to illustrate the creativity and the opportunity perhaps of using mobile technology. we also believe there's a real potential for advances in technology that can make meaningful positive differences in the way consumers interact and manage and understand their money. at treasury we continue to work with innovators and leaders and industry from banks and credit unions, to prepaid card providers as well as emerging technology companies, who were thinking about smart ways to help serve consumers while ensuring protections and, of course, compliance. but we are also looking internally, not internationally. we are looking internally and think about how government at all levels can more effectively leverage payments to increase financial access and financial capability. from tax refunds to social security benefits, hundreds of billions of dollars are routinely flowing through the state and federal government directly to families.

beyond just a vehicle to remit payments, now is the time to consider how government payments can be used to actively improve the financial outcome of households. so as we think about how government payments at the federal level can best be harnessed, there's a powerful opportunity to test innovative strategy, not only of the federal level but also at the state level, where payments are being made of households through a range of programs, tanf, snap, unemployment insurance and child support. how might states use those payment platforms to increase access to sound financial products? how might those platforms be used to not a facility savings, but also to encourage it? and how might families better track and manage their money and their budget through that electronic method of payment? and how might the strategies and inform changes perhaps at the federal, with federal government payments? we are excited about moving this

conversation forward, coordinating with partners across government, and working with industry and the consumer advocacy community to explore new opportunities in this space. so i'm not going to close. i'm sure joe is ready for us to move on, i want to him by calling out our commitment to looking around the bend at what's coming, how the landscape of consumer financial services is changing, and how policy and regulations can help to enhance and encourage innovations that are ultimately empowering. i think there many reasons to be optimistic about the prospects of increased financial inclusion, from innovative financial service providers who are designing new and dynamic products, to the continued march of technology which is constantly reshaping the link between families and their finances. there's a lot of potential. so thank you for having me here today. looking forward to our conversation.

>> as the panelists are assembled on stage, i do have one question for melissa right off the bat. i want to thank you again for emphasizing technology and innovation and outreach in your remarks. i'm wondering, this change has affected a lot of consumers who may have never had a bank account or who gave up on banks. and also includes a lot of vulnerable population. what financial resources are out there for direct express card holders or their families, caregivers, to learn about this card and how to manage money? >> happy to answer it. am i on now? so, it's worth calling out that this move to this march 1 deadline effort was a number of years in the making, and that was in part because there was this critical element of making sure the benefit against knew and understood what the potential value is in using a

direct express card, and also that they had information about how to use it safely, right? social security payments, a lot of older americans are the ones who are receiving those payment. they are the ones. so there were a number of strategies that treasury has employed in order to make sure that they were well-prepare welr this march 1 deadline. first of all, there was direct partnership with organizations and nonprofits across the country. in fact, about 2000 organizations joined us in educating at the local level, as was the national level to help benefit recipients understand how to use the product and how to use the product safer. i just want to add, i don't know this is quite the right spot, but we are also about to test about some new strategies around educating, using technology, something called pay perks, it's about to be employed -- deployed. and it is in essence, it's an

incentive device that the benefit recipients will find out about by giving -- that they will then receive it in the mail, scratch off, having number. they will then go online and engage in a number of financial education courses or modules. and when they do that they then get entered into a contest to win small cash prizes. so we are trying some of these behaviorally informed strategy to both encourage and nudge and the recipients to be more informed about how to use those cards safely. >> great. i know this is a moment and encipher some people who may not have the experience. so i do appreciate that. gene, going to turkey but give any thoughts on the direct express card? melissa mentioned this been a work in progress since 1999. and i had interest expense of working on 1999 initiative in

dealing some community outreach and education to the people kind of get there. i think the direct express card is a really great product. if you look at the fee structure on a, it is free, free, free, free. you can use it at point of sale with cashback. there is only one, i'm going to use this, only one free atm withdrawal per month, but because you can get cashback at points of sale, you really don't have to download the entire cache all of us but i think there's a real interesting opportunity here. as melissa has said, to build the financial capability, it's an interesting product designed and i think it actually has potential for sort of setting the stage for other prepaid card products in the marketplace, it could be a leader in moving that

product field into a set of products that will help consumers sort of build financial capability, get into the financial mainstream in safe products that they can use to promote their own financial security stability. >> david, what are your thoughts? >> joe, you know, i agree with jeanne. i think the card is designed really well. the structure is very limited. if i were to be sort of nitpicking, which is my role to do, i think one thing that is important, we have heard people even though there is a 75 cents v4 a statement, for using the card per month, we encourage people to do that for transactions throughout the month. so that's one area that i think we would have liked to have seen free but at the same time i think the fact that it is pretty low-cost, big value is important

and i would think over time, i would love to see sort of the savings bucket opportunity on the card. especially because that's different from attacks time card in that the idea would be that especially for social security and disability recipients they are going to get paid dollars over time, not just in one payment per year. so the hope would be than they could build some assets to a savings bucket. >> melissa, any thoughts on that? >> i think we all recognize that we need to find things that work to encourage savings, and i appreciate the recommendation around the savings peace. i think we have more to do to understand how to make that happen technically, and more to do to think about how to ensure that then the benefit recipients what you said and see that as an opportunity. >> david, using government to cards for a while but i know you

testified last year on some the issues you've seen in ohio using this card at the state level for unemployment benefits. how does this compare to some of the state cards speak with sure. again, this card is probably the best sector card ic design, probably the best prepaid card in the market in general. in a, i think the biggest issue for unemployment cards in the past was there a fee for overdraft, on some of the cards. most of the cards have gotten rid of that but there's still a few that haven't. this card does not have that. it's important and every wise choice. you know, i think the biggest issue for any kind of government card is that a lot of people who are underbanked are still in a cash economy picks out of get the money off the card for free, becomes a challenge and opportunity as well. so the point of sale point is important. in ohio the trouble is that it's a pretty big state. with 88 counties, so the challenge is that the card with

a u.s. bank provide unemployment conversation car, and they have about 300 branches throughout the state and they are part of a network so they do have funds there. but just because we're spread out there are 33 counties out of the 80 that don't have u.s. banks. there are i think around 15 or so that don't have any visa plus atms either. so if you're taking at $20 you're paying $6.18 fees to do, that's expensive for people who are on unemployment compensation picks i think with this card the one free atm transaction in network per load, that's exactly in fact what we are arguing for. so i think this card -- the cards are out there for unemployment. >> and the point of sale point is important but that may network all the time for everybody, right? >> that is a challenge.

i think from coming to talk to some of the more financial planner types, you know, advocacy folks, the danger is that it might be encouraging people to spend to get money off the card. so they're going into a convenience store or grocery store, maybe they'll spend $10 if they were not looking to do that but they want to take 20 off the card. >> is there any sort of best practice at the state level that you have seen? >> you know, first, the national consumer law center as mentioned has done great reports on the card. i think, again, you know, i think at least 30 of the cards got a two thumbs operating, the best you can get. allowing one free action is a good approach for a lot of cards to do that. the elimination of overdraft is really important. the real important features of the card, but i think also overall, encouraging direct deposit for those who are eligible for it is still really

important. there are a lot of people are getting prepaid cards the likes of you have bank accounts at a financial institution, credit union, and i think they can, i think there's nervousness around may the government deposits in those accounts. so one thing we still want to impress on people is almost always the best option to do direct deposit if they can. >> going back to the branch access issues. melissa, it's clearly one of the problem you're designing a car for ohio and you have a few major banking players and you try to cover as many fans as possible, how do you go about that when you're looking at a card for a national scope of? >> so, i want to preface this with i am not expert at the treasury department on direct express but am happy to share, sort of adds a little color to what we were just talking about with david. we in designing the product, with treasury, want to make sure that consumers would have many, many points of access for

accessing cash. one of the approaches that we are taking is we july's money pacs which notably is, if an access point that can be found in wal-marts across the country. so we have 50,018 access points across the country. but even to call attention to the fact that we also have access points for cash and some comcoming in, well-known and wel distributed weekenders like wal-mart i think it's an important note in making sure that consumers are able to get cash when they want it. >> jeanne, any thoughts of? >> i think the retail point is really, really important here, because when you think about kind of where you go to get your financial service transactions and how many times you actually have to walk into a branch, the model has changed.

