to resist the proposal we made initially to pay for it because we do understand in this environment that you have to be fiscally

responsible. we proposed to close one of the most egregious loopholes in the tax code. there is a provision that allows three or four high-paid lobbyists, high-paid lawyers, high-paid consultants to avoid their payroll taxes, their medicare taxes, their other chapters by forming a chapter s corporation, and then at the end of the year give themselves a dividend, which is not wages subject to these taxes, and it's actually treated at a very preferential tax rate. it said this is such an outrageous loophole, it was condemned by bob novak, the late conservative columnist, it was condemned by "the wall street journal," it was condemned by everyone, but it was not something that they could accept. well, we have moved forward. we have put a new offer on the table, led by leader harry reid, and that would effectively help

with respect to pension liabilities. first, it would give employers more predictability in terms of their contributions by allowing them to smooth out the interest rate which they assume in their contributions to the fund. if you're trying to fund a liability, a pension liability over many years, you have to put in principle but then you have to assume an interest rate to see if that principal will grow to an adequate remark. they look back about two years and this is a remarkably low interest rate environment. so with low interest rates, they have to put more principal in. this way they could look further back, smooth it out, take a more realistic interest rate that will reflect not just the last two years, but one would argue very exceptional in terms of interest rates, but look at something that's more representative of the 20 or so years that they must provide for in their pension fund.

and in fact this is a provision that employers think is very important to them. the other side it to provide an increase of funding to the pension benefit guaranty corporation, the insurance fund, because too often today they have to step in where companies go bankrupt and their pension funds are not adequate to pay for an even part of the liabilities, the bona fide liabilities that they owe the workers, many of whom who spent years in their employ and are depending upon their pension. so this is a very balanced approach. in fact, it's an approach in the past that has had bipartisan support. so i hope that we're reaching the point now where we can come together. this is an incredibly difficult issue for families across this country. i have heard pleas from rhode island families to fix this, please. i received letters and calls.

one of them came in and it was please continue to fight keeping the interest rate of stafford loans down at 3.4%. it is difficult enough to pay for college. with unemployment so high for recent college graduates, our financial future seems bleak. my parents and i have taken loans to day for my and my sister's tuition. we are from a middle-class family. we appreciate your support and help with this issue. those words are more eloquent than mine. let's just get this done. we have no time to waste. july 1 is almost upon us. two weeks. let's come together, let's help people across this country and help our country. thank you, madam president, and i would yield the floor. i would also note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, the president of the united states earlier today was in cleveland. he spoke for 54 minutes, and yet he said almost nothing. at least certainly nothing that most of us have not heard before. it was two years ago this very weekend, two years ago this weekend, that the white house announced the start of what it referred to as the recovery summer. that campaign effort was an effort to convince the american people that the obama administration's policies to create jobs, that the policies were working. david axlerod, the senior advisor to the president said this summer -- the summer of

2010 -- this summer will be the most active recovery act season yet. again, that was the summer of 2010. treasury secretary tim geithner wrote an op-ed in the "new york times" entitled "welcome to the recovery." again, that was 2010. now here we are, two years later, and americans are still waiting for a real recovery. the recovery summer failed to produce results because it was never more than just a cheap slogan. it was designed to hide the fact that an unaccountable administration had no real solutions. instead of working to create a healthier economy, president obama has offered more excuses, more gimmicks, and more empty promises and he continues to say the economy is about to turn the

corner. this past march, president obama said things would get better soon. day by day, he promised, we are restoring the economy from crisis. we've heard this all before. in february of 2009 the president said that his stimulus bill was -- quote -- "the beginning of the first steps to set our economy on a firmer foundation, paving the way to long-term growth and prosperity ." that's the end of his quote. in april, 2010 he said -- quote -- "our economy is stronger, the economic heartbeat is growing stronger." in 2011, january that year he claimed -- quote -- "the next two years, he said, our job now is putting our economy into overdrive." now after disappointing jobs numbers from may of this year when just 69,000 jobs were created, the president once again promises we will come back

stronger. you know, it's a shame that our economy doesn't run on the president's rhetoric. saying that things will get better does not make them better. well, the president's record speaks for itself. for starters, we all remember early 2009 when the incoming obama administration told the american people that its stimulus plan would keep unemployment below 8%. that's what they said. keep unemployment, they said, below 8%. instead, we have now had 40 straight months, 40 consecutive months with unemployment over 8%. by now, unemployment was supposed to be even much better, because the administration had said that by mid 2012, where we are right now today, their projections were that unemployment would be below 6% if the stimulus bill passed.

well, the stimulus bill passed. i voted against it, but instead unemployment has ticked up again in may to 8.2%. last month, one official at the federal reserve said it might take four to five more years, four to five additional years to get unemployment down to 6%, which is where the president promised it would be at today. the latest jobs report also said that over 23 million americans are unemployed or are working at less of a job than what they would like. president obama said the other day, he said -- quote -- "the private sector is doing fine." he said it in a nationally televised press conference. he said the private sector is doing fine. he went on to say it was only government jobs that were lagging behind. well, i think to many of these over 23 million americans who are unemployed or underemployed, that they would