and so i think while it's important to have an ability to contact your financial institution, either through the web or some sort of customer service online, actually walking into a branch may not be as important as having access to the financial services someplace else. that being said, i think there has been research out there that shows that the presence of bank branches in communities really does foster community economic developments i don't want to come across saying, we can get rid of all the branches because i truly don't believe that. i do think the way customers relate to their financial institution is changing quite a bit, and from the consumer perspective the branch system may be a red herring. spent one coming to add. we are talking about a number of

different types of dissipation of payments, right, social security, ssi payments are not necessarily at about or considered in the same way that unemployment insurance payments may be. and also probably not in the same way that someone thinks about -- as i mentioned, we have employed strategies to really encourage the benefit, social security and other federal benefit payment recipients to think about how to use the card in a wiser way, and it's not just that it is wiser for their use. like going to come here, a store and doing cash back at point-of-sale. it also then speaks to the economics of offering the card product. so what i think it's helpful to have a conversation like this where we are talking copper has of late about leveraging payments, we also have to get fairly nuanced in think about the different types of payments,

how the consumer is thinking about their use of those benefit payments, and also think about the provider and understanding the economics underneath it. because i think there's some work to do to really think through how to make the equation balance for everybody. >> cannot add to that? i think there's real interesting opportunities to really -- we're at the very, very early stages, to look at usage patterns. see fsi and the philadelphia federal reserve bank did a study that looked at how consumers are using their prepaid products. there's this sort of u-shaped data were whole bunch of people use it once of all the money off of it and then they don't ever use it again until the next load. then there's another set of people at the other end of that better using it as a really good transaction tool. they are swiping at the grocery store. they're using it at the atm to

get their 20, 40, $60 back if they're using it at the gas pumps. they're using at the fast food chain to grab lunch. so they are really using it at a transaction device. and it is the farewell cash for them. spent you want to hold that thought for just a minute? i know melissa needs to head back to treasury for a meeting if you missed it i did want to give the opportunity if you have any question specifically for melissa koide. and if you could just state your name and affiliation. okay, woman in the back. >> hi. i'm a development consultant working for nonprofits to my question with regards to what conversations are taking place between department and treasury and hhs, primarily with the agency's fm independence and programs that they have, particularly the grant and possibly creating an app that can be used on smart phones for both grant participants? >> great question, and as you

rightly imagine, we are quite interested in leveraging our partnership with other federal agencies to think about payments and leveraging them up for accessing capabilities. we have only began to really think about the conversations, but i think there's a recognition across all federal agencies, and even throughout the administration that we have to do more using the tools that we have at hand to improve access and financial capabilities. so that's on our agenda by all means. >> okay, i see two hands. spent on carl from american health care and national center for assisted living. we are one of those groups that works really closely with you guys to get the word out to residents, about half of which have alzheimer's or other dementia's. ssi checks and social security, switching over to electronics.

we know that most of them have done it but there will be some who don't, and so one question is, so we don't tell them to be any leniency but how gently is this enforced? i mean, is it a little -- you know, we know it will be a process. >> let me just say this. no one's checks are going away. people are still going to receive their payment. it will be after checks continue to redistribute because the individuals have not signed up that we will come back to them, and offer encouragement and assistance in getting them into the direct card. there will be no ending of the payment. spent other questions? yes, in the back. >> hi. i'm going to -- i'm with the family research families and. a number of southeast asian

refugees are in this position and underbanked our unbanked. so i was wondering what sort of strategy there is to reach out to populations -- [inaudible] and vulnerable. specs i'm going to get you name before i leave and make sure that the folks at treasury he were specifically working on making sure that we are touching lots of different people with lots of different considerations, that you know who the resources are. but i can't say that when i mentioned 2000 nonprofits, we specifically reached out to nonprofits were on the ground, or working with people where english wasn't the primary language a note to make sure that the details about how to use this card and use the card wisely were being conveyed. some happy to give you more specifics about who in the kennedys you have in mind, we basically use. >> all right.

in the front. [inaudible] >> i was wondering if you could talk a bit about regulation, as mentioned in the description we know kind of how you're going to look at these prepaid cards, and what agencies are concerned about. >> i'm happy to share. so, in december 2010 treasury issued what's, known as an interim final rule with respect to the ditch a vision of government payments into prepaid cards. a number of consumer protection mandates were included in that rule your including that prepaid cards that are receiving federal benefits must have regulation protection that model what was regulation protection for

payroll cards. so statements, disclosures, and a host of other types of protections, as well as requirement that any cards that were receiving public -- federal benefits are fdic or equivalent insured. spend one final question. >> i have a question but i was glad to hear that it really can be used as so much of a check were some of you just take the card and take everything off of it. i'm wondering in the study, as they been any issues with the safety of the? let's say, for example, someone can't travel, you know, before they were signing the check and giving the check to someone, then you the money they were getting back and that type of thing. so can you give someone their card if they cannot travel to a place to do it? and it seems like that might

incur more costs as well if they have to pay someone to go ahead and do that, but it won't be as easy if they have all the cash on their card still. i'm just wondering if there's been any incidents of fraud, particularly with this because people had to give their card to someone else to use it spent could you identify yourself? >> i'm with international congress of american indians. >> so, i can tell you that, that i don't, i can tell you, i don't want to give you facts because i don't know the details, but there is always a concern about someone getting their card and their pen to someone else, or for the car being stolen in the pen being accessed. having said that, the amount of fraud we were saying when we're doing paper checks was so

significant, you know, there were $7 million in federal payments in 2011, for instance, that were lost. the monies were lost for fraudulent reasons. i want to say it was 440,000 paper checks in 2011 where we actually, they checks were either lost or stolen. it's not to say that there isn't the possibility or perhaps even the incidence of some level of fraud with the card, you know, as you see fraud with all cards in the market. but comparison to what we were trying to offer in terms of protection to reset yes, this i think significantly helps to reduce some of that risk. >> great. please join me in thanking melissa koide for speaking here today. [applause]

>> all right. so, moving on. gene, i know csi has done a lot of work on making sure that people can understand the features and fees under prepaid card, if you could speak to that. >> so i want to know kind of step back to a higher level and not just talk about government cards but talk about prepaid cards much more generally. so this could be the prepaid card that you get off of the rack at the grocery store or that you sign up for over the internet, or that perhaps even your employer makes available to you. we have, at cfsi we have four key principles that serve as filters for how we view financial products and services out there in the marketplace. and they are to promote, to build trust, to promote the success and to create opportunity.

and so that idea of inclusion, trust, success and opportunity, we have taken those and we said how might this apply to prepaid cards. and we used those then to create what we call our compass guide to prepaid cards, and there's materials out there on the tables for you to take a look at. but one of the things that we're doing is we are really sort of using those then to encourage financial institutions to sign onto the compass principles and so yes, we will offer you products that are, you know, inclusive and trustworthy and help you succeed and create opportunities for you. and in addition, and that going to give -- melissa had my position before i have my position, and when she was there she worked with the cfsi of folks to create a prototype of a pre-disclosure box. many of you know about the kind

of disclosure box is that you get with your credit card. well, this is sort of taking that model, that nutrition label model and applying it to the fees that you would expect to have on your prepaid card. so we have a prototype fee disclosure box that we are asking industry to voluntarily subscribe to and voluntarily use as a sort of build and design their products and services. so there's a couple of the things that we're doing, and i'm happy to say that we do have financial institutions who have signed on and said we're only going to offer these kinds of products. we are going to display our fees in this way, so there is transparency in the market. >> david, any thoughts on that on a level of transparency that consumers have had in ohio? >> i think the disclosure box is a great idea, and i think that, you know, as jeanne said, it's a

totally applicable to sort of public sector cards. most of those transactions we hope our sort of -- public sector cards are different than the private sector once. but i think that community, one thing that we tried to push with the public sector cards is when they're issued to people, based on their zip code, give them three places that are closest to them where they can access their dollars for free, where they can pull my off the car for free. i think the up front transparency can always be improved on almost every financial product, but i think the box is a great start and i think the role issues will be different in the public sector cards but you can certainly tell. >> let me add one other thing, and that is, with respect to access to polling money off the card. most places, most -- back off. most atms as you know are only loaded with 26 of the issues if you're down to your last $19.95,

how'd you get the money off your card? i think especially for people like unemployment benefits and people who really use that and higher paycheck for benefit check, we do have to provide a way for them to get the last dollar and the last dime off of the card. >> have you seen any good ways of doing that? >> point of sale is i think, you know, kind of the default option. >> the other option do is a little bit, it is i think is the one area in the field we've seen all of the problems with the direct card, is that you can go into any branch that will support the mastercard network and the teller should be able to give it to you for free. that should be a free transaction once you're in the branch to give you money off a car. now, whether people go in and do that for $9 for that, that's the challenge. but it is there. so that's the other option as well. >> staying on that point, you

mentioned compass that's what the financial institutions have been some cases lining up behind them. what's the value proposition for financial institutions to offer prepaid cards, especially to offer solid prepaid cards with clear disclosures and transparency? >> while, you know, financial institutions and business can make money. and i think we have to let them do that because otherwise they go away and then where are we, right? so there is, there is a revenue stream that comes off of these card. sometimes it's a feed stream. sometimes it's a usage string. you heard about interchange fees. so there's a revenue generation there. what's in it for the financial institution in terms of lining up behind this kind of good actor, set of principles come is that you retain your customers. and one of the most important interesting findings in our study with the philadelphia

reserve bank was at cards that don't get reloaded only last about six months, and cards that do get reloaded the last 12 months, two years, three years. the market isn't enough we haven't been able to follow it that much farther. but customer retention becomes a key issue for financial institutions, and it's always cheaper to keep the customer you have until after the customer you don't have. so the other value proposition for financial institutions is keeping your customer base. >> so direct deposit, whether it's from an employer or the government, or just the consumers own funds, that really changes the economics. .. half whoo-hoo hog ec

behind and get bigger and bigger or the charge and repetitively for things. so that is one of the problem is when we are drafting, other problem is overdrafting, speaking from my personal standpoint, the supposition of the prepaid card would mean the money is loaded on it and when it is zero it is zero and specifically public sector cards because there could be interruption in benefits. what happens if you are at zero? you will resume the direct benefit is coming last month and that is a problem.

the other thing is both sides of the aisle policymakers are very nervous about the idea that in overdraft or line of credit, on the rebate cards, with the taxpayer dollars, providing that feature and that is a real concern. that is now you. the overdraft concern is really important and the other thing is if atm issues are occurring, people are having trouble accessing their balance to know where they are in terms of if they're going to overdraft or not. the overlying point from my standpoint is zero should be zero. >> you raise an interesting point. as melissa talked about the technology, many of these cards you can go on to the web and look at the transaction and track your balance, get text alerts, mobile device, to figure

out how much money you have and whether you can afford that purchase before you go to an overdraft situation. again, building on the financial capability of the consumer to track their spending, to know where their money is going, to make more informed decisions about their purchases as the use their mobile devices or pcs to track where they are going, the issue of overdraft is fraught with a lot of difficulties. the consumer community has a lot of differing opinions. david said zero means zero. there are couple card companies out there that give you a $10 cushion. one company lets you overdraft.

and they pay me with the text message with year over year get money into the account and so there are other ways i can manage these. does zero really mean for you if it is midnight and the pharmacy counter any thing -- needing medicine for the kids? >> the feature about text or e-mail, and down in the balance, and people opt in for it. >> he said lot about these issues whether it is text alerts, and being bank accounts

by another name? >> that is very interesting. in some ways we are seeing the lines of blurring, but there are infrastructure issues that do prevent, and a bank account by another name, the access to savings and savings buckets, the ability, and the dual purse on your card and sub accounts in essence, and these are payments we loaded on the cards. there are some structural limitations and regulatory limitations, and in the near-term pop and acting like a bank account per se.

>> that is a really good description, regulatory set of concerns, functional concerns and the other one that is not related to the public sector part, like unemployment, how do we deal with mets say somebody gets paid in cash or check and that is the only way their employer pays them and they want to put money on to the prepaid card and there are fees for that and that is a huge barrier because regardless of the checking account spectrum that is out there they are not going to charge you to make deposits in to your account but that is one of the fix we have got to figure out. some banks have done really cool things by taking a picture of the check and loading it onto the card and take that. the lines are getting closer but i do agree i don't think we are there yet. the savings feature, it really well taken. that makes a very big difference. i do think things are starting,

a lot of bank accounts are mirroring what is successful in the prepaid industry. a lot of things in the all lockhart approach to banking where you can pick different features and at $6 for 3, ten dollars for four and you can get a paper statement but you don't want the overdraft. that is very prepaid, that is something we have done early on. they are getting closer. >> you mentioned payroll. are you aware what they have been doing in san francisco? reaching out to employers encouraging them to do direct deposits or payroll cards that meet the company? >> no, but that is great news. i think there are an awful lot of institutions that have really encouraged their employees to either go direct deposit or they are opting for a payroll.

thank you for saying that i was an economist at the fed. i have only been in this job two months and that is why you do that to get me some credibility here. in my role at the fed i worked with the payroll car rules and it was really important for the industry to get some giveback on the ranking rules like the monthly paper statement. i know you like that, but let me just say when we did focus groups for people who were receiving payroll, and they said i really don't want a paper statement because number one, it is a historical document. by the time you get caught off line and put it in the mail and get it on my mailbox, i have moved on and made a bunch of other transactions. i can still see this one woman

today who said me and my neighbors stand at the top of the staircase in an apartment building and swap mail because the mailman delivers the mail to all the wrong boxes. how helpful is a paper statement in that situation? they were much more likely to go on line or use their cellphones to track their balances. if i think as you think about the idea of employers moving to payroll cards as a way to cut their costs, we also have to remember there are benefits to the work force as well. i want to say something, melissa talk about fraud but the other key issue is safety, any time there's a snowstorm or hurricane or something around check delivery time, if you are having direct deposit to your bank account or direct express card or payroll card you don't have to worry about whether the snow and sleet and rain is going to

deliver that paycheck to your mailbox. >> in terms of the payroll cards, the electronic transfer is a big step, a lot of the obstacles in the situation, they associate with the payday of having the paper check and once they move into it and move away from it causing direct deposit by and large people are very happy and there's a lot of outrage. most of the payroll cards looked pretty good and when they follow complex principles and specifically with the disclosure box, that makes it really helpful. >> back to prepaid cards and bank accounts the number of cities over the years had bank initiatives where they are encouraging people to open bank accounts, banks to reach out, where does prepaid into that?

>> i have to say i am a fan of prepaid but a bigger fan of bank accounts. and i think that we have heard anecdotally that prepaid can be an on ramp to bank accounts but i don't think we have seen that, the data haven't really supported that yet. i don't want to say it is disproves but we don't have very much data. if the goal is to have people have access to a suite of services and products that can help them achieve financial security and stability, it is more a than just a payment transaction mechanism. people need access to savings vehicles, they need access to credit and liquidity tools as well and so i guess what i am trying to say is i am supportive

of the bank on initiatives because i do feel in the end a bank account with a full suite of products and services is going to better service the financial services needs of most american consumers. >> that is right. one of the general concerns in this field is bank accounts will be sort of continue as they are and have lots of changes and that will be the staple for middle class and higher income folks at lower income families it will be about prepaid. it will have diverging sort of financial market and are agree. i don't think that is serving the economy well. we support certainly the second chance checking accounts in the bank, that will work well, the america saved model, people are

struggling on a checking account side, taking it to a savings account. that makes a lot of sense as well. certainly having both models working together makes a lot of sense but the biggest concern is you have thousands of people on prepaid cards not having any association with banks except for their card and other people continuing on the trend. >> what should regulators and lawmakers in washington be doing to make prepaid work broadly, but also bank accounts available and affordable? >> to me first. and the financial protection bureau, strong in support of this, overdraft and small lines of credit, and i will stand by

that and by and large it is tough to know what the market will look like five years from now. is a way that overdraft is done, can work, and may not be high in the scheme of things but the supreme slope could be dangerous and have real implications if people are getting issued prepaid in the state and how does that work? that is a very bad place to be. that is one feature that we hope regulation would draft and i think we are moving, we had a preliminary discussion, we are moving to a place where prepaid is going to be under fdic policy, that model will apply anyway and we are moving, that is a really good place to be. >> i would like us to think

about the prepaid 2.0 and think about opportunities for choice and we have direct express or direct deposit. in direct deposit you choose which thank you are depositing in and if you don't do that you get the direct express but don't have a choice about what other cards you might want to use. the next model will be more about choice, consumer choice. expanded functionality is going to be important simon and the multiple persons on the card. and places where you can not only have pay or benefits deposited but other sources of funds deposited will be helpful for the expanded functionality. melissa talked about building financial capability in the model and there are teachable moments where you log on to your

web site or your mobile browser to find how much money you have in your account there's an opportunity for some touch points with respect to building financial capability and we have to seriously look at existing rules and regulations that are out there comments and inhibiting functionality. right now under federal rules, it is limited on some unpaid cards, so it is limited on those cards. and sweeping funds into the savings accounts of the message is spent, don't save. i am with you. i really think we need to think about helping people build those small emergency reserves, rainy day funds, whatever you want to call it. there's plenty of opportunity in the policy arena, and consumer

groups to be working at improving and getting to that next year. >> following up on that, it is looking down the road five years from now or whatever, we don't want some of these loaded up but six different prepaid debit cards in different areas, whether public sector cards or two employers so this idea of how do we coming accounts, is it really important, and maybe it is just sort of what you envision like a computer hard drive, and maybe that is how we can work on prepaid stuff because it is more confusing for consumers and more likely or potentially realize benefits on certain cards. >> last question before the audience. we thought a lot about the

consumer side. and what about the merchants? >> we're moving toward an economy with less cash, how are we running to this? >> we got the card in your wallet but can't use it anymore. i have to tell you a story about that too. when the olympics were in atlanta visa came out with their chicken king card and they couldn't use them anywhere. and the merchant side wasn't there. we are seeing more chip technology, we are -- the merchants are grudgingly moving away from swiped technology and any of you who traveled in europe know that anything is shipped there, so actually i

brought with me my square, you don't know what this is, this is a device that plugs into your cellphone or tablet and enables you to take a swipe payments and if you don't know what it is, visit a food truck on target square, and and your debit card and they will swiping and you'll be happy as a clam. technologies like this are going to be helping merchants and even mom and pop stores. if you listen to the guy who founded as to why he did it, he developed this because a friend of his was an artist who would go to craft sales and she couldn't sell aircraft because everybody wanted a with a credit card, so you too can become a home crafters and get square so we always like to think about the consumer side but also if you are buying something

somebody else is selling, how do you bring those into equilibrium? >> absolutely. let's take it back to the audience. and i will ask several people have the panel respond. so first we will go here on the right. >> my name is dr. wu. i ignore the lifestyle of the demographic. my question that i didn't see mentioned is talking about the free paid mobil space because for example free cash takes bill payment and people are able to load their mobile phones and also have prepaid card so looking at the synergies you see as far as one is talking about the point of sale, points of sales, mainly going to the walmart, cvs grocery store but

urban retailers are not on the grid but very huge part of the infrastructure in the community that take payments for people's utilities and also what are your thoughts on some of the virtual payments as far as things they're doing in africa? in emerging economies and how do you see that working as far as des that cards in this environment? >> and one more question from the audience? >> that afternoon. i have my own law firm, i represent the trade group, has an interest in this subject. i share coincidence, i got home late from dinner and sitting in my mailbox, solicitation from of financial service i had never heard of to sign of for a

prepaid debit card and in the solicitation was the actual card with the sticker on saying call us to activate which shocked me and for decades ago. if they put in vote wrong mailbox. i don't have the disclosures or conditions but i did see they had to sign up direct deposit but there could be identity theft. and a set of marketing, and the amount of the card. and it may have a rhetoric from structures. i invite your response to the