absolutely disagree with this president. under the obama economy since early 2009, we have lost 433,000 manufacturing jobs, 79,000 real estate jobs have been lost, 160,000 jobs in communications industries like wireless carriers have been lost, we've lost 932,000 construction jobs. and these may sound like a lot of just numbers upon numbers, but behind each one of these, behind each one of these statistics is a person. a home builder, a phone salesman in the mall, a real estate agent in your community. real people who have lost the private-sector jobs that their families rely on to put food on the table, a roof over their head and to help their kids get through school. many americans have gotten so discouraged by the obama economy that they have actually given up looking for work entirely. those americans have not given

up -- they're finding it more difficult to get jobs, even if they're trying to find a job, and that their job search is taking much longer than they ever would have imagined. over five million americans have been searching for work for more than 27 weeks. that's over five million americans who have spent more than half a year looking for work. the unemployed now spend an average of nearly 40 weeks looking for work, double the average when president obama took office. well, that's the equivalent of losing your job on new year's day and not finding work again until october. so why are the jobs so scarce? well, it's because president obama's policies have done far too little to help our struggling economy. and in many cases, his policies have actually hurt the economy and made things worse. contrary to what president obama

believes, the private sector is not doing fine, and the problems -- well, the problem is not just that we don't have enough bureaucrats. growth in america's g.d.p. for the first quarter of 2012 was just 1.9%. that's nowhere near the level we need for a healthy economy. during past recoveries from economic downturns other presidents have presided over much faster growth and after the recession of the early 1980's president reagan's economy grew much faster. well, there is a simple reason why. and it has to do with the policies coming out of this president's administration. president obama keeps repeating that we face economic head winds. the biggest head winds that we are facing come from the president's own economic policies. now, the american people understand this. they read the papers. headlines like the one from "the washington post" on tuesday, just two days ago, says

"families see their wealth sapped." the american people read about the bad economic data saying that durable goods, the orders were down 3.7% in march. people know that when the manufacturing sector which is an important source of jobs, when this slows down that a dramatic slowdown does not bode well for job growth in other sectors of the economy. when people hear this drumbeat of bad economic news it explains why the consumer confidence index fell again in may, that when you ask people if the country is on the right course or not, the majority say it is not on the right path. when you ask if they think the president is doing a good job on the economy, they say no, that he is not. confidence is down, not just because the american people follow the news, and know what's going on in the country, it's because they also know what is going on in their own lives, what they're seeing at home, a

what they're seeing with their families and for many people, they are not earning as much as they had earned in the past. the immediate -- median household income has fallen over $4,000 since president obama took office. meanwhile, the actual costs, the costs of everyday living continue to rise. more and more people everyday everyday -- every day are finding for them and for their families they just can't keep up. today there are more than 46 million americans on food stamps. that's 14 million more than relied on the program in january of 2009, when president obama was sworn into office. sadly, the congressional budget office expects the number to go even higher over the next two years. well, that's obviously the wrong direction, and it's the result of bad decisions and bad policies out of the president's administration. those policies have contributed to the lower wages that we're seeing, to the higher

unemployment that we're living with, and to more people living in poverty. those policies are contributing as well to the sagging home markets that threaten to keep millions of american families in dire financial straits for years to come. we all know that president obama faced a difficult economic situation when he took office in 2009. his failed policies have not healed our economy. higher taxes, more bureaucracy, more borrowing, more wasteful spending by washington will continue to make things worse. now when you take a look at what's happening around the world with europe facing collapse and a global slowdown that threatens our economy, the president seems more concerned with his next election than with actually taking action to make things better. alongside all the bad economic news, abc news reported the

other day that president obama they said will continue his record smashing fundraising schedule. record-smashing fundraising schedule. you know, that's not the kind of leadership that our economy needs today. republicans are focused on real solutions. making our tax code simpler, flat perks and fairer for every american. reducing the debt and the deficit. ending overregulation, the red tape that is burdensome, expensive and time consuming. putting pairkts and doctors --, patients and doctors, their own doctors in control of health care, not creating more washington broke. -- bureaucracies. and reducing our dependency on foreign oil and sending so much american money overseas. two years ago when the obama administration was putting out press releases and staging photo ops to proclaim the recovery summer, republicans were approaching real solutions to

help create a healthy economy. when voters had a chance to compare the two approaches that november, november of 2010, republicans earned control of the house of representatives and at that time they started passing a jobs agenda. democrats in the senate still don't get it, and they refused to even consider these bills passed by the house. there are 27 jobs bills that have passed the house of representatives on bipartisan votes. the bills are still today waiting for senate action. the president of the united states remains silent on these bills that would actually get people back to work. he is offering now but scare tactics, excuses, and blame. he just gave another speech today, just this very afternoon in ohio. and what he did was just more of that: more scare tactics,

excuses, and blame, because in his mind, it seems like it's always someone else's fault. just imagine, madam president, where our economy would be today if democrats had been willing to accept commonsense republican solutions two years ago. we would actually be in recovery today. we would have seen significant improvements to the economy. if democrats had been willing to work with us instead of giving speeches and pushing more wasteful stimulus spending, millions of more people would be working today across the country. if president obama had been focused on putting people back to work instead of just on keeping his own job, then today -- today -- the summer of 2012, the private sector and the american people really would be doing fine. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i thank my colleague for his remarks. i caught part of the president's statement this afternoon and gotten a transcript of some of the things that he said. as ranking member on the budget committee, as someone who's wrestled with these numbers for two years very intensely, i was shocked, senator barrasso, by some of the things he said. i just would ask you based on the reality of the world we are in, how you react to the summary that the presidential advisor gave to "the new york times" before the president's speeches

today, saying that his plan focuses on education, energy, innovation, infrastructure? first, does that suggest to you spending? mr. barrasso: madam president, if i may enter into a -- i ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleague. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: isn't this the same president that lobbied this body to block the keystone x.l. pipeline that would have brought energy from canada to the united states and jobs on the ground here in terms of the construction of that pipeline? you talk about energy and you talk about construction? and that was not government spending. yet the president lobbied the senate to block that. mr. sessions: and private growth and private investment. not increasing our deficit. because any new money we spend increases the debt because we're already in debt, it goes on.