market. >> on the mobile and virtual payment process, the bill pay ability which is important. and payroll cards now, it gives this ability to make these without a cash economy and this, we did a focus group while ago, people were talking about utility bills, money order, $15 a pop, sometimes landlords are not going to accept cash or check, how do you transfer funds there? the bill payment mechanisms on these cards opened up a whole new network. on the mobile phone front, i don't know how to use it so i am not the best person to answer that question. but in terms of being able to

use the mastercard/visa network, that are not credit related, that is a huge feature on prepaid that is really helpful and lot of folks who are getting direct express, have the the the the to do things they were not able to do before. >> t mobile space is quite interesting. one of the reasons vodafone has succeeded so much in africa, the monopoly, they have had a huge vote of the market, the united states markets are not quite developed along those lines so we are struggling with other issues in the old mobile payment space. the other problem, and this again -- when you have a lot

mobile payment when something goes wrong, the consumer does not necessarily know where something went wrong. it could be in the handset, could be in the cross where operating system, it could be the telecom carrier, could be the merchant, it could be their own bank, there are all these different points of context. the regular space has not figured that out yet. and you know there are different regulators for each of those four or five touch points. we do have to come to grips with that. will be an issue now and well into the future. the idea of small entrepreneurs and small businesses being able to access and use these new payment mechanisms is really interesting and critical and the innovation space continues

there. square is clearly one of those options. we are going to continue to chew on that a little bit. we don't have that really i and out. >> i want to talk to this gentleman's point about solicitation. my answer to that is i believe it is a relatively new field and regulators of not gotten their hands around it but i will say in the prepaid space especially for reloadable prepaid, there are in place now your customer and customer identification protocols that are there mainly as mind wandering protocols. so if there is a card they want you to load your paycheck on and have it be reloadable, they have to go through some know your customer kind of screens for

that. the unsolicited activateable card is something i have not heard of. i might have to put my glasses on and look into that. >> on sort of the marketing front your question about how consumers make this comparison. and the disclosure box is a great first cut at that. you can see yourself taking that box and looking at two cards and making the comparison between what be i am a big person to take money out and i want a car that has low to no atm fees but monthly fees because it would cost me less because i know what futures i lose -- use. as the market grows there are so many cards, visa mastercard is challenging. we have some folks talking about the idea, and grade the card in terms of a number that gives it sort of people who need access

and this takes a while to see. it is really confusing for consumers that are trying to compare and the difference is especially in the local economy different from bank accounts and definitely differences in terms of fees structure, but i don't think they are as drastic as prepaid cards. >> we could go on for another hour but unfortunately we don't have time for that. if everyone could join me in thanking our panel for joining us today. [applause] >> i do hope everyone in the audience will join us again, another center for american progress event. thank you. [in edible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> the senate is about to gavel in for the day. will be in morning business until 11:45 when they will debate a bill advertising expenditures for the 1 thirteenth congress. at 12:15 they will vote on amendment by rand paul district funding authority for the national security working group and following that they will recess for their weekly party lunches until 2:15. live to the senate floor on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer.

the chaplain: let us pray. o lord, our rock, you are our shield in the time of storm. we give you our hopes and dreams, knowing that you know what is best for our nation and world. lord, you know the numerous challenges we face, so guide our senators with your wisdom. may integrity and uprightness be the standards for their conduct, so that they will not disappoint you lift the light of your countenance upon them and be gracious to them. give fresh strength and wisdom,

as you renew the drumbeat of your spirit in their hearts, empowering them to march to the rhythm of your righteousness. we pray in your holy name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, march 5, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable william m.

cowan, a senator from the commonwealth of massachusetts, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: before the chaplain leaves the chamber, i want to say something on behalf of all of the senators. the new senators probably don't know him as well as those who have been here more than the beginning of this year, but we have -- we are so fortunate to have this good man leading the senate in our spiritual activities. he leads us in prayer every morning. we have a prayer breakfast every wednesday. and during that period of time that we don't see hirnlings he , he's ow counseling individual people who work here. my wife has been will and ha ila bad accident, and he has been so in tune with her, making sure

that we all are aware of how well she's doing. she's had a great recovery. so i, on behalf of the whole senate, extend my appreciation this good man, a man who was born with very little except a very, very good mother, who taught him early on that he had a very, very keen intellect and with his mind he could accomplish a good deal. as far as mammogramry, there is only -- as far as memory, there is eel one other person i've known that had a memory like him, and that is right robert byrd, longtime senator from west virginia. he has a remarkable memory of not only all of the scriptures, all the new testament, but poe poems. he has an intellect that is really amazing. and, again, i repeat, we're all so very fortunate that he is chaplain of the united states senate. mr. president, following leader

remarks today, the senate will be in morning business until 11:45 a.m. with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the republicans controlling the second 30 minutes. following that morning business shall the senate will proceed to consideration of s. res. 64, which is the committee funding resolution. at about 12:15 there will be a roll call vote on senator paul's amendment striking funding for the national security working group. following that vote, the senate will be in recess until 2:15 to allow for weekly caucus meetings. as a reminder, i filed cloture on the nominee nation of caist tlin halligan. we will vote on her tomorrow. mr. president, william gladstone said something we've repeated, all of us, many times -- "justice delayed is justice denied." that was from prime minister gladstone. by that measure, millions and millions of americans who rely on courts who are overworked and

understaffed are being denied the justice that they rightly deserve. with one out of every ten federal judgeships today vacant, americans can no longer rely on a fair and speedy trial. more than half the nation's population fiscal cliffs a part of the - -- population lives ina part of the country that has a judge vacancy. it's due to blatant partisanship. i am going to lay out here in a few minutes, mr. president, something remarkable. president obama's judicial nominees have waited on average four times longer to be confirmed than those nominated by george bush -- the second george bush. even highly qualified nominees, nominees who are eventually confirmed unanimously or almost unanimously, routinely wait for months to be confirmed. because of the delaying

telecommunication takes used by -- tactics used by my republican colleagues. tomorrow we're going to consider caitlin joan halligan to be judge. she was nominated for the second time to fill a vacancy on the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. this is a court that was formed some 65 years ago. it was done because the supreme court couldn't do the cases, didn't have time to do them, and the circuit courts were overwhelmed with work; they couldn't do it. the d.c. circuit many consider just a tiny notch below the supreme court. in fact, pat leahy, the chairman of the judiciary committee, here said yesterday that many feel it's more important than the supreme court because they have sufficient wide-ranging jurisdiction. and once they make a decision, rarely does the supreme court take up their cases. they consider complex appeals of federal regulations, among other

things, as jurisdiction andvite aol national security challenges. this is also one of the many courts in crisis across the country. mr. president, 36%-37% of the d.c. circuit seats are vacant. there are four vacancies now. the last appointment to the d.c. circuit was made in 2006. it is 2013 today. in the years, the number of pending cases per judge has grown to almost 200 from a little over 100. when ms. halligan was nominated, she was nominated to fill unwith of two vacancies. many republicans said they voted against her then because there was no need. d.c. circuit had enough judges. now we're four shor short.

more than two years after she was first turned down, her nomination is again before the senate and the d.c. circuit now has four empty seats. last time the senate considered ms. malligan's nomination, some of my republican colleagues claimed the d.c. circuit didn't need anymore judges. so they filibustered her nomination. no one could credibly that i can that argument today. my republican colleagues choose to filibuster her nomination, her itself a second time, their naked partisanship is certainly exposed. for example, patricia wald who served on that court for years, five years she was the chief judge, she said of the confirmation process -- "the constitution says the confirmation can work only if there is good fabling on the part of both the president of the united states and the senate to move qualified nominees along rather than withholder their consent for judicial political

reasons." mr. president, for example, if someone doesn't want to vote for her, tell them to vote "no." invite them to vote "no." but don't stop her from having an up-or-down vote here. i was very troubled with justice thomas, who was then a circuit court judge, and a decision had to be made by me and many others, should we allow justice thomas an upand dow up-and-down. the decision was made, yes, he should. he barely made t he got two or three votes more than 50. it would have been so easy to stop that nomination, but it would have been the wrong thing to do. as bad as i feel, he hark he has a jurist, that doesn't matter. he should have had the ability to have an up-or-down vote.

a republican president sent that name forward. he is entitled to a vote. that's the decision i made and many other democratic senators. if my republican colleagues don't like this woman for whatever reason, vote against her. don't stop her from having an up-and-down vote. a second partisan filibuster of this highly qualified nominee by my republican colleagues would be in very bad faifnlg faith. if sore fume reason you don't like her -- if for some reason you don't like her, vote against her. president obama is the only president in 65 years since this court was formed to not have a single person put on the d.c. circuit. that's how important this court is and this is how she -- halligan and others have been stymied from getting on this court. it's not because president

obama's nominees are anything but totally qualified. her colleagues have called halligan a brilliant legal mind. she is has outstanding credentials, strong support from appellate lawyers, a vast number of republicans, former judges, law enforcement officials, and more than 20 former supreme court clerks from across the political spectrum. she graduated with honors from princeton, georgetown law school, she clerked for justice patrick, patricia wald, who i just quoted. this woman was a judge here in the d.c. circuit 20 years, five years as a chief judge. for true exceptional cans such as caitlinhallig after the n isn't qualified to be a judge, i don't know who is.

it would be wrong to filibuster this woman. if they don't like her, vote against her. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i suggest that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: back in november the american people sent a divided dwof government o washington. i know this is not the outcome that president obama had hoped for. i know he wanted complete control of washington, just like he had the first two years of his presidency. still, it was surprising to me, and i thoi a lot of other people around here, to learn over the wnd that among the first calls

the president made after his acceptance speech on election day had to do with ginning up another campaign. the president wasn't focused on solving the problems that middle-class families face today but how to get a democratic speaker of the house two years down the road. that was the message he sent to top house democrats. since then the president, along with his washington democratic allies, has expended enormous amounts of energy to advance that goal. rebooting his political organization, provoking manufactured crises with congress, engineering showboats in the senate and traveling around the country to campaign relentlessly against his opponents. that's why the sequester went into effect in its current form. that's why washington continues to careen needlessly from crisis

to crisis. that is why the senate democrats haven't passed a budget. what a sad state of affairs for our government. every year republicans passed budgets that seriously addressed the transcendent challenge of our time, putting runaway washington spending and debt on a sustainable path so we can create jobs and grow our economy. meanwhile democrats followed the president's lead focusing on the next campaign to the exclusion of all else. but it's not just senate democrats who have been missing in action. the president has been submitting his own budget outline nearly every -- he's been late -- the president has been late in smith his budget out-- in submitting his budget outline nearly every year. he's missed this year's deadline by more than a month. last week we learned the president will submit his budget

after -- after -- the house and senate submitted their own budgets and gone home for easter. that goes beyond the pale of missing deadlines. the american people are tired of delays and excuses. it's time for the president to get his pw-blg -- budget plan over to us not next week, not next month but now. and this time it should be serious. it should route out waste and inefficiency. the budget blueprint he sent us last week was so roundly ridiculed for its fiscal gimmickry and massive tax hikes that his own party joined republicans in voting it down 99-0. that was the president's budget last year, voted down 99-0. in the house it was rejected unanimously as well. even the president's most liberal allies couldn't defend it. so we're counting on the president to maybe get serious this time, and we're counting on senate democrats to stop relying on republicans to bail them out

of their irresponsibility and habitual legislative tardiness. but the prouder point is this: president obama and his senate democratic allies will have plenty of time to campaign next year. the american people are exhausted after all these years of campaigning, and they expect democratic leaders now to finally work with a divided congress they elected to get things done. as i've said before, the president has to figure out thousand govern with the -- figure out how to govern with the situation he's got, not with the situation he wishes he had. it's time to return to actually solving problems. in other words to, legislate the way we're supposed to around here with transparency, with public input, and with sufficient time to develop sound policy. that's especially true when it comes to dealing with the most controversial issues in washington. whether it's the budget or tax

reform or health care, we end up with better outcomes when we legislate in the light of day and not in some back room. for instance, the senate majority should be allowing us to mark up bills so that members with expertise in certain issue areas can contribute to the legislative process in the most constructive and transparent way possible. when bills do reach the floor, the senate majority should allow members of both parties the chance to represent the voices of their constituents by offering amendments in an open process. and when the house sends us bills, the senate majority should actually take some of them up every once in a while. the democratic leadership won't agree with everything the house passes, but that's okay. if the senate passes a different version of a bill, we can work out our differences through the legislative process. that's how congress is supposed to function, even though it's not at all how the senate has functioned recently. i know washington democrats'

most important priority is getting nancy pelosi back in her old job in 2014, but that's not what americans want, and that's why washington has become so dysfunctional. the american people, including my constituents in kentucky, expect them to get off their hustlings and work with members of both party to face the most serious challenges facing our country. the public is tired of the manufactured crises, poll-tested gimmicks, the endless campaigning. they expect and deserve a lot better than that. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:45 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the

republicans controlling the second 30 minutes. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: the senate is in morning business. the senate is recognized. mr. durbin: mr. president, this morning we received news in chicago that dawn clark netch passed away. she died from complications from due gehrig's' -- from lou gehrig's' disease at the age of 86. it was a surprise to lose her this quickly although all of us new she was struggling with this terrible disease. history has written of her contribution to illinois; it will note the obvious. she worked in illinois government since the 1950's under then-governor stevenson. she was a law professor at northwestern university law school, elected state senator in

the 1970's, elected our state comptroller's after that and had an ill-fated run for government. if that's all it says, it will miss the most important part of her life because dawn clark netch was an iconic historic force in our state. more than any person in illinois' history, dawn clark netch created the modern era in women political leadership. as always, those who are charged with opening the doors of opportunity have to come to that task extraordinarily gifted, determined and patient. dawn netch was all of these and more. early in my life fresh out of law school i was a lawyer working in the illinois state senate, and i saw firsthand the talents of this new senator, dawn clark netch. her political base was the lakeshore liberal base in chicago, the group that was always at war with the chicago machine and proud of it.

she was elected from that base, but then surprised most everyone when she came to springfield and struck up a friendship, a genuine friendship in the constitutional convention first and then in the state senate with a young state senator named richard m. daily, son of mayor daly. dawn proved a politician can be principled effective and civil. her ill-fated run for governor lacked the political polish of many winning campaigns but her thoughtfulness, candor and blunt honesty about the challenges illinois faced will always be remembered. the political scene will not be the same without that pool-shooting sox fan with a cigarette holder, but generations of women can thank the indomitable force of dawn clark netch for blazing their

path. mr. president, i ask consent that my next statement be placed in a separate part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, yesterday the senate took an important step forward when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. senator pat leahy, chairman of the judiciary committee, introduced bipartisan legislation to finally crack down on the straw purchasing and illegal trafficking of firearms. i was happy to join in introducing this bill. it's a bipartisan group of senators, including senator kirsten gillibrand, senator susan collins and senator mark kirk. chairman leahy's legislation combined the straw purchasing bill that he and i introduced earlier this year together with a bill that senators gillibrand and kirk had been working on. we sat down with senator collins and crafted a new bill, the stop illegal trafficking of firearms act. it's important legislation and the need is very clear. i've met a number of times in recent months with law enforcement leaders in chicago

and across my state. i asked them what congress can do to help protect our communities and our children, and the one thing i kept hearing over and over again which we needed to crack down on straw purchases. time after time law enforcement agencies saw criminals and gang members commit crimes with guns that they purchased through others. a typical straw purchase happens when someone who legally can purchase a weapon and pass a background check buys a gun on behalf of sun who cannot pass that same background check. whep -- the purchaser falsely claims on the federal sale form that he is an actual buyer of the gun. under current law, it is illegal to lie and buy a gun this way, but the only charges a federal prosecutor can bring are for knowingly making a false statement on a federal form, which understates the gravity of the situation. we've had several hearings in the senate judiciary committee, including one i chaired on february 12.

u.s. attorneys testified that these paperwork prosecutions ar wholly inadequate. some of the critics even on my senate subcommittee panel were paygo saying -- were saying why don't you prosecute more? the new law that we've written will be taken serious lymph the cases, as they stand now, are hard to prove and have little jury appeal. the reality is the straw purchasers think they can make a fast $50 or more by buying a gun for somebody else and the consequences aren't that great. well, we need to change this equation. at the hearing i chaired in the judiciary committee's constitutional subcommittee on february 12, we heard powerful testimony from sandra werthen from the south idea of chicago. her brother was murdered in 2010 by gang members with a handgun

that had been straw purchased and trafficked to chicago from mississippi. almost one out of ten crime guns in chicago come from mississippi, you ask yourself why. because the standards for sales are lax in mississippi and straw purchasers know they can fill up the trunk of a car with these purchased weapons and head up to the windy city and sell they will on the streets to thugs and drug gangs and then of course they result in tragedy. the gang members who killed officer werthen were not allowed to buy a handgun from a dealer because of their age and criminal records but it was really easy to make a straw purchase. according to an investigative report, the man who straw purchased the gun did so for a quick $100. he did little thought to what he was doing. i didn't even know what the a.t.f. stood for, the purchaser

said to "the tribune." a veteran of two combat tours in iraq, a leader in his community, and one of chicago's finest, and he was gunned down in front of his parents' home. his father, also a retired chicago police officer. we need to send a message to those who think that straw purchasing might be easy way to make a quick buck. as sandra said at our hearing, "we need to do more to keep hands out of the hand wrongs ine wrong hands in the first place." we can take steps consen consist with the constitution to crack down on straw purchases that provide criminals with guns. that's what this bill does. the bill we introduced yesterday will create a tough federal crime to punish and deter straw purchasing. if a straw purchaser buys a gun on behalf of someone else, the

buyer will face the prospect of significant jail time, up to 15 years. hard time, federal crime. and the same penalty applies to straw purchasers who buy a gun from a private seller on behalf of someone he knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a prohibited purchaser. the legislation also creates a separate federal offense for firearms trafficking which is when someone transports or transfers firearms to another when he has reasonable cause to believe that that transfer violates federal law. the bill provides for increased penalties if the trafficker was the leader of an organized gang. cracking down on straw purchasing and gun trafficking will help shut down the pipe lining of guns into cities where gang members use them almost on a daily basis to commit terrible crimes. this section of our bill is named in honor of hidia pendleton, the 15-year-old girl