in the summary of what he was going to say, he said the president favored a -- quote -- "tax code that creates american jobs and pays down our debt." and, first of all, is the senator aware that under the president's plan that he submitted to us, the budget, that the lowest single year's deficit in the ten-year plan is $607 billion? that we never come close to paying down an debt in the plan that he's submitted us? and how can the president -- this is an unfair question but i'll ask the senator from wyoming. how can the president say that he's got a plan that pays down our debt when the lowest single deficit he proposes is $600 billion-plus. mr. barrasso: i would say to my colleague who is on the

budget committee who watches these things very carefully, as i look at what the president proposed, it never got to balance, never dealing with the monumental deficit, never mind the debt. just since we have been talking here the last four or five minutes we have continued to borrow money overseas, specifically from china. we in the united states are borrowing at a rate of $2 million a minute. and nothing that i have seen coming from the president or from the democrats, as a matter of fact, in the senate have dealt with any of those things to the point that we have not passed a budget for the last three years in this senate, which is irresponsible. mr. sessions: it absolutely is. let me say this. this is a quote, the transcript that i have of it, he declared both parties have laid out their policies on the table for all to see. now, isn't it a fact that the house republicans passed a

long-term budget that would change the debt course of america, that three members of the republican senate laid out budgets that would have balanced the budget in the united states of america, and that the democratic leadership never laid out a plan, refused to lay out a plan, violated the statutory law of america by refusing to lay out a plan. and they haven't laid out a plan. isn't that true? or am i missing something? mr. barrasso: that's exactly the way i see it, and i voted for the plan that was submitted by the house, which actually does get to a balance of our budget, and the three senate colleagues on our side of the aisle who had plans that also got to balance the budget. i voted in favor of all of those. not one democrat in the senate, not one democrat cast one vote in favor of any one budget, whether it was the republican budgets, whether it was the president's budget. yet the president goes to ohio

today and gives his speech for 54 minutes. it was supposed to be a big speech on the kpheurbgs and i heard -- on the economy, and i heard nothing new. no new ideas except spend more money at a time we have $15 trillion in debt and adding to that by the minute. the president did make one interesting statement. he said some of the regulations that are coming out, all the regulations aren't good. who can do anything about it but the president? his regulations, and he has over 1,000 new regulations that have come out under his administration called economically significant regulations, regulations that have an impact to the economy over $100 million. those regulations, all of that red tape is putting people out of work. it proeuts so much uncertainty to the economy as to what is the next regulation coming out that businesses don't have the certainty to hire paoefplt what's going to happen with the

health care law? is it going to be found unconstitutional? i believe it's unconstitutional. what are the costs going to be to business? so -- in just statement after statement that the president makes shows that there is a fundamental question about how his understanding of how the economy works versus people who have been out in the private sector, who have created jobs, who have put people to work, who have written the paycheck, who signed the front of the paycheck, who hired folks and helped the economy in a community in a way that makes a difference and builds that community. yet i don't see those things coming out of the president's speech, certainly not today in ohio. mr. sessions: i thank my colleague for those insights because this is a bit disappointing. it's more than disappointing. the president said again that he has a plan for -- and his plan would -- he has a vision of how

to create a strong sustained growth and how to pay down our longterm debt. he does not have such a plan. his plan comes nowhere close to balancing the budget in ten years, not a single year, the lowest single deficit he would have in ten years is $607 billion, according to the congressional budget office. not me. the independent congressional budget office. and it's not accurate. how can we have a bipartisan discussion on how to solve the sustained debt threat that we have in this nation if the president goes around saying his plan will help pay down our debt? it does not pay down the debt. it doesn't come close to paying down the debt. and he said that last year. and i grilled his budget director at the committee. and he could not defend that

statement because it's indefensible. nobody can defend that statement. and if any member of this congress, this senate, democrat member, i urge you to come down and tell me if the plan laid out by the president of the united states, the only plan we've seen is budget plan, pays down the debt. it does not. he goes on to say in this speech, "i signed into law," he says -- and forgive me if this is distressing to me, but we've been involved in this discussion a good long time. we have the united states congress and united states united states senate and we have the president of the united states all formulating an economic policy for the united states of america that would put

our country on a growth path to eliminate the unsustainable debt course that we are on. the phrase used so often by president obama's own debt commission, simpson-bowles, they told us this nation has never faced a more predictable financial crisis. why? because of the increasing debt, they said. the numbers are just relentless and it's unsustainable. at some point there will be a credit reaction, a financial collapse or reaction that will put us back into recession and distress. and we need to get off that path is what they pleaded with us to do. so the president says, "i signed into law -- i signed a law that cuts spending and reduces our deficit by $2 trillion." now, what does he mean by that? well, i think most americans can