shot in january, just days after she attended the inauguration of the president of the united states here in washington. our hope -- both senator kirk's hope and mine -- is that these reforms will help prevent gang shootings in the future. it is time to move forward on this legislation and other commonsense proposals that will reduce the epidemic of gun violence. this thursday the committee will tank the bipartisan legislation we introduced yesterday. i hope we can pass if quickly. i also look forward to voting on bills to improve our system of criminal background checks and stop the flood of high-capacity magazines onto our streets. it is time for congress to move forward with these measures to reduce gun violence. these proposals won't stop every shooting in america. no probably can. but they will save lives if we put them into effect. i again thank my colleagues, leahy, kirk, gillibrand, collins

for collectively joining together to make sure that this legislation moves forward. i think we can do something important here on a bipartisan basis to make the streets and schools and communities safer across america. mr. president, i ask consent that this following statement be placed in a separate part in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, this week the senate going to have an opportunity to confirm the nomination of caitlin halligan to serve on the court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. ms. halligan is an extraordinarily well-qualified nominee. she has the intellect, experience, and the temperament to be an outstanding federal appeals judge. but on december 6 of 2011, caitlin halligan's nomination was stopped by a filibuster by republican senators. 45 republicans voted against the cloture motion on her nomination, thus denying ms. halligan an up-or-down vote. that killed her nomination for that congress. she's now been renominated in

this congress for the d.c. circuit, and the court needs her. right now there are only seven active-status judges on the d.c. circuit. there's supposed to be is 11. four seat seats are vacant, incg one vang that opened -- including one vacancy that opened up just last month. patricia wald wrote in "the washington post" last month, "there is cause for extreme concern that congress is system matterically denying the court the human resources it needs to carry out its weighty mandates." it is time to address this situation by giving ms. halligan an up-or-down vote and confirming her nomination. she is qualified. she graduated from princeton university and the georgetown university school of law where she was managing editor of "the law review." she is clerked for steven breyer, served as solicitor general of the state of new york representing that state in a broad range of litigation,

currently serves in the u.s. district attorney's office. she's argued five cases before the u.s. supreme court and serve $as counsel in dozens more cases before that same court. the american bar association has given her a unanimous "well-qualified" rating to serve on the federal bench and ms. halligan's legal views are well within the political mainstream. she has received widespread support from across the political spectrum. the national district attorneys association, the prosecutors, said she would be onoutstandingddition to the circuit. she also has the support of prominent conservative lawyers. there's simply nothing in her background that constitutes the "extraordinary circumstances" that we are supposed to use as a standard to justify a filibuster. there are no -- repeat, no legitimate questions about ms. halligan's competence,

ideology, temperament and fit no, sir serve on the bench. all she has dong throughout her career is serve as an excellent lawyer. when she was filibustered in 2011, some of my republican colleagues cited two main arguments again her. first they claimed the d.c. circuit just didn't need another judge since they could handle the workload with eight. the d.c. circuit may have had eight judges in 2011 but now only seven. second, they claimed that she advocated positions in litigations that they the republicans disagree with. is that the standard in a lawyer represented a client with a position that might not be the lawyer's personal position or a senator's personal position? it's been a few years since i represented clients but i believe that under our system of legal representation that is not the standard that you only represent those people you agree with. in a system of law, a system where the scales of justice are

held by a lady with a blindfold, we're supposed to give justice to both sides and hope at the end of the day that the system serves us. ms. halligan advocated positions at the direction of her client, which happened to be the state of new york. in the american legal traditions, lawyers aren't supposed to be held to the views of their clients. as chief justice john rockets said during his confirmation hearing, "it is a basic in our system that lawyers represent clients and you do not ascribe the position of the client to the law enforcement it is a position that goes back to gong adams and the revolution." those who read the book about gongongjohn adams often wonder e became president of the united states after representing lawyers. the bottom line is this: our country needs excellent judges serving on the federal bench.

if qualified mainstream judicial nominees can't be considered fairly by the senate on their merits, good lawyers are just going to stop putting their name in or consideration and maybe that's the ultimate goal on the other side by some of the senators who object to ms. halligan. why would a top-notch lawyer volunteer to go through a long, exscriewshiating confirmation process if they're only going to be filibustered for reasons that don't have a thing to do with their qualifications. we are going to end up with a federal bench that is empty or lacks the excellence we should require. caitlin halligan deserves an yap or down vote on the merits. the senate made a mistake in 2011. let's correct that mistake this week. she has clearly demonstrated she can serve on the d.c. circuit with distinction. she deserves that chance on the merits. i yield the floor. i have a unanimous consent request. i have three unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's significance of

the senate with the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask that they be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: and, mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, i ask consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: mr. president, i ask consent to speak for ten minutes, and if the chair would please le let me know when nine minutes have a lapsed, i would appreciate it. the presiding officer: the chair will so notify you. mr. alexander: mr. president, we remember president johnson's skill in path the civil rights act. we remember president nixon going to china and we remember president carter and the panama

canal treaties. we remember president reagan fixing social security and george h.w. bush balancing the budget by raising taxes. we remember president clinton and welfare reform. we remember president george w. bush tackling immigration reform and if the history books were written today, we would remember president obama for the sequester. this is unique in history. this is not the way our presidents usually conduct themselves. here we have a policy that was designed to be the worst possible policy, and that may be what our talented, intelligent currents president is remembered for. he's remembered for it because it comes from a process that he recommended, that he signed into law, that he's known about for the last year, that he's done nothing about except to campaign around the country blaming others for it over the last month, and he seems determined to keep it in law. for what reason could this be

possible? let's go back to why the president agreed to sequester. he agreed to it in 2011 after suggesting the process from which it came, in order to get $2.2 trillion in spending reductions so he could get a debt ceiling increase that lasted through the election. and he did it for the second reason: because he didn't want to go against his own party's constituency in tackling the biggest problem our country faces. the biggest problem according to the former chairman of the joint chief stars, the biggest -- chief staff, the out-of-control spending in the budget. we're left today with a sequester. automatic spending decreases which are the result of automatic spending increases in entitlements that the president is unwilling to confront. we're slashing the part of the budget that is basically under control. it's growing at the rate of

inflation. i'm talking about national defense, national parks, national laboratories, pell grants, cancer research, all that's growing at the rate of inflation because the president doesn't want to challenge his own party on the part of the budget that's out of control. growing at two or three times the rate of inflation: medicare, medicaid, social security, and other entitlements. this is not how our presidents usually have acted when confronted with a great crisis. when president johnson dealt with civil rights, he knew he would be terribly unpop laffer in texas and -- popular in texas and throughout the south. when president nixon went to china he knew republican conservatives would be angry with him. president carter enraged many americans by his support for the panama canal treaty. president reagan made many seniors unhappy when he fixed social security. george h.w. bush probably lost the 1992 election when he raised taxes to balance the budget.

bill clinton was pilloried by his own party when he worked with republicans to reform welfare. george w. bush made many radio talk show hosts very unhappy when he tried to change our immigration laws. why did they do it? they did it, mr. president, because they were the president of the united states, and that's what presidents do. robert merry told me recently every great crisis in our country has been solved by presidential leadership or not at all. every great crisis in american leadership has been solved by presidential leadership or not at all. yet this president seems determined not to exercise that sort of presidential leadership. so, his presidential leadership is a colossal failure. first, because he will not respect this congress and work with it in a way to get results

that all the presidents that i just mentioned did. "the new york times" had a very interesting story this sunday about how president woodrow wilson would come down to the president's room right off the senate and sit there three days a week with the door open. he got almost everything he proposed passed until he went over the heads of congress around the country about the league of nations and lost. or senator howard baker used to tell the story of how when senator everett dirksen, the republican leader, wouldn't go down to the white house and have a drink with president johnson in 1967, president johnson showed up with his beagles in the republican leader's office and said if you won't have a drink with me, i'm here to have a drink with you. i'm not here to advocate having drinks but i'm here to suggest when they disperiod into the back room together for 45 minutes that played a big role in the civil rights act in 1968 because it was written in everett dirksen's, republican leader office, down the hall at

the request of the democratic president of the united states. and senator harkin, i don't think he'll mind me telling this story about the afternoon 20 years ago when he was in his office and he got a telephone call from president george h.w. bush's office, would he come down with a few other congressmen. the president was there for the afternoon. mrs. bush was in texas. they spent an hour together. the president showed him around the bedroom. on the way out senator harkin said to president bush, mr. president, i don't want to turn this into a business meeting but one of your staff members is slowing down the americans for disabilities bill. that conversation, senator harkin says, changed things at the white house and helped that bill to pass. or tip o'neill going into the democratic caucus in the 1980's and being criticized by fellow caucus members, why are you spending so much time with ronald reagan? why are you fixing social security? he said, "because i like it. because i like it." technology has changed a lot.

but human nature hasn't. and relationships are essential in the senate, in the white house, and politics, in church, in business, and all of our presidents have known that you need to show respect to the people with whom you work if you're going to solve difficult problems. that's why i'm disappointed by our talented president's unwillingness to work with congress. there is no reaching out. it was 18 months before he had his first meeting with the republican leader one on one. he's known for a year sequester was coming, but there was no meeting with the republican or democratic leaders that i know about until the day it started. it's breaking news when the president makes a telephone call to a senate leader. and then the president spends his time running around the country taunting and heckling the members of congress that he's supposed to work with to get a result. what kind of leadership is that, mr. president? i started in 1969 working in congressional relations for a president of the united states. i worked with or for eight.

i've never seen anything like it in my life. i've been a governor. that's small potatoes compared to being a president. i know that. but i worked with a democratic legislature. and i guarantee you if i taunted them, heckled them and criticized them, i never would have gotten anything passed to improve roads or schools or get the auto industry in tennessee. i would meet with them regularly, listen to them, change my proposals based on what they had to say. i would know they had to go back into their caucuses and still survive. i did not think about ever putting them in an awkward position when we were trying to get something done. i tried to put them in a position to make it easier to get something done. i changed my ideas and i could get a result. during elections, we tried to beat each other. between elections, we sought to govern. this is all made worse by the democratic leadership of the senate deliberately bringing business to a halt. fiscal crisis we have, no budget in four years. not even any appropriations bills passed last year. little respect for committee

work. using the gag rule 70 times to cut off amendments from the republican side of the aisle. for example, last week we had several options on our side. i think there were some on the other side, to make the sequester go down a little bit easier, to make it make more common sense. and what did we end up doing? we were here all week and we ended up voting on two amendments. they were procedural votes, and everybody knew they were political posturing, not designed to pass. why did we not just put it on the floor? there are 100 of us here. we are all grownups. we worked hard to get here. we have ideas. we might have improved the sequester. we had time to do it, but the democratic leadership didn't allow us to bring it up. so we end up with deliberately bad policy becoming law. it's not too late. there are things the president and we can still do. we could spread the paint across the -- pain across the whole budget. we could spread it across part of the budget. we could give the president more

flexibility in making decisions. or the president could come to us with his plan this month for dealing with the biggest problem facing our country: the out-of-control mandatory spending. he could do what presidents johnson and nixon and -- thank you very much -- johnson, nixon, carter and bush did before him. he could confront it, go against the grain of his party, work with members of both sides and get a result. not that hard to do. senator corker and i have a proposal to do it. there's the domenici-rivlin proposal to do it. there is the ryan-wyden proposal to do it. when part of the budget is growing at two to three times inflation and the rest is growing at the rate of inflation, it's obvious that's the part we need to work on. it may be the president doesn't like some of us. well, president eisenhower had that same feeling about members of congress, and someone asked him how do you get along with them? he said i look first at the office. i respect the office. i don't think about the person

who occupies the office. mr. president, there are real victims here. in the short term with the sequester, cancer research, airline travelers, there are many people. the president has let us know about this, who are going to be hurt by this and inconvenienced. in the long term, if we don't deal with this number-one fiscal problem we have, the real victims are seniors who will not have their hospital bills paid in ten years because the medicare trustees have told us that medicare won't be able to pay them. it will be out of money. and young americans who will be forever destined to be the debt-paying generation because we and the president didn't have the courage to face up to our responsibilities. so, mr. president, i would say with respect that it's time for this president to show the kind of presidential leadership that president johnson did on civil rights, that president nixon did on china, that president carter did on the panama canal treaty, that president bush and clinton

and bush did. respect the other branches of government. confront your own party where necessary. listen to what both have to say and fashion a consensus that most of us can support. we are one budget agreement away from reasserting our global preeminence in getting the economy moving again. as robert merry said, every great crisis is solved by presidential leadership or not at all. it is time, mr. president, for presidential leadership. thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to include, following my remarks, an article in "the new york times" on sunday entitled "wilson to obama, march 4." i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i rise to commemorate a very special day in history, a day that inspires pride and

gratitude in the hearts of the people of the great state of texas. i rise today to commemorate texas independence day, which was actually this last saturday, march 2. i'll read a letter that was written 177 years ago from behind the walls of an old spanish mission known as the alamo, a letter written by a young lieutenant colonel in the texas army, william barret travis. in doing so, i carry out a tradition that was started by the late john tower who represented texas in this body for more than two decades. this tradition was later carried on by his successor, senator phil gramm and then by our recently retired colleague, senator kay bailey hutchison. it's a tremendous honor that this privilege has now fallen to me. on february 23, 1846, with his position under siege and outnumbered by nearly ten to one by the forces of mexican

dictator antonio lopez desanta anna, travis penned the following letter to the people of texas and all americans in the world: fellow citizens and compatriots, i am besieged by a thousand or more of the mexicans under santa anna. i sustained a continual bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man. the enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise the garrison ought to be put to the sword if the fort is taken. i've answered the demand with a cannon shot and the flag still waves proudly from the walls. i shall never surrender or retreat. then i call on you in the name of liberty, of patriotism and everything dear to the american character to come to our aid with all dispatch. the enemy is receiving reenforcements daily and will no doubt increase to 3,000 or 4,000

in four or five days. if this call is neglected, i'm determined to sustain myself for as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor and that of his country: victory or death. signed william barret travis. as we all know, in the battle that ensued, 189 defenders of the alamo lost their life. but they did not die in vain. the battle of the alamo bought precious time for the texas revolutionaries allowing sam houston to maneuver his army and position for decisive victory at the battle of san jacinto. with this victory texas became a sovereign and independent republic. for nine years the republic of texas thrived as an independent nation, that in 1845 it agreed to join the united states as the 28th state. many of the texas patriots who

fought in the revolution went on to serve in the united states congress and i'm honored to hold the seat once occupied by sam houston. more broadly, i'm honored to have the opportunity to serve 26 million texans because of the sacrifices made by these brave men 177 years ago. may may we always remember their sacrifices and their cucial thed may god continue to bless texas and that's united states. mr. president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. coats: i ask that the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: just last week u.s. immigration and customs enforcement -- to use the acronym i.c.e. -- reduced the population of u.s. aliens retained by the u.s. government

for budgetary reasons. let me quote i.c.e. spokesperson jillian christiansen. "as fiscal uncertainty remains over the continuing resolution and the possibility sequestration, i.c.e. has refeud its -- reviewed its detained population to ensure detention levels stay within i.c.e.'s current budget." so the result was, a release of a significant number -- higher number than has been reported -- of detained illegal immigrants and blaming it on the sequester's imminent budget cuts last week, when it appears i.c.e. mismanaged its resources, and that's unacceptable. this was an unnecessary action, and it has the potential to put communities at risk. it is ineffective, inefficient, and irresponsible government.

and let's be clear about something else that i.c.e. points to as a reason for this action. fiscal uncertainty. well, that's what has defined our economy over the past four years -- fiscal uncertainty -- because this government can't get its act together in terms of defining for the american people whether its businessmen or women or whether it's homeowners or anyone else in this country that is looking to washington to get its act together, at least tell them, what does the future look like? and then decisions can be made as to how to adapt to necessary changes or modifications given our dismal fiscal situation, plunging into debt at a record rate, borrowing over 40 cents on the dollar. it's unsustainable. but instead of providing a clear path inured in terms of how -- path forward in terms of how we will address this, we continue to lurch from cliff to cliff,

fiscal calamity to fiscal calamity. what's going to happen? and it's freezing everything in place and the economy is suffering for it, and more than the economy, the americans are suffering for it, and 293 million americans -- and the 23 million americans who are either unemployed or underemployed are suffering greatly. now, sadly, this uncertainty in the budget constraints we face shouldn't catch any department or agency by surprise. this is not good government, but it's the washington way under this administration and the current democrat-led senate. the department of homeland security andure and i.c.e. haven since december 28-2012 what level of resources were available for i.c.e. under the current continuing resolution. that is, for those of us who -- those who don't understand the jargon that comes out of this plashings "continuing

resolution" means a stopgap effort that congress put in place in order to fund this government at the current rate. and that expires march 27, and we're going to have do it again for the second six months of the year. instead of putting a budget together, instead of putting something that would give the american people certainty as to how much money we're going to spend, how we're going to spend it and what effect it would have ogee the economy. -- on the economy. anyway, i.c.e. has known this since september 28, as has every agency, the legislation that determines their spending level through march 27 of 20136789 so they had plenty of notice. why then would i.c.e. release detained illegal immigrants a week before the sequester even took place? why didn't they take proper steps necessary during the six months' time they had to evaluate this to manage their resources in a way that it wouldn't require that someone make the decision that they're

going to release hundreds, if not thousands, of illegal immigrants? so in an effort to sort out the facts, i've requested that secretary napolitano provide in writing more information and answer several questions regarding the release of these individuals from detention. question number one -- what triggered the i.c.e. instruction to the field to reduce the dealt population by this state? secondly -- what is the total number of detainees released between february 22, 2013, and february 25, a three-day period of time? how many were released? these numbers have been all over the lot, from the low hundreds to well into the thousands. we need to know how many are illegal immigrants are now floating around out there in the united states and under what conditions that was made. we need to know how many of these detainees were released

solely due to so-called budgetary reasons. how many of the released detainees were designated as criminals? if additional funding can be found first within i.c.e. or d.h.s. for custody operations, will these released individuals be returned to detention and how will they be rounded up and found? we know that law enforcement authorities were not notified of this in arizona, and it's unlikely to think that all of these individuals that we know where they are and how they can easily be -- i don't think they're going 0 come back and voluntarily line up and say, oh, i'm back. i knew i shouldn't be wandering out there. can you deal with me now? have instructions been given to field officers to reduce the intake and arrests of illegal aliens into detention? i want know if the secretary agrees with the decision to release these individuals and if not, what's being done to modify this action so it doesn't take

place in the future? i'm also concerned that the administration has not taken accountability into this action. secretary napolitano distanced herself from the press by saying, "detainee populations and how that is managed back and forth is really handled by career officials in the field." well, that may be the case, but that's not an appropriate response. does anyone in this current government willing to take responsibility and say "the buck stops here? i am assigned to this position and therefore i take responsibility for what happens underneath my position?" this constantly, well, we dints know about that, or that's somebody else's obligation, or really, do you expect us to be on top of that? yes, that's why you're cre c.e.. that's why you are selected as secretary for an agency or to head up an agency to take