remember last august, and we reached the debt ceiling, and we borrowed so much money we hit the limit of money the united states government can borrow. congress, the president asked us to raise that debt limit so he could keep spending and keep borrowing. basically the republican house and members of the senate to the extent to which we had influence said mr. president we'll raise the debt limit but we want to you reduce spending some. so they agreed after much debate in the wee hours of the morning at the latest possible time to cut $2.1 trillion from spending. the president went kicking and screaming to that point. the democrats pretended it was a disaster and america was going to sink into the ocean. that's what that was all about. and here we come with this plan, and the president now claims

that it's his deal, that he cut $2 trillion. i remember how it went down. and that's not a fair thing to say. he signed that because if he didn't sign it, spending would have to be cut 40% immediately because that's how much out of every dollar we spend we borrow. we're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. if we-and raised the debt sealing the united states would have to cut all expenditures by 40%. that's why it is an unsustainable course we're on. it's not a little bitty matter. the president suggests, if you listen to his speech, don't worry about it, i've got a plan. we're moving along fine. you don't have to really sacrifice. we're going to have more education, energy, innovation, infrastructure, more spending. that's what that means. investments, they say. that means spending, you know.

but we don't have the money. this country is out of money. it's a serious time. and we've got to make some tough decisions. and we need a chief executive telling the american people the truth about where we are rather than promising some balanced budget paying down debt that's nowhere in his plan when it's looked at. he says "my own deficit plan would strengthen medicare and medicaid for the long haul by slowing the growth of health care costs." he has steadfastly refused to reform medicare and medicaid. under this $2.1 trillion, the president insisted that medicaid not receive a dime of cuts. and it didn't receive a dime of cuts. the defense department gets a hammering under the cuts and the

sequester, big-time. medicaid, not a dime cut out of it. no reforms in medicaid. it would really provide any benefit -- no reforms that would really provide any benefit, anything other than drive up the cost and increase the cost of medicaid. so how can he say that? and he's attacked congressman ryan, the chairman of the budget committee in the house, for actually laying out a vision to try to put medicare on a sound basis where it can actually be sustainable over time. and congressman ryan has the support of senator wyden, a democratic member of the united states senate, he has the support of alex rif of alice rie of president obama's top officials in o.m.b., to save medicare and what has happened? the president calls congressman

ryan in and attacks him on the spot. they are still accusing him of having a radical scheme to destroy medicare and nothing could be further from the truth. it is a plan to strengthen medicare, to save medicare, and put it on a sound basis so that people working today can be confident that when they retire and become eligible for it, it will be there. but you can't create something from nothing. you can't to have a plan that provides the funding for it. this is not smoke and mirrors. nothing comes from nothing, i got to tell you. and one more thing, the president says -- quote -- "i've signed a law that cuts spending and reduces our deficit by $2

trillion." quswell, he was forced into sigg that bill. did he really want to sign it? no, he didn't. we all know that. you could tell that from reading the newspapers and how the negotiations went. our big spenders resisted that dramatically. and how much is $2 trillion over ten years? we plan to spend $37 trillion over ten years, increasing the debt by about $10 trillion to $13 trillion. that much more debt added. this would have cut it from $37 trillion being spent to $35 trillion being spent. it would have meant we would increase the deficit about $11 trillion over the next ten years instead of $13 trillion, i guess. not nearly enough but at least some step toward reining in

soaring spending. but -- so the president brags on that just a few minutes ago. he's bragging about it. well, what is the real truth? the budget he submitted, he viscerated that agreement. the budget he submitted in february of this year, five months after the agreement last spring -- last august, would wipe out the entire sequester, would eliminate $1 trillion in cuts, and add more spending. in fact, he would add, under that plan, $1.5 trillion more in spending than the budget control act agreement he's taking credit for signing would have allowed to be spent. this is not a matter of dispute. this is a fact. the budget he submitted wiped out half -- more than half of the cuts that were in that agreement. and he had big tax increases,

about $1.8 trillion in tax increases. so $1.6 trillion more in spending than we agreed to just last summer, and $1.8 trillion more in new taxes. tax, spend. tax, spend. that's what this president's philosophy is. and if he wants to stand for that, campaign on that run on that, well and good. be honest with the american people. but don't come in and take credit for things you resisted. don't come in and claim credit for budget cuts that you've proposed in your budget to eliminate. and how can we have a bipartisan discussion to rye to reach an agreement -- to try to reach appear agreement about what to do about the unsustainable course we're on if the president is going out and saying things that are not connected to reality? i think it's irresponsible. i really do. i don't see how a president of

the united states could possibly not spend a great deal of time with the american people, explaining to them why we're all going to have to tighten our belts, how we don't have the money we wish we had, that we're going to have to do this. is it some sort of political fear that big spenders will ultimately get caught if they tell the truth about how much debt their big spending has caused the country, so they just have to pretend it's not so? well, they said president bush had big debts. he did spend too much money, and i criticized him some on that, and none of us are perfect in this congress, and we all voted for things probably we shouldn't have. the largest debt that president bush ever had, annual deficit, was $470 billion. that's big. it's a lot of money.

president obama's deficits have been $1,200, $1,300 all four years he's been in office. more than twice what president bush's deficits were. he's been in office now four years. the plan he's laid out, even assuming the economy continues to grow, as we assume in these budget analyses, that he does not come close to balancing the budget. every year wire adding hundreds of -- every year we're adding hundreds of billions of dollars more in debt. the lowest-single year in his teten-year plan would add $600 billion more to the debt. and according to the government accountability office, the interest on the -- and according to the congressional budget office, the interest on the debt soars. interest last year was $225 billion on the debt and in the

tenth year of the president's budget the congressiona congrest office projects that the interest in that one year, ten years from now, will be $850 billion, exceeding virtually every item in the government, including the defense department. so this is not a healthy thing. so in march at a fund-raiser, he's going to allow those -- sometimes, somewhere, somebody's got to stay home in washington and bring this wasteful spending to control. he was at a fund-raiser in denver and said, "i'm running to pay down our debt." i'm running to pay down our debt. don't worry. let me -- i'm going to pay down our debt. that's just not what the numbers show. no plan has been laid out, other

than the plan he laid out in his budget to tax, spend, and keen -- and keep the debt on the same level we were on if he had nah -- if he had no changes into the budget situation. so,man, i am unhappy about it. it is very distressing to me that this nation is facing a crisis financially. we are all going to have to recognize we don't have the money that we would like to have to spend as we would like to spend. i told some people this morning at a breakfast, luncheon, a group of air force association and all that we -- defense people needed to know we don't have the money. we don't have the money. for years we're going to have to be tightening our belts, but we can work our way through it, we can do the right things. who knows by producing

efficiencies and other actions of productivity that we could get our course -- country on a healthier course than we can imagine at this point. i actually think we could. but we got to be honest about the situation. we got have is being who stays in the office for a while and actually drives the restraint in spending and insists that every cabinet member, subcabinet member, g.s.a. person going to a resort in las vegas that is spending the taxpayers' money that they do it with restraint and that wasteful actions are eliminated. that's the kind of leadership we need. and the american people need to be told -- and we all need to understand -- we just don't have the money. we wish we did. so we'll have to alter our spending levels for a few year, get this country on a sound path, create confidence that will come when the world knows that we've gotten off the

unsustainable debt path and gotten on a path that's sustainable, set on a sound path, a path that leads to prosperity, not a path that leads to debt crisis and decline, but growth, prosperity, and freedom. that's what it's all about, and forgive me if it's irritating to me, but i did conclude after today's speech that the president's made a decision that he's going to run to november, he's going to runnin run on fact he is reducing the debt. that's what he's apparently said. "i'm running to pay down the debt," is what he said in denver, and he repeated that again today. so that's got to be confronted. and if i'm wrong, i ask any member of this senate to come forward and show me what, in the president's plan, leads to any conclusion that he has laid out

a plan that would pay down the debt of the united states. i don't see it. i don't think it it's close. i thank the chair and would yield the floor, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: george washington once said, the willingness of future generations to serve in our military will be directly dependent upon how we have treated those we have served in the past. tomorrow. 95 world war ii veterans will fly from montana to washington to see their memorial with their own eyes for the first time. this trip is made possible by the big sky honor flight progr program. their mission is to recognize american veterans by flying them to washington, d.c., to see their memorial at no cost. these veterans and the volunteers who help sends them here -- send them here say a lot

about what helps make the united states of america the greatest country on earth. who are these veterans? their average age is 90. they hail from all parts of our state, from plentywood to superior, from miles city to libby, and many places inbetween. and each veteran has a story to tell. shortly after the attack on pearl harbor, bill smith left his job as an accountant in billings and volunteered to fly b-24 liberator bombers with the 466th bomb group. bill went on to fly 30 missions over europe from 1943-1945. he rose through the ranks and eventually took command of an entire crew. on a typical day, bill and his crew would rise at 4:00 a.m., eat a quick breakfast and

receive a mission brief. as crew commander, bill was responsible for seeing to it that the bombers safely navigated enemy airspace, accomplished its mission on ti time, on target, and returned to base safely. bill's b-24 flew at 22,000 feet in subzero temperatures in nonpressurized cabins. just think about that. we aren't talking about the cozy airplane cabins you and i are used to today. we're talking about open-air, really loud and really cold cabins. now, imagine, if you can, doing all that with nazi fighters on your tail. in one instance, incoming enemy fire shot the oxygen mask right off of the face of one of the gunners on bill's crew. bill is 96 now. when asked about his service, he said, "i am proud of what we d

did. i know we hit a lot of targets. that's what we were there for. we weren't there for a joy rid ride." in march, i had the privilege of meeting del olson from billings. del was born ask raised on a farm in raplegy, montana, very small town. in 1944, del join the women's army corps as an airplane mechanic. the women's army corps was the first female unit, besides nurses, to serve within the ranks of the united states army. they were patriots, trail blazers. and like all trail blazers, their service didn't come without controversy. but del didn't let the controversy get in the way of her mission. she dedicated herself to fixing up bomber aircraft in texas. that was her job. including the b-24 liberator that bill smith was flying over europe. later in the war, del moved to

bakersfield, california, where she worked as a nurse caring for countless wounded warriors. now, at age 92, when you ask del about her service, she will tell you, "i didn't do much during the war. others did so much more." del's humility is a testament to what real selfless service looks like. when del visits the world war ii memorial, she plans to pay her respects to those who made the ultimate sacrifice during the war. del said she will think of her brothers and her sister who all served under general eisenhower in europe. she especially wants to honor her first and second husbands, both of whom served in the south pacific during the war. i have met with del and talked with her about coming to washington, d.c., on the honor flight. she was such a special and is such a special lady. i have talked to her, i says

boy, del, we have to make sure that we raise enough money so you get a seat in the plane. she says oh, no, no, not me. there are others who are so mucher modifying deion that i. not me. exactly the kind of selfless attitude that she had and others who served world war ii had. she now has a seat. she has got -- she will be back here in washington, d.c., and their first event is tomorrow night and it's with a service -- a memorial tomorrow. but honor flights just don't happen automatically. it takes work, a lot of work. kathy shannon, beth bolley, tina vothier, chris reinhart, vicki stevens, bill kennedy and countless other volunteers have all been instrumental in organizing montana's first honor flight. students, friends, neighbors,

businesses pooled together nearly $150,000 to make this happen. in today's tough times when families are struggling to make ends meet, pooling together that kind of contribution is no small feat. this will be the first honor flight for montana, but i know it won't be the last. i know because i have seen the passion and dedication of these volunteers firsthand. in march, i had the incredible opportunity to pinch hit by serving burgers at a fundraiser in billings. it was a lot of fun. it was very inspiring seeing all these folks. inspiring to see our young montanans as well demonstrate their spirit of service. for example, students from huntley project schools raised an amazing $2,425 to make this happen. this is kids. and in the process, they learned valuable lessons about the sacrifices that made it possible for them to grow up in a country strong and free. this honor flight visit is larger than just a thank you to

our world war ii veterans. it shows the commitment we americans consider a sacred obligation to all our veterans. for those who served op the frozen battlefields of korea, the jungles of vietnam to the deserts of iraq and to those who on this very day are fighting in the mountains in afghanistan. so i ask the senate to join me in welcoming these heroes to our nation's capital this weekend, and a special thanks to all 18,000 world war ii veterans living in montana. we are forever grateful for your service and your sacrifice. and i might add, mr. president, as we honor our veterans, especially those that served in world war ii, it's a good reminder to all of us here who as pyre to public service to provide this service, at least

that they did as veterans, who in many cases are putting themselves in harm's way, sacrificing themselves for our country. the very least we can do here in the senate is to remember our veterans who sacrificed so much. remember our forces today who serve us so well. in the very least, let's work together as a senate, as a congress to solve a lot of the problems that are ahead of us and not just be so partisan and so divisive, which is clearly not public service. mr. president, before i conclude, i also want to say a few words on another very important topic impacting our democracy. that is the freedom of people to choose their own elected representatives. today, the supreme court is considering a challenge to montana's 1912 practice.

100 years ago, montanans, it's said, in legislation, elections should not be bought by the copper kings. who are the copper kings? basically, they are three very wealthy titans trying to control the economy of montana and control our state. montanans said no, elections should not be bought by copper kings or by any corporation. today we in montana say the same thing. unfortunately, the supreme court 2010 decision in citizens united cleared the way for unlimited out-of-state corporate donations throughout the country. i applaud montana's attorney general steve bullock for sticking up for montanans as the supreme court takes a closer look at this case. i have introduced a constitutional amendment to limit corporate campaign expenditures and i have supported every piece of campaign reform legislation

that's come before me. as the supreme court looks at montana's 1912 practices act today, it's my hope that montana can continue to lead the nation in saying elections belong in the hands of the people, not out of state foreign corporations. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator jrgs mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: thank you, mr. president. a week or so ago, i was being interviewed by cnn, and i think it was the -- a couple of days after the jobs report had come out for the month of may, and the reporter who was interviewing me was commenting on those job numbers, which were disappointing, i think, to all of us. he asked if we're going to be right back into a recession instead of continuing to recover from a really deep, awful recession, awfully tough recession. that we would go back into the soup. and i said to her, i said i know that there are people in my state, i know there are people across the country that are

still hurting, suffering, people have lost jobs. in some cases people lost their homes, they are fearful of losing their health care, maybe not being able to send their son or daughter back to school. and i realize they have pain still in our country more than any of us would like. but i said there are maybe four things we should keep in mind. one is let's not talk ourselves back into another recession, which we have the ability to do. our hair is not on fire. let's continue to make sure that we're looking at the interlying fundamentals that the economy, while they are not universally up or upbeat, the underlying fundamentals are not entirely bad either. our energy costs are down, way down. not just in saudi arabia, the saudi arabia of natural gas, now the net exporter of oil. we're seeing significant reductions over the last half dozen or so years and our dependence on foreign oil from about 60% of the foreign oil we use being from foreign sources to approaching 40%. the movement is right.

another underlying factor is the cost of health care in this country for years have seen double-digit increases. the rate of health care costs in this country. last year they help costs in this country -- health care costs in this country rose by 4%. that's a positive factor as we try to be more competitive with the rest of the world. another factor is the -- if you will, the disparity of the difference in labor costs between our country and those of other countries with whom we compete. one of them china. another believe it or not vietnam, very low-cost producer of manufactured products. what we have seen in those other countries, in vietnam, shaheen and some of the other asian countries, their wage levels have come up, and our wage levels in this country pretty much remain the same. as a result, the inducement for companies here, particularly manufacturing companies offshore, the manufacturing operations are diminished from where they were a couple of

years ago. those are all, i think, encouraging factors. again, to lay the groundwork for a sustained economic recovery if our friends from europe can work their way through, navigate their way through their problems in places like greece and spain. but it's not all bad news. it's not all bad news. in the near term, what should we do? again, number one, not talk ourselves back into a recession. number two, prepare to hit a home run. i'm a guy who likes baseball a lot. we need to hit a home run. i don't think we're going to hit a home run here in this chamber, in this building, in this city maybe before the election, but the best thing in my view that we could do for the economy is to -- to adopt a bipartisan deficit reduction deal much like that proposed by the deficit commission led buyer skin bowles, former chief of staff to president clinton, and by former u.s. senator from wyoming, republican alan simpson,

so-called bowles-simpson deficit reduction plan that provides for $4 trillion to $5 trillion of deficit reduction over the next ten years, three dollars on the spending side for every one dollar on the revenue side. i think that actually lowers tax rates, the corporate and individual rates, lowers the rates, broadens the base of the income that is taxable by eliminating about half of our so-called tax exemptions, tax breaks, tax deductions, tax credits, tax loopholes. and that's how we end up with lower rates, both on the corporate and individual side, and also why with actually creating some revenue, one dollar of new revenue for every three dollars of spending reduction. that is a home run and i don't think that we'll hit the home run before the election but sometime between the day after the election and hopefully by the end of the year we will adopt something similar to that and provide certainty, one, can we govern, we can, two, can we be fiscally responsible, yes, we can, and can we

provide fairness with our tax code, yes we can. that answers all the other questions with yes, we can and we are. but while we're prepared to hit a home run, i don't think we watt to wait until the end of the year to do something and in the meantime we need to hit a lot of singles. rather than hitting a home run with runners on base, let's see if we can't hit some singles and a couple of doubles and score some runs for the economy. i spent a lot of time as my colleagues would tell folks, focusing on how do we create a more nurturing environment for job creation and job preservation. how do we do that? and our friend, john chambers, actually from west virginia, native of west virginia, as am i, but john chambers heads up cisco, a technology company. likes to say the jobs in the 21st century will go to those states, those countries that do two things especially well. one, productive work force, students who can read, write, think, do math, science coming out of our high schools and colleges and universities into

the work force. and the states and nations that do another thing when very well, that's create create a world-class infrastructure, broadly defined, roads, highways, bridges, transit, rail, port, airports, waterways, water treatment, broadband, all of the above broadly defined infrastructure. but in addition to that there's a number of other things we can do to provide a nurturing environment and they include cost-effective regulations, commonsense regulations, access to leaders like us. another positive element in job creation, job preservation, access to capital. borrow money from businesses large and small at reasonable rates. the ability to export to into foreign 345rbg9s and, markets and get financing if they need it. incentives to do being basic research and development that can be commercialized and create are products we can sell around the world. those are things that contribute

to the nurturing environment, not all, not the only things but some of them. the other thing that we can do in terms of hitting singles and doubles is some things we've done in this chamber this year. in this chamber this year. i want to mention a few of those. and they include actually doing something about our aviation infrastructure. and when we passed the f.a.a., f.a.a. f.a.a. -- federal aviation administration reauthorization earlier this year, we not only provided for a source of revenues provided by the general aviation community and civilian airlines here, a source of revenue to upgrade, modernize and improve aimplets, we -- airports, we also provided money to bring our analog air traffic control system into the 21st century. an analog system into the 21st century, arguably a digital. that's one in terms of a more nurturing environment.

number two, the idea that in the past if someone comes up with an idea like this young woman right here who is typing down my words on the floor today, but she comes up with a good idea, goes to the patent office in the past she can go to the patent office and say i have an idea for a better machine than the one she's taken my words down here today and files for a patent on that machine. a year later i show up at the patent office and say no, that was really my idea, and i thought of it first. she just filed first but i had it first. i end up going and litigating with her and that i may string out for months, years and provides a lot of uncertainty. i'm a patent troll. i just want to be bought out and basically paid off. maybe i did are the idea first but in a lot of cases i didn't. i want to be given something of financial consequence so i'll go away. we've changed that now. with the law we passed and the president signed, it says whoever files first, she files first for the new machine, it's

hers, her patent. an important thing for to us do with respect to providing certainty for innovation and creativity. another thing we did, a smart idea, we're having a hard time selling goods and services in places like south korea and panama and colombia, a lot of others around the world but negotiated, the bush administration, george w. bush, and further in the obama administration, free trade agreements with south korea, with panama, and with colombia. they've been approved by the senate, agreed to by the president and they're now the law of our lands and the lands of those three countries. what does it mean for us? south korea, a place where they sold to us last year 500,000 cars and vans, 500,000, a country we sold 5,000 cars, trucks and vans to. that's going to change and their ability to keep our vehicles out will phase out over time and we'll have the opportunity to sell our vehicles there just as they have the ability to sell vehicles here.

we'll have the ability to sell poultry products. we do loot of poultry products on the delmarva peninsula, tariff barriers that keep them out. so the idea to provide better access to foreign markets, we've done that at least with respect to those three and we're trying to negotiate now something called the trans-pacific partnership which would involve countries in this hemisphere and including us and maybe chile and countries south of us and maybe canada and mexico, a partnership with malaysia, australia, new zee lands, vietnam. i'm told the japanese are interested in that as well. that could be a new global partnership tony hans trade between 2010 all the countries that are a part of that. another single that we've hit over here is something called the jobs act. and you may recall that i.p.o.

unwrapped for initial public offering, changing shareholder threshold raising it from 500 shareholders to 2,000, something i worked on. the i.p.o. onramp to make it easier for companies if they want to go public, they can do that and john carney, our congressman from delaware worked on that in the house and did a very nice job. that's supported by democrats and republicans. now the law of the land. another single, maybe a double, i don't know, for smaller companies that want to grow, remain privately held or become publicly traded. other potential singles and doubles are the postal legislation that senator lieberman, senator collins, senator brown and myself and others have worked on to try to save the postal service which is losing $25 million a day, and clear this the 21st century, got a pretty good idea how to stem that hemorrhaging in and help them become sustainable

again in a breanbreak-even operation. that bipartisan bill passed the senate, over in the house awaiting action. we need for the house to take up that legislation. they do, that's something that could help save, preserve seven to eight million jobs and affect a significant part of our economy. another potential double -- maybe a double, maybe even a triple is transportation legislation. two or three million jobs that float floe from that, a lot of projects in my state and 49 other states, grinding to a halt because of the inability in this case of the house to agree with bipartisan legislation that we passed here in the senate to fund and to go forward with transportation projects in all 50 states. that nobody is arguing with, they're not bridges to nowhere, they're actually smart ideas and involve state funding as well but need some federal help. we passed it, the senate -- the house has gone to conference with us but we're having having a tough time getting to yes.

if we do, that's a double or triple with men on base and two to three million jobs. those are things we can do to enhance the nurturing environment for job preservation there's one more single or double i want to talk about, it's agriculture legislation. we have an agriculture bill that has been brought out of committee by a big bipartisan vote. it would mabel us to get -- enable us to get what we need to do and a lot of that, get better results for less money. and i like to say in everything we do, everything i do i know i can do better. i think the same is true of my 99 colleagues. i believe that's true of most federal programs and one of our challenges is to figure out how to get better results for everything we do. today we're -- had an interesting hearing on medicaid program and how do we get better results for less money, reduce improper payments, reduce fraud

lawses -- losses which are about 10% of what they spend in medicaid and medicare. but a recurring theme for me and the subcommittee i lead on financial management in the senate is how do we get better results for less money or for the same amount of money. that's not a democratic idea, not a republican idea, not a liberal idea or a conservative idea. it's just a smart idea in a day of age of trillion-dollar deficits and deficits coming down but still too high and while we wait to do that big deal, hit that home run with something like the bowles-simpson recommendation later this year we need to continue to hit singles in terms of reducing our taxpayer money on a smarter, more cost-effective way. that brings to us legislation before the senate this week, the agriculture bill. we believe it or not delaware, a little state, fewer than a million people, about 100 miles from one end to the other north-south, right here on the

mid-atlantic between washington, d.c. and new york city, we for us, agriculture is still a big deal. and we don't have a lot of cows, we have some, don't have a lot of hogs, we have some, what we have is lot of is chickens. a lot of chickens. for every person who lives in my state, mr. president, you're not going to believe this, but there are 300 chickens. and as you go from north to south, the chickens are -- have us outnumbered even more than 300-1. 80% of our agricultural committee in -- economy in delaware is poultry related. poultry doesn't need a lot or ask for a lot in terms of support or investment from the federal government but we raise corn and soybeans in delaware. so we care about agriculture. we care about the farm bill. other parts of the country care about it even more, maybe, than we do. but i want to talk for a few

more minutes if i can, mr. president, and i'll head back to my office, but i'm here today to say that the farm bill that's been before us this week when compared to the ones that have come before it in recent years takes great stride toward reforming a process that was too often i think rightly criticized as regressive and, unfortunately, wasteful. all told, the bill that's been brought to the floor, a bipartisan bill, great kudos to the chairman of the agriculture committee in the senate, debbie stabenow of michigan and the ranking republican, senator pat roberts from kansas. they've done great work in steering this legislation through committee, again with strong bipartisan support and bringing it to the floor. saving the federal government about -- almost $24 billion over the next ten years compared to what we would otherwise be spending under current law. the legislation eliminates wasteful spending by getting rid of the so-called direct payments

program which too often gave money to farmers even when farmers didn't grow anything, or even own the land. but the bill is also i think humane and this legislation is not unfair to our farmers, i believe it embraces the golden rule of treating people the way we want to be treated, that includes farmers and farm families and taxpayers. but instead of continuing the direct payments program that's prevailed for years this legislation institutes a new crop insurance program, a long sought-after goal by those of us wanting to make progressive changes to farm farm law. instead of giving money to farmers that, again, sometimes don't grow even a single crop in a year, this legislation only helps farmers when they actually experience a loss on the crops they are actually growing. for a lot of people in this country that would sound like common sense. but here in washington, d.c.,

and across the country, it's an uncommon approach to farm legislation. it's a much smarter approach. in the end, the new crop insurance in the farm bill would give farmers certainty, a lot of uncertainty in farming. sit going to rain? is it going to be cold? are we going to have hail? have drought? a huge amount of uncertainty. it's important for us to the extent we can reasonably do it, reduce uncertainty and lack of predictability for all kinds of businesses. it's hard to do that, we don't control the weather or the temperature, sort of indirectly maybe, but to the extent we can provide some security and predictability for the farmers at a lower cost to the taxpayers, we ought to do that. and i think this committee has pretty well thought that peru threw and figured out a way to do crop insurance. an old program with a new approa