responsible for what happens underneath you. i was also struck by what happened at an event hosted by "politico" where napolitano talketalked about what happens because there isn't the opportunity to shift money around. the republicans agree with that. on this floor just last thursday, republicans put forward a proposal to allow agencies to do just that, after weeks and months of moaning and groaning by this administration, and by its various agency heads, about, well, this sequestration has is made much more works it is stupid, a terrible way to do things -- i agree, by the way. but we need the flexibility to be able to move money from the less efficient or not needed at this time to the essential. so e to put out statements like

arrive at the airport four hours early because we have to cut the t.s.a. agents at the same level as the least function of this particular government. so we put that proposal before it, and the president who had been begging for that, simply said, no, we're not going to do it. quick change of mind. i think it destroyed his political narrative on that. but that proposal was before this senate body just last week to give those agencies the flexibility to take money from one pot that wasn't needed as much or we could find efficiencies there and put it over for traffic controllers, transportation security officials, f.d.a., department of agriculture meat inspectors; wherever the priorities lay. so to complain about not having flexibility when your own president rejected the proposal

given by republicans to allow that to happen, it just boggles your mind. as i said many times before, and i'll continue to say it, as department heads come before the appropriations committee, i've asked them over the past two years, do you have an alternative plan in case the money doesn't continue to flow in from the taxpayer at a rate that allows you every year to increase, increase, increase, increase, increase? do you have an alternative -- because we're running out of money. and wouldn't it be wise to look at how you can run your department more effectively and efficiently, like states have had to do, like cities have had to do, like businesses have had to do, like families have had to do, to make those decisions about separating the essential from the like to do but can't afford to do it right now, from the never should have gotten in that in the first place, but

used to work but no longer. it's not a high priority any longer. and manage your department in a way that you can become more effective, do more with less. to date all the answers that have come back are, no, this is what the administration wants and this is what we're going to do. and we're going to ask for an increase next year, and we're going to tell the american people that we have to raise their taxes in order to pay for it, or we're just going to continue to borrow and go deeper and deeper into debt. terrible way to run any organization, whether it's a little league or whether it's the federal government of the united states. no agency can assert with any credibility that it cannot perform its stated mission if it's asked to join the rest of americans in reducing its budget and making modest cuts. the irony here is that the more the president and the congress delay action on a bold, long-term fiscal plan with

credible spending reforms, the more that all the other programs, agencies and departments will have to cut back and do more with less. so we're just simply pushing the problem down the road for another day. and each time we push it down the road with short-term fixes or no fixes and don't address the real problems here, we're making it ever harder and ever closer to the point where we have to do it but do it in a more draconian way. so if the cabinet secretaries want more flexibility with their budgets, i urge them to encourage the president to lead and reform the main problem and address the main problem, which is the runaway mandatory spending that's eating everybody's lunch. so whether you're for paving more roads and fixing more bridges or whether you're for medical research or whether you want more money to go into education or any other function that we have control of here in the united states senate, if you can't address the big donkey or

elephant in the room, which is the mandatory runaway spending, there's not going to be enough for anybody left, whatever your priorities are. and we've all known that for year after year after year. and yet without leadership from the top, this cannot happen. it's been tried many, many times, sometimes with bipartisan efforts; all shot down because we don't have leadership from the white house and from the president of the united states, who is the chief c.e.o. of this country and needs to manage its resources in a more effective way. only when we do that will we be able to avoid these constant budget showdowns and short-term sto*t stopgap -- short-term stopgap measures that don't solve the problem. mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i'd ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration of s. resolution 64, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 20, senate resolution 64, authorizing expenditures by committees of the senate for the period march 1, 2013, through september 30, 2013. mr. levin: mr. president, first i want to thank senator paul, who is going to be

offering his amendment, i understand, in a few minutes, for allowing me to go first. and i just want to spend a few minutes speaking in opposition to the paul amendment. i want to talk about the senate national security working group which is the subject, or will be the subject of the paul amendment. this group and its predecessor organization, the senate arms control observer group, served a useful role in helping the senate to fulfill its unique constitutional duty to consider treaties and to provide its advice and consent to their ratification. the national security -- the senate national security working group is a key component of the senate's ability to provide advice on treaties before those treaties are finalized, because the working group begins meeting with the administration early in the process of negotiation. this was the case for the senate consideration of the new start treaty a few years ago, the

national security working group convened a series of briefings and meetings with the administration starting at the very beginning of the negotiation process. and through the group, the senate has many opportunities to learn of the progress and details of negotiations and to provide their advice -- our advice and views to the administration throughout the process. mr. president, let me first assure my colleagues that throughout the entire new start negotiation process, the members of the national security working group asked a great number of questions, received answers at a number of meetings, stayed abreast of the negotiation details and provided advice to the administration. it's a violation process that not only allows senators to engage the administration early in the negotiation process, but it also gives the administration an opportunity to respond to senators' concerns and questions and to guide the process in such a manner as to avoid problems during senate consideration of

the treaty ratification process. that was in fact the principal original purpose of the arms control observer group, which was the name prior to the current name, which ensured early senate engagement during the negotiation process. this process helps to ensure that there is a core of senators who are informed on treaty matters before the senate takes up ratification and through those senators, the entire senate can have a role. i'd also -- i want want to mention briefly to my colleagues that the national security briefing working group is perhaps unique among senate tphaougss in that -- institutions in that it is purely bipartisan. it is actually composed of an equal number of senators from each side of the aisle. its decisions and actions are not controlled by the majority party. they are arrived at entirely through bipartisan agreement, something that we could use more of around here.

the bipartisan nature of the group, which is central to its function and its crucial role in helping the senate fulfill its constitutional treaty role, is something that we should support and continue. and we expect that these, there is going to be some additional preliminary negotiations and discussions about those negotiations this year, and it is very, very important that this national security working group continue to have the ability to pave the way for negotiations which can be fruitful. and again, as i yield the floor, i want to thank senator paul for his courtesy in allowing me to go first. mr. paul: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: as some of you may have heard, we're a bit short of money. we're borrowing $50,000 every second. we borrow over $4 billion every

day. in a year's time, we borrow over $1 trillion. there are ramifications to that. some economists now say the burden of our debt is costing us a million jobs a year. what i'm asking is in the midst of this sequester, when people say we have no money to cut, to take this small item. now why would i want to cut this small group? a couple of reasons. it's called the national security working group. it's about $2.8 million. not much money in terms of washington. but why would i want to cut it? well, the first reason would be there are no records of them meeting. we heard about the start treaty. that was in 2009 when they were last meeting. there are no public records that this group that spent $700,000 a year has spent in the last three years. there are no public records of who works for the committee. there are no public records of their salaries.

everyone on my staff's name and salary is presented in the public record. not for this group. they say we need this group to negotiate treaties. we have a group. it's called the foreign relations committee. i'm on the foreign relations committee, and that's where we discuss treaties. or at least we're supposed to. the foreign relations committee has dozens of employees, millions of dollars spent on our committee. it goes through the regular process. our staff salaries are approved, the names are in the public record. and if you object, you know where to look for the information. to fund a group that has no records and no records of them meeting and doesn't tell you where they're paying the salaries, i think doesn't make any sense. our job is to look at the money as if it were ours, as if it were yours and pay attention to detail. will this balance the budget? no. but is it a place we should start? yes. absolutely what i would call for is that we look and save where

we can save. in my office, i have a $3.5 million budget. i saved $600,000 last year and i turned it back into the treasury. it doesn't balance the budget but we've got to start somewhere. this is another $700,000. if i win this one vote, i could save you $700,000, or at least save you from borrowing another $700,000. if all of your elected officials were up here doing the same, we would be much closer to a resolution. i turned in $600,000 to the treasury, 18% of my budget. i didn't lay off anybody, because we're careful about the way we spend it. we spend it as if it were our own money. if all your public officials were doing that, imagine what we could do. i have another bill which will never see the light of day up here because they don't want to fix anything, i have another bill that would give bonuses to civil servants, federal employees who find savings. right now we do the opposite.

if your budget is $12 million and you work somewhere in the bureaucracy of government, you want to spend it at the end of the year so you can get it the next year. i would change that incentive. i would give that civil servant a significant bonus if they'll keep money at the end of the year and turn it back in to the treasury. can you imagine the savings from top to bottom throughout government if we did that? but if we're to do that, to ask civil servants to do that and look for these savings, and right now with the sequester people are throughout government looking for savings, why shouldn't we start with the senate? why would we continue to fund a group where the work they're supposedly doing is also done officially by another group, which has many employees, a large staff, and it is their constitutional mandate on the foreign relations committee to discuss treaties? while this is a small bit of money, it's symbolic of the need, symbolic of the need of what needs to go on in this country in order to rectify a

problem that is really truly bankrupting the american people. so, mr. president, i would like to call up amendment number 25. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. paul, proposes an amendment numbered 25. on page 31, line 22 -- mr. paul: i ask that the reading of the amendment be waived. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. under the previous order, there will be 30 minutes of debate equally divided and kr08d in -- controlled in the usual form. mr. paul: mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays when appropriate. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? at the moment there is not. mr. paul: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